Justia Corporate Compliance Opinion Summaries

The nursing care facility faced financial difficulties and ceased to admit new patients; it filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2005. The Bankruptcy Court appointed a Committee of Unsecured Creditors, approved closure, and authorized the Committee to commence adversary proceedings against officers and directors. The Committee did so, alleging breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, based on the business judgment rule and the doctrine of in pari delicto. On remand, the court scheduled a jury trial. Before pretrial conference, the parties identified 400 proposed exhibits. The Committee intended to call up to 51 witnesses; defendants intended to call up to 34 witnesses. Descriptions of intended testimony were similar. Frustrated with the failure to “streamline [the] case,” the court limited each side’s witness testimony to 7.5 hours and limited opening and closing statements. Defendants sought to appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and a writ of mandamus. The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal because the district court did not certify that the time-limit order “involve[d] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and denied mandamus, holding that direct appeal was an adequate means of challenge. View "In Re: Baldwin" on Justia Law

This case involved Bancorp's agreement to sell BankAtlantic to BB&T. Plaintiffs, institutional trustees, sued to enforce debt covenants that prohibited Bancorp from selling "all or substantially all" of its assets unless the acquirer assumed the debt. The evidence at trial established that Bancorp was selling substantially all of its assets, and BB&T had not agreed to assume the debt. The ensuing event of default would result in the debt accelerating. Bancorp could not pay the accelerated debt. Because this eventuality would inflict irreparable harm on plaintiffs, the court entered contemporaneously an order permanently enjoining Bancorp from consummating the sale.View "In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Litigation" on Justia Law

This case arose when Mirant, an energy company, sought to expand its European operations by acquiring nine power islands from General Electric. When the power island deal fell through, Mirant made payments pursuant to a guaranty and soon thereafter sought bankruptcy protection. Mirant, as debtor-in-possession, sued Commerzbank and other lenders in bankruptcy court to avoid the guaranty and to recover the funds Mirant paid pursuant to the guaranty. After Mirant's bankruptcy plan was confirmed MCAR, plaintiff, substituted into the case for Mirant. Commerzbank and other lenders, defendants, filed a motion to dismiss based on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court subsequently denied defendants' motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Both sides appealed. While the court agreed that the district court correctly determined that there was standing to bring the avoidance claim, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal because the district court erroneously applied Georgia state law rather than New York state law to the avoidance claim. View "MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank A.G., et al." on Justia Law

In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Capco brought claims of fraud and various business torts against Ryder, Tana, TRT, and Tristone. The claims arose out of a transaction in which Capco purchased from Tana certain oil and gas reserves located in the Gulf of Mexico (the Properties). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Ryder, Tana, TRT, and Tristone and dismissed the claims. The court held that Capco failed to present evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact about whether Ryder was contracted to provide an independent reevaluation of the Properties and advice at the meeting regarding Capco's decision to close on the Properties. The court also held that because the purchase and sale agreement contained a clear intent to disclaim reliance, the lower courts correctly held that Capco was unable to claim fraudulent inducement based on the prior representations of Tana, TRT, and Tristone. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Amco Energy, Inc., et al. v. Tana Exploration Co., et al." on Justia Law

IFS and 17 affiliated organizations (collectively, Interamericas) were debtors in a series of Chapter 7 cases. This appeal arose from eight collective adversary proceedings, which a trustee of IFS brought against appellants for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code and Chapter 24 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Appellants appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court judgment of over $3 million in favor of the trustee. The court held that control could be sufficient to show ownership of what was ultimately a fact-based inquiry that would vary according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. The court also held that the lower courts' findings of ownership were not clearly erroneous and, moreover, comported with precedent and the court's holding today where IFS exercised control over the accounts at issue such that it had de facto ownership over the accounts, as well as the funds contained. The court further held that the record supported the lower courts' findings of fraudulent transfer. Specifically, IFS faced pending lawsuits and mounting debts just as it liquidated nearly all Interamericas' assets and evidence that IFS operated as a fraudulent enterprise at the time of transfer supported this finding of fraudulent intent. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Stettner, et al. v. Smith" on Justia Law

Harold and his son William started a corporation, operated by William. Harold made loans to the corporation. When the corporation ceased operating William and his wife formed PCI-2 to take its place; despite an agreement, Harold's loans were not repaid and Harold made loans to PCI-2, lending about $300,000 to PCI-1 and PCI-2. William and his wife acquired other corporations and substantial real estate holdings. One business, WEL, issued one share of stock to Harold and nine shares to Harold as custodian for William's infant son, L.L. Harold was a director of WEL. William and his wife divorced. In 2004, Harold filed a loan repayment lawsuit against WEL and PCI-2; William did not defend, asserting there was no money. Harold obtained default judgments of $1,107,550 and $1,204,439, commenced execution proceedings against property that WEL owned, and obtained approximately $320,000 in proceeds. In the Bankruptcy Court, a custodian for shares owned by L.L. sought to recover $345,000 from Harold, claiming that Harold breached his fiduciary duties owed to L.L. The Bankruptcy Court and the district court rejected the claim. The Third Circuit reversed. Harold breached his duties as a WEL director and as a custodian for L.L.'s shares. View "In re: Lampe, Jr" on Justia Law

This case involved a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty that stemmed from a dispute regarding assets of IFCT, a now defunct tech startup company founded by Stephen Marsh to develop potentially revolutionary micro fuel cell technology. The crux of plaintiff's argument was that the Director Defendants conducted an unfair and disloyal bidding process, whereby they favored the Echelon-backed bid and refused to follow up on or negotiate with other superior bids. As a result, IFCT missed its chance to sell its assets at the peak of their value and was forced to sell its assets at a discount in bankruptcy. Given that the Director Defendants have conceded the applicability of entire fairness review and given the fact-intensive nature of that review, the court found that the Director Defendants have not met their burden at this stage to achieve summary judgment against Encite. The court also found that material facts remained as to the liability of Echelon for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants and therefore, the court denied Echelon's motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court finally found that material facts also remained regarding Echelon's third party claims, and so denied Marsh's motion for summary judgment. View "Encite, LLC v. Soni, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an action commenced by the New York State Attorney General against defendants, seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil penalties for violations of New York's Executive Law and Consumer Protection Act, Executive Law 63(12) and General Business Law 349, as well as the common law. The primary issue on appeal was whether federal law preempted these claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal independence rules. The court held that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) governed the regulation of appraisal management companies and explicitly envisioned a cooperative effort between federal and state authorities to ensure that real estate appraisal reports comport with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The court perceived no basis to conclude that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) itself or federal regulations promulgated under HOLA preempted the Attorney General from asserting both common law and statutory state law claims against defendants pursuant to its authority under Executive Law 63(12)and General Business Law 349. Thus, defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of federal preemption was properly denied. The court also agreed with the Appellate Division that the Attorney General had adequately pleaded a cause of action under General Business Law 349 and that the statute provided him with standing. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v First Am. Corp." on Justia Law

This case involved a fallout of a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Minnesota businessman Thomas J. Petters. Appellants, investment funds (collectively, Ritchie), incurred substantial losses as a result of participating in Petters' investment scheme. Ritchie subsequently sued two officers of Petters' companies, alleging that they assisted Petters in getting Ritchie to loan over $100 million to Petters' company. Ritchie's five-count complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), (c)-(d), common law fraud, and tortious inference with the contract. The court held that the district court erred in concluding that Ritchie's action was barred by a Receivership Order. The court also rejected arguments challenging the sufficiency of Ritchie's pleadings in the common law fraud count and did not to address other arguments related to abstention, lack of causation, and absolute privilege. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ritchie Capital Mgmt., et al. v. Jeffries, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor, a limited liability company, was formed by five members, who made up a Board of Managers. Forte had a 12% interest. After his requests to inspect of business records were denied, Forte sued Lynch, the member with the highest percentage interest. In the six months before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company paid Forte $215,000 as part of the settlement. The bankruptcy court found that Forte qualified as an "insider" (11 U.S.C. 547(b)(4)(B)) and that the trustee could void and recover the transfers. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. Insider status is not just a matter of title; Forte retained voting rights in the company, held a formal position on the Board, and did not resign until after he received the transferred funds. View "Forte v. Brandt" on Justia Law