Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Third Circuit, on March 30, 2007, affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a $500 million fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty suit against Campbell Soup Co., the former parent of Vlasic Foods International ('VFI' or the 'debtor'). VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co., 2007 WL 942360 (3d Cir. 3/30/07). VFI's creditors, acting through the reorganized entity, known as VFB, claimed that Campbell's March, 1998 $500 million stock sale (or 'leveraged Spin') of its Specialty Foods Division (including subsidiaries such as Vlasic (pickles) and Swanson (TV dinners)) to VFI, a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, was a fraudulent transfer because VFI did not receive reasonably equivalent value and because its $500 million payment rendered it insolvent and under-capitalized. [Note, the creditor body alleging injury consisted primarily of the holders of $200 million in unsecured bonds; a landlord; various former employees; and VFI's trade creditors.] The Third Circuit, however, held that the District Court had properly found the Division acquired by the debtor to be 'worth well in excess' of the $500 million purchase price, and that the debtor was solvent at the time of its 1998 purchase. Relying on the District Court's market capitalization valuation of VFI, the court thus found that the debtor had received reasonably equivalent value and that the debtor's pre-Spin directors had not breached their fiduciary duty to creditors. According to one practitioner, the court's 'reliance on the capital markets ' is a welcome development ' ' C. Ball, 'Court Relies on Markets for Proof of Spin-off's Value,' New York L. J., April 26, 2007, at 5 (hereinafter 'Ball').
To bolster its own financial performance, Campbell sold the Division to the debtor, VFI, in exchange for $500 million. VFI borrowed the purchase price from a group of banks. Campbell then promptly distributed shares of the debt-laden subsidiary to Campbell shareholders as an in-kind dividend. Campbell dictated the most significant terms of the transaction (including, among others, the assets to be transferred and purchase price), precluding any meaningful negotiation with the debtor.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.