Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Fraudulent Transfer Analysis Turns Sour

By Michael L Cook and Lawrence V. Gelber
May 29, 2007

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.

By effecting the Spin, Campbell disposed of underperforming businesses and received value similar to a sale. Campbell's shareholders continued to own the same assets, but in a different corporate package. According to VFB, however, while the Spin benefited Campbell, it set the debtor up for failure (e.g., causing it to pay additional expenses and to assume additional liabilities).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?