Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Examining the Interplay Between Exculpation Clause and Fiduciary Duty
In the case of Liquidation Trust of Solutions Liquidation v. David Stienes (In re Solutions Liquidation), Case No. 16-10627 (CSS), Adv. Pro. No.: 18-50304 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 21, 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware examined the interplay between the scope and extent of a company's exculpation clause versus the scope and extent of Delaware law regarding breach of fiduciary duty claims. In particular, the court's decision adjudicated a motion to dismiss filed by the debtors' former managers and officers in connection with the breach of fiduciary duty complaint filed against them by the trustee of the debtors' liquidating trust.
Case Background
In this case, the debtors, SDI Solutions and its parent company SDI Opco Holdings (together, the debtors), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code on March 13, 2016. On Aug. 29, 2016, the court confirmed the debtors' second modified combined disclosure statement and Chapter 11 plan of liquidation (collectively, the plan). Pursuant to the plan, a liquidation trust was created and certain assets vested in the liquidation trust. Those assets included "causes of action against any current or former directors and officers of the debtors, in their capacities as such," which were to be pursued by a liquidating trustee also appointed pursuant to the plan. In particular, the plan also vested the liquidation trustee the exclusive right to "investigate, prosecute, compromise and settle" the causes of action that were transferred to the trust.
On March 12, 2018, the liquidation trustee filed a complaint against the former managers and officers of each of the debtors (the defendants) seeking, among other things, to recover damages caused by their asserted breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint was eventually amended and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in early 2019. On Aug. 20, the court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and, at the conclusion of that hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. On Oct. 21, the court issued its decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
At its core, the amended complaint alleged two breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the defendants regarding the prepetition acquisition of a certain entity called Orion Systems Group, d/b/a X7 Systems Integration. This acquisition occurred in 2013 when SDI acquired X7 for the sum of $7.3 million.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?