• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • Blog
  • About Us
  • Coverage-in-Depth
    • Crypto-Bankruptcy
    • Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
    • Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

The Duty to Maximize Value of an Insolvent Enterprise

By Brad Eric Scheler, Steven Epstein, Robert C. Schwenkel, and Gail Weinsten of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

In the recent Delaware Chancery Court decision of Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. Vertin (October 1, 2014), the Court clarified its approach to breach of fiduciary duty derivative actions brought by creditors against the directors of an insolvent corporation. Importantly, the Court applied business judgment rule deference to the non-independent directors’ decision to try to increase the value of the insolvent corporation by adopting a highly risky investment strategy—even though the creditors bore the full risk of the strategy’s failing, while the corporation’s sole stockholder would benefit if the strategy succeeded. By contrast, the court viewed the directors’ decisions not to exercise their right to defer interest on the notes held by the controller and to pay above-market fees to an affiliate of the controller as having been “transfers of value” from the insolvent corporation to the controller, which were subject to entire fairness review.

This decision appears to stand for the proposition that, under all but the most egregious circumstances, the business judgment rule will apply to directors’ decisions that relate to efforts to maximize the value of an insolvent corporation. Thus, even decisions made by a non-independent board for a high-risk business plan that favors the sole equity holder over the creditors, as in Quadrant, will be subject to business judgment deference. The court also distinguished decisions involving direct transfers of value from the insolvent corporation to the controller, holding that these decisions would be subject to entire fairness review because the controller stood on both sides of such transactions.

See here for a more detailed discussion of this case.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
December 2, 2014

Categories: Bankruptcy Administration and JurisdictionTags: Brad Eric Scheler, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, Gail Weinstein, Insolvency Jurisprudence, Robert Schwenkel, Steven Epstein

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • The Backstop Party June 17, 2025
  • Independent Directors Properly Exculpated as Debtors’ Disinterested Fiduciaries Under Chapter 11 Plan, Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court Rules June 10, 2025
  • The World of Interlocutory Bankruptcy Appeals June 3, 2025

View by Subject Matter

363 sales Anthony Casey Bankruptcy Bankruptcy administration Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Reform Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Claims Trading Cleary Gottlieb Comparative Law Corporate Governance COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe plan confirmation Priority Purdue Pharma Purdue Pharma bankruptcy restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben Structured Dismissals Supreme Court syndicated Texas Two-Step Trust Indenture Act Valuation Weil Gotshal Workouts

Footer

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

1563 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA 02138
Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Harvard Law School

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Copyright © 2025 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in