H2O

Creditors

by Holger Spamann Show/Hide

We begin with creditors because (1) creditors are the only constituency that still has some remnants of protections in corporate law, and (2) most other claims ultimately resolve into damages or other financial claims, transforming all constituencies into creditors at the end of the day.

Gheewalla sets forth the principle that creditors cannot invoke the protections of fiduciary duties against corporate directors (although they may occasionally have standing to enforce a derivative claim on behalf of the corporation). MetLife v. RJR Nabisco declines to protect the plaintiff-creditor under a contractual implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The bottom line is that creditors have to rely on contractual protections. The MetLife decision reviews many customary protective clauses.

Do you find the courts' reasonings convincing?

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (3/3 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/3 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More NACEPF v. Gheewalla (Del. 2007)
    Original Creator: Holger Spamann

    The decision addresses, and you should look out for, two related but separate questions:

    1. Who has standing to assert a fiduciary duty claim?
    2. Whom is the fiduciary duty owed to, i.e., whose interests does it protect?


    How might the answer to the second question have made a difference in this case? Whose interests were conflicting, and how, if at all, could the courts have adjudicated this conflict?

  2. 2 Show/Hide More Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. RJR Nabisco Inc. (SDNY 1989)
    Original Creator: Holger Spamann

    MetLife, a very sophisticated creditor of RJR, claimed that the leveraged buyout of RJR by KKR was an entirely unanticipated event that violated RJR's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing towards its creditors. The court doesn't buy it. Do you?

    Regardless, notice the striking contrast between the treatment of creditors and shareholders in this and other 1980s takeover cases. In MetLife, the court blesses a takeover that clearly reduced creditor value by billions of dollars without the deal-specific approval of creditors. At about the same time, Delaware cases empowered and even required boards to defeat takeovers in the name of “inadequate value” to shareholders even when the latter would have approved the deal. Does this make sense?

    NB: The book Barbarians at the Gate tells the tale of the “bidding war” referred to in Judge Walker's introduction — it is a fun read.

Close

Playlist Information

June 22, 2016

Author Stats

Holger Spamann

Other Playlists by Holger Spamann

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large