In a short opinion entered November 14, 2017 Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a motion of an interested party to “Attend and Participate in the Rule 2004 Examinations to be Conducted by the Trustee”. Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

This is a very short Opinion and resolves a very straight-forward issue.  Can a party in separate litigation take advantage of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to obtain discovery from the opposing party?

The answer: No.

Citing multiple cases, Judge Gross explains that the “pending proceeding rule” provides that once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced, discovery must proceed under the federal discovery rules.  The cited opinions were: In re SunEdison, Inc., 572 B.R. 482 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017);  In re Wash. Mut., Inc., 408 B.R. 45 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002); 2435 Plainsfield Ave. v. Township of Scotch Plains (In re 2435 Plainsfield Ave.), 223 B.R. 440 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998); In re Coffee Cupboard, Inc., 128 B.R. 509 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1991).

As discussed in a previous post on this blog, 2004 discovery is most akin to fishing expeditions meant to determine whether or not litigation should be commenced.  You can read that post here: What are the Scope and Limitations of a Rule 2004 Examination?

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a 10-page decision signed November 6, 2017 in an adversary proceeding arising within the Physiotherapy Holdings bankruptcy (PAH Litigation Trust, case 15-51238), Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a motion of the Litigation Trust (the “Trust”) to file an amended complaint, providing guidance on a number of different issues. Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

The Defendants opposing the motion to amend had an uphill battle in this issue.  Judge Gross begins his discussion by stating, “Motions for leave to amend the complaint are granted liberally.”  Opinion at *2.  Judge Gross then provided a foreshadowing of the Defendants’ way out, stating, “The Court may, however, deny leave to amend if the proposed amendment is futile or untimely.”  Id.

The Court had established a deadline of September 30, 2016 for the amending of the complaint.  The Trust filed its motion approximately ten months after that deadline.  The Trust was thus required to satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of FRCP 16(b)(4) in order to obtain approval of its motion.  Opinion at *2.

The  Trust argued that it satisfied the good cause requirement because the proposed defendants had “deeper pockets”.  Opinion at *3.  The Trust expressed concern that the current defendants have made distributions to their limited partners, the proposed defendants.  The Court held that “the Litigation Trust has not satisfied the ‘good cause’ requirement…  The fact that Defendants may not have sufficient assets to satisfy any judgments is not good cause to add the Proposed Defendants.”  Opinion at *4-5.

Judge Gross then turned to the motion’s request to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages.  There was an initial dispute as to whether the defendant should have raised choice of law arguments in their motion to dismiss.  Judge Gross opined that “there must be an actual conflict between the laws of different jurisdictions to engage in a choice of law determination.”  Opinion at *6 (quoting Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 875 P. 2d 1213, 1216 (1994)).  Judge Gross held that the answer to which law controls depends on which state has the most significant relationship to the claim and the parties.  Opinion at *6-7 (following the precedent of Emerald Capital Advisors Corp. v. Bayerische Motoren Aktiengesellschaft (In re FAH Liquidating Corp.), 2017 WL 2559892, at *9 (Bankr. D. Del. June 13, 2017)).  Finding that Delaware law controls, and Delaware courts of equity do not allow for punitive damages to be awarded.  Opinion at *9 (“under Delaware law punitive damages are not available under principles of equity which Delaware courts apply.”)

And with that, Judge Gross denies the motion to amend the complaint.  The primary takeaway – if the Court sets a deadline to amend the complaint, make sure you hit the deadline.  Because the Court grants motions to amend “liberally”, had this motion been timely I imagine the result would have been very different.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed October 25, 2017, Judge Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion requiring a professional to disgorge fees, pay a sanction of $25,000, and enjoined him from taking various actions in bankruptcy court. Judge Shannon’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

The United States Trustee filed a Complaint for Injunctive relief, Fines and Civil Contempt against Robert F. Martin.  Mr. Martin has twice before been the subject of inquiry and action by the United States Trustee. First in 2011, the United States Trustee alleged that Mr. Martin was acting as a petition preparer in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 110. A Consent Order resolving that litigation was entered by the Court on March 28, 2012 (the “First Consent Order”) by which Mr. Martin agreed to disgorge fees and refrain from acting as a petition preparer in the future.

Two years later, the United States Trustee filed a new complaint against Mr. Martin, alleging that he had acted as a petition preparer in at least 19 cases in violation of the terms of the First Consent Order.  Mr. Martin again agreed to disgorge fees and to refrain from acting as a petition preparer in the future.

The United States Trustee alleged that Mr. Martin returned to his prior practice of encouraging homeowners to file for relief under Chapter 13, and assisting them in the process of filing bankruptcy in violation of § 110 of the Bankruptcy Code. Mr. Martin’s debtor clients were not adequately instructed  by Mr. Martin regarding the Chapter 13 filing and its potential consequences, and that his efforts constituted a violation of the provisions of Bankruptcy Code § 110 and the First and Second Consent Orders.

The Court held that “Mr. Martin’s business model is based upon practices that violate federal law and orders of this Court.”  Opinion at *14.  It then levied the above fines and directed that Mr. Martin was to refrain from taking any further actions in violation of Bankruptcy Code § 110.

While this is not the type of case normally discussed on this blog, it illustrates an important principle that I have seen play out several times in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court – each time you are penalized for the same bad act, the consequences get more severe.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed October 4, 2017 in an adversary proceeding arising within the Haggens bankruptcy (HH Liquidation, LLC, et al., case 16-51204), Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a motion for summary judgment, holding that he Court and needs to see evidence at trial of why and how the Debtor failed while a related entity was flush with cash. Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

By way of history, the Haggen family started operating a grocery in 1933, growing to operate thirty stores and a pharmacy by 2011.  In late 2014, the Safeway / Albertsons merger occurred, which required them to sell 146 stores.  In February 2015, Haggen (thanks in large part to the direction of Comvest Partners, a private equity firm who had purchased 80% of Haggen’s equity) purchased the 146 former Albertsons locations.  With a signature, Haggens grew to a size that was approximately 600% larger than it had ever been.  It is my opinion that growth at this pace either succeeds fantastically, or fails fantastically.  Unfortunately, this is a bankruptcy court opinion – so it’s clear this wasn’t a fantastic success.

Haggens split the acquisition into multiple pieces, segregating the operating and real property assets in different entities.  Those which held real property I will refer to collectively as PropCos, and those which operated stores and leased the real property for such a purpose I will refer to collectively as OpCos.  For those who have not followed the Haggens bankruptcy, it is important to recognize that OpCos were placed into bankruptcy and the PropCos were not.

The plaintiff in the adversary proceeding argued that the debtor and non-debtor related entities should be substantively consolidated and that the OpCos and PropCos were liable for fraudulent transfer.  Without consolidation or a fraudulent transfer ruling, the PropCos creditors will receive 100% of their claims while OpCos unsecured creditors will receive 0%.  If the plaintiffs are successful in their claims, the PropCos creditors and the OpCos creditors would all receive approximately 20% of their claims.  Opinion at *7.

Judge Gross was not sympathetic to the Debtors’ opining that:

Comvest created Holdings, the OpCo Entities and the PropCo Entities and formed them to hold separate assets. The OpCo Entities held operational assets and leased property from the PropCo  Entities which held the real property. Then, in a matter of a few months the OpCo Entities were bankrupt and are unable to pay unsecured creditors anything while the PropCo Entities are flush with money.  The Court and the OpCo Entities’ creditors need to see evidence at trial of why and how this happened.

Opinion at *7-8.  Of particular note, Judge Gross made repeated references to the Mervyn’s decision,  In re Mervyn’s Holdings, LLC, 426 B.R. 488 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010).  “In Mervyn’s, like here, the owner of real property (Target Corporation) sold its interest in Mervyn’s, LLC to a group of private equity firms who spun off real estate leaving the operational portion of Mervyn’s, LLC undercapitalized and paying rent to the real estate holding entity.”  Opinion at *9.  I have found that when a judge on the Bankruptcy Court makes repeated reference to another decision, particularly when it is a decision of that very judge, litigants should make every effort to differentiate, or analogize, the instant case.  The repeated reference to Mervyn’s by Judge Gross provides a clear picture of the issues he will need answered by the litigants here.  It’s his opinion, I’d expect it to be the first and last thing out of both litigants’ mouths.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed September 21, 2017 in an adversary proceeding related to the Boomerang Systems bankruptcy (case 15-11729), Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a defendants FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a preference complaint. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Judge Walrath first provided the requirements for a preference action to survive a motion to dismiss.  Quoting Stanziale v. DMJ Gas-Mktg. Consultants, LLC (In re Tri-Valley Corp.), Adv. No. 14-50446 (MFW), 2015 WL 110074, at *2 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 7, 2015), Judge Walrath stated that “to satisfy Rule 8, the complaint must identify each alleged preferential transfer by the date of the transfer, the name of the debtor/transferor, the name of the transferee, and the amount transferred.”  Opinion at *5.

In this case, Gavin Solmonese, LLC, the liquidating trustee of Boomerang Systems (the “Liquidating Trustee”), filed a preference action that is, in Delaware, a fairly routine pleading.  In its complaint, the Liquidating Trustee alleged the amount, date, and method of payment made by the Debtors to the Defendant.  Judge Walrath held that “this allegation is sufficient to allege a preferential transfer.”  Opinion at *6.

 

The Defendant asserted its affirmative defenses as grounds for dismissal of the complaint.  However, as the Court held, “these defenses are not grounds to dismiss the action under Rule 12.”  Opinion at *6.  A 12(b)(6) dismissal requires a deficiency in the plaintiff’s pleading.

Avoidance actions are painful for defendants – particularly when they are innocent actors.  But the innocence of a preference defendant is not a defense.  The only defenses available are those provided by statute – 11 U.S.C. § 547(c). We have provided an overview of these defenses in our short booklet A Preference Reference.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed September 8, 2017 in an adversary proceeding related to the Money Center of America bankruptcy (case 14-10603), Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied a defendants FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint filed in the adversary proceeding 15-50250. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

The chapter 7 trustee of the Money Center of America bankruptcy, Maria Aprile Sawczuk (the “Trustee”) filed a complaint against Christopher Wolfington, Jason Walsh and Lauren Anderson, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, conversion, recovery of avoidable transfers, and equitable subordination.  Defendant Walsh filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Trustee failed to adequately plead non-dischargeability in his personal bankruptcy or fraud.  His motion to dismiss was the subject of the Opinion.

After analyzing and reciting the complaint, the Court determined that “the Trustee’s Complaint sufficiently alleged that Walsh perpetrated fraudulent transfers through conduct “of the kind” specified in sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) in order to withstand a motion to dismiss.”   Opinion at *6.  The Court further held that “the Trustee has sufficiently alleged facts showing that Walsh’s conduct of the kind specified under sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(4).”  Opinion at *7.

This Opinion, although short, provides a strong reminder of the requirements of the pleading standards in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.  Complaints do not need to contain long recitations of facts supported by extensive evidence.  Rather, a complaint need only contain allegations of sufficient facts to support the claims alleged.  In a prior blog post I discussed a time when this did not occur: You Don’t Get Three Strikes when Filing a Complaint – Lessons from Tropicana.  When a complaint clears this hurdle, it will not be dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

On August 23, 2017, Judge Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an order that is a reminder that this is a court of equity – and that at the end of the day, he will act equitably.  A copy of Judge Shannon’s opinion (the “Opinion”) is available here.  Mr. Welsh filed the complaint that led to this Opinion, seeking damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages, for alleged violations of the automatic stay.

Brian Welsh is a debtor in bankruptcy case no. 14-11503 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  On April 13, 2012, despite his mortgage being in default, Bank of America (“BofA”) mistakenly recorded a satisfaction of mortgage.   On February 7, 2014, BofA
filed a complaint in the Superior Court in the State of Delaware to set aside the Satisfaction.  On June 18, 2014, prior to any disposition in the Superior Court litigation, Mr. Welsh filed his Chapter 13 petition. On November 3, 2014, in order to protect its interest, BofA filed a proof of claim on account of the mortgage.  In response to an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid BofA’s claim, the Court issued a decision on October 1, 2015, in which it held that a bona fide purchaser would not have been on notice of the Superior Court litigation as of the Petition Date, and the lien was therefore avoided pursuant to Section 544(a)(3).  At that time, Judge Shannon said that Mr. Welsh “will benefit mightily due to [Defendant’s] honest mistake”, in essence obtaining “a house for free”.

As the facts are provided by Judge Shannon in the Opinion, it appears that he would be inclined to rule that BofA did violate the automatic stay.  This is reinforced by his denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.  He does, however, issue a parting word of guidance to the parties that makes exceptionally clear that the Debtor should not expect to receive any amount of damages due to BofA’s violation of the automatic stay.  “Candor requires that the Court advise the parties that it is highly unlikely that, at trial, this Court would award damages to the Plaintiff beyond the free house he has already obtained.”

When I was in law school, I heard numerous times that “pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered”.  Mr. Welsh got a rich reward due to his handling of his bankruptcy petition – a free home.  Anything more than a free home, which had a mortgage of $205,000, may be more than a judge in a court of equity could in good conscience award.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP in Wilmington, Delaware. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In the recent decision of Klauder v. Echo/RT Holdings LLC (In re Raytrans Holding, Inc.), Adv. No. 15-50273 (CSS) (Del. Bankr. Aug. 10, 2017), Judge Sontchi granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Trustee’s Second Amended Complaint, dismissing the Trustee’s claims in their entirety either under collateral estoppel or the doctrine of res judicata.

Procedural Background

Prior to the Raytrans bankruptcy proceeding, creditor Spring Capital Real Estate, LLC (“Spring Capital”) commenced a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery against Defendants Echo/RT Holdings LLC and Echo Global Logistics, Inc. (“Echo Defendants”) and RayTrans Distribution on October 31, 2012, seeking to void as fraudulent conveyances the transfers made to defendants by Holdings and RayTrans Distribution.

The Trustee joined the fraudulent transfer action commenced by Spring Capital in the Court of Chancery. On November 3, 2014, the Trustee asserted crossclaims against the defendants, pursuant to Del. Ch. R. 13(g), “seeking to assert the estate’s interest in, and to void as fraudulent conveyances, the transfers made to defendants by Holdings under Delaware and Illinois state law that were being challenged by Spring Capital. As recoverable by a creditor holding an unsecured claim.”

On December 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery dismissed Spring Capital’s claims with prejudice.  The Trustee then filed Amended Cross-Claims against the Echo Defendants, asserting slightly modified fraudulent transfer claims brought by Spring Capital, under both Delaware and Illinois law, that had also been dismissed by the Court of Chancery.  The Echo Defendants moved to dismiss the Trustee’s claims, which was granted on February 18, 2016, and the Court of Chancery both dismissed the Trustee’s entire Amended Cross-Claim with prejudice and denied the Trustee’s request for leave to amend (the “Dismissal Order”).  On December 12, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court rejected the appeals filed by the Trustee and Spring Capital and affirmed the Dismissal Order.

Before the Court of Chancery granted the Motion to Dismiss, the Trustee filed the instant adversary proceeding against the Echo Defendants on April 24, 2015, asserting (i) three counts for avoidance of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 548 and 550, (ii) a count for avoidance of preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547, (iii) one count for recovery of an avoided transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550, and (iv) disallowance of all claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) and (j)

On November 7, 2016, the Trustee sought leave to amend his complaint. On December 28, 2016, the Court granted the Motion to Amend and the Trustee filed his Second Amended Complaint, now asserting two counts for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under Sections 544, 548, and 550 and added a new breach of contract claim (Count V) and a claim for attorneys’ fees (Count VIII). The original breach of contract claim (Count VI) and accounting claim (Count VII) remain in the Second Amended Complaint.

Analysis

The Court found that Counts I and II (for fraudulent transfer under Sections 544 and 548) were barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The Court of Chancery previously found that the APA was supported by reasonably equivalent value, and that the APA did not amount to a fraudulent transfer.

The Court likewise dismissed Counts III and IV, seeking the avoidance and recovery of preferential transfers under Sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Per the Opinion, the Trustee merely stated that Defendants were “insiders” of the Debtor, but offered no factual support for such a conclusion in the Second Amended Complaint.

Finally, the Court dismissed Counts V (breach of contract and judicial estoppel), VI (breach of contract), VII (accounting) and VIII (breach of guaranty and attorneys’ fees) under the doctrine of res judicata.  The Court noted that for the past three years, the Trustee and the defendants have been litigating before the Court of Chancery and then on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, and that the “basis of the entire adversary proceeding, and the prior Court of Chancery litigation, was the APA.”  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Trustee’s Second Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Carl D. Neff is a partner with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  You can reach Carl at (302) 622-4272 or at cneff@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed July 26, 2017 in the Nephrogenex bankruptcy (case 16-11074), Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court approved of the application of the Debtor’s investment banker for a success fee over the objection of, among others, the Debtor and the purchaser of all the reorganized debtor’s equity. Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

In this case, the Debtor hired an investment banker (“CS”), which was duly approved by the Court.  Part of CS’s compensation included a “Sale Transaction” fee which would be earned in the event of a Sale Transaction.  The term Sale Transaction was broadly defined, Opinion at *4, and included:

“any transaction or series of transactions involving (a) an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or other business combination pursuant to which all or substantially all of the business assets, subsidiaries, divisions, business segments, operations, securities, or equity interests of the Company are, directly or indirectly, combined with another company; (b) the acquisition, directly or indirectly, by a buyer or buyers. . . of equity interests or options, or any combination thereof constituting a majority of the then outstanding economic interests in the Company. . .”  Opinion at *4.

As part of the Plan of liquidation, the equity of the reorganized debtor would be transferred to one of its creditors as satisfaction of that creditor’s claim.  After the transfer of equity, CS filed its fee application alleging that the release of the claim, with a post-distribution value of approximately $2 million (the claim was for $4,312,698.51 and the estimated distribution was 49.5%, Opinion at *2-3), was a Sale Transaction, triggering its success fee.

After reviewing all the relevant documents and hearing the testimony of the principle of CS, Mr. Cassel, Judge Gross agreed with CS, holding that the equity transfer satisfied the definition in CS’s engagement documents.  The one wrinkle that the objecting parties tried to use to oppose the the payment, is that CS’s retention agreement provided that the success fee would be paid out of the proceeds of the Sale Transaction, and there were no proceeds from this transaction.  Judge Gross determined that this was not a necessary requirement of compensation on the basis of two parts of the engagement agreement.  First, “the Engagement Agreement does not provide that the Sales Transaction Fee can only be paid if the Sales Transaction generates cash.”  Second, “the Engagement Agreement defines ‘Sale Consideration’ to include ‘(y) the principal amount of all indebtedness for borrowed money or other liabilities of the [Debtor] or [Debtor] related entity as applicable, as set forth on the most recent balance sheet, or in the case of a sale of assets, all indebtedness for borrowed money or other liabilities assumed, cancelled, exchanged, or forgiven by a third party. . . .'”  Opinion at *8.

Because people constantly try to find ways to get around definitions to maximize their profit, attorneys, like those representing CS, often draft language as broad (or narrow) as possible to best protect their client.  In this case, was the recipient of the reorganized debtor truly intending to buy the company?  Probably not.  However, CS’s attorney’s careful drafting of their retention agreement helped ensure that even if the acquiring company was trying to avoid the success fee, CS still received it.  The takeaway in this Opinion is, if you represent the retained professional, to make sure there is no language disallowing a fee for some reason, like a lack of cash in the consideration received.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP and is resident in Portland, Oregon. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.

In a decision signed July 17, 2017 in the Our Alchemy, LLC bankruptcy (case 16-11596), Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a trustee’s partial motion to dismiss a complaint, holding that a creditor cannot assert general claims against a Chapter 7 Trustee in his official capacity (essentially a derivative action meant to enrich the creditor body) . Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).  In the adversary proceeding in which this Opinion was issued, Nu Image, Inc (“NI”) sought to recover from the chapter 7 trustee, George L. Miller (the “Trustee”), alleging that he breached his fiduciary duty by “(i) failing to exploit the Agreements, (ii) delaying the request for permission to sell the estate’s interests and assets, (iii) letting the time to assume or reject the Agreements lapse, and (iv) establishing an utter indifference to the effect of his actions on the estate’s creditors, particularly Nu Image.”  Opinion at *6.

The Debtor’s business model involved distributing, or “exploiting”, movies for filmmakers.  The Debtor entered into agreements to distribute 163 films owned by NI.  Opinion at *2.  In its agreement with NI, as with other film owners, the Debtor contracted to share the profits of film distribution.  The first claim of the Complaint  asserts that the Trustee failed to take action for the benefit of all the Debtor’s creditors. Opinion at *9

Unfortunately for NI, suing a trustee in its professional capacity is, by definition, a general claim that would be paid out of the estate’s corpus.  “In the Third Circuit individual creditors may not assert general claims because they belong to all creditors.”    Opinion at *7 (quoting PHP Liquidating, LLC v. Robbins (In re PHP Healthcare Corp.), 128 Fed. Appx. 839, 844-45 (3d Cir. 2005)).  Further, in the Third Circuit, a creditor does not have standing to assert claims for damages alleged to have been caused to the creditor body at large without prior permission of the bankruptcy court.  Opinion at *9.  In the instant case, NI had not requested court approval to assert a claim against the Trustee for breach of his duty, and accordingly had no standing to assert the first cause of action contained in its complaint.

With no further ado, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the fiduciary duties claim of the complaint.  Judge Gross then extended the Trustee’s deadline to respond to the other counts in the complaint and to assert any compulsory counterclaims.

John Bird practices with the law firm Fox Rothschild LLP in Wilmington, Delaware. You can reach John at 302-622-4263, or jbird@foxrothschild.com.