Mark E Felger

February 10, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Are claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against an officer and director of a debtor core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)? Are such claims subject to trial by jury? In a recent decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the District of Delaware, the court held that such claims were not core proceedings and were legal in nature, rather than equitable, such that they were amenable to a jury demand.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

February 09, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

Are claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against an officer and director of a debtor core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)? Are such claims subject to trial by jury? In a recent decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Sontchi of the District of Delaware, the court held that such claims were not core proceedings and were legal in nature, rather than equitable, such that they were amenable to a jury demand.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

January 14, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

It is a common refrain when it comes to the treatment of third-party insurance policies in bankruptcy cases that the insurance policy is property of the estate, but the policy proceeds are not. A recent case addressed competing claims of a Chapter 7 trustee and the debtor's former defense counsel to third-party insurance proceeds.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

January 14, 2015 | Delaware Business Court Insider

It is a common refrain when it comes to the treatment of third-party insurance policies in bankruptcy cases that the insurance policy is property of the estate, but the policy proceeds are not. A recent case addressed competing claims of a Chapter 7 trustee and the debtor's former defense counsel to third-party insurance proceeds.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

December 03, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

There is value in reviewing first principles. The Delaware Court of Chancery does so in a short, but direct, letter opinion by Vice Chancellor John W. Noble in Jefferson v. Dominion Holdings, C.A. No. 8663-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 24, 2014).

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

4 minute read

November 12, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

A recent decision by the Delaware Superior Court in Universal Music Investments v. Exigen Ltd., C.A. No. N13C-10-300-FSS (Del. Super. Aug. 25, 2014), explored an interesting question regarding the effect of the automatic bankruptcy stay on an order correcting a mistake in a prior order. The decision also discussed whether a guarantor is in privity with the primary obligor for res judicata purposes.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

October 08, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

What constitutes constitutionally adequate notice to a debtor's unknown creditors of the deadline for filing proofs of claim? In White v. Jacobs (In re New Century TRS Holdings), Civ. No. 13-1719-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concluded that the adequacy of the notice provided to unknown creditors had not been meaningfully explored by the bankruptcy court and likely was not reasonably calculated to apprise them of the bar date.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

8 minute read

September 10, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) was enacted in 1988 to allow workers to adjust to the prospective loss of employment from a plant closing or mass layoff. It requires employers to give affected employees 60 days' advance notice of such events. Employers that violate the WARN Act's notice requirements are liable to the affected workers for each day that notice is not provided up to 60 days.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read

August 13, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In a neat, short opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court dealt with a situation that the chief justice characterized as "Kafkaesque" at oral argument and "unusual" in the written opinion. In Crothall v. Zimmerman, No. 608, 2013 (Del. June 9, 2014), the court reversed a fee award to plaintiffs counsel who had personally intervened in the case below solely for the purpose of seeking attorney fees for the work he had performed in the litigation after the plaintiff had abandoned the lawsuit prior to the entry of a final judgment.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

7 minute read

July 15, 2014 | Delaware Business Court Insider

In part I of this article, we discussed how in Quantum Technology Partners IV L.P. v. Ploom, C.A. No. 9054-ML (Del. Ch. May 14, 2014) (Master's Final Report), Master in Chancery Abigail M. LeGrow faced the "unwelcome task" of finding an appropriate middle ground between the extreme positions taken by the parties in a Section 220 action concerning what terms should be included in a confidentiality order in connection with the inspection of corporate books and records where inspection was sought in part to assist the stockholder in marketing its shares.

By Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger

6 minute read