LJN Newsletters

Uniformity among courts on this question has not been and may never be reached. Nevertheless, recent decisions from the Third Circuit, the Delaware Chancery Court, and the Southern District of New York reflect an unmistakable and growing trend toward restricting significantly or even rejecting claims for deepening insolvency. This article describes this emerging trend, and demonstrates that each of these cases reflects an approach that appears to have developed within these respective courts. The common thread underlying these decisions is a concern that recognition of a claim for deepening insolvency would discourage good faith efforts to turnaround a troubled company that qualify for protection under the business judgment rule. This article concludes by identifying serious weaknesses from which deepening insolvency claims suffer in light of these significant rulings.

Investor confidence and market behavior can be impacted greatly by events that do not necessarily correlate. In the case of the Bayou Hedge Funds fraud, these unique and non-recurring events fueled a fire in the hedge fund industry that has spread, but not necessarily due to the particulars of the Bayou Hedge Funds failure. But, when dealing with significant investments made by pension funds, corporate entities, along with foundations and trusts, a healthy dose of skepticism is natural and appropriate. Not unlike the transition from the Enron scandal to the formation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, hedge fund investors may extrapolate the troubles at the Bayou Hedge Funds to all hedge funds. As a result, questions of the need for regulatory oversight for a stronger accountability within the industry arise.

National rulings of interest.

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

The legal fiction of corporate criminal liability may finally get the rewrite it badly needs. Urged by practitioners and academics for decades, arguments for changing corporate criminal liability, if not abolishing it altogether, may now have a receptive audience in Washington.

In this age of regulatory and prosecutorial focus on corporate compliance, companies increasingly are relying on special outside counsel to conduct internal investigations into potential wrong-doing. Sometimes, these investigations are prophylactic: A company may want to understand the consequences of its current hiring prac-tices so it can develop standard operating procedures to better ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Because this sort of pro-active, self-reflective investigation generally proceeds in the absence of outside scrutiny, counsel has the time and space to conduct a deliberate investigation.

At press time, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty revised the controversial 'Thompson Memorandum.' A new 'McNulty Memorandum' was issued after harsh criticism from District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the KPMG case and a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) to abrogate the Thompson Memorandum by act of Congress. Look for an in-depth analysis in our February Issue.

Counsel for companies faced with criminal violations of securities laws must maneuver carefully through a gamut of factors to determine whether to voluntarily disclose criminal conduct. A corporation may face administrative and criminal sanctions for non-cooperation from both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the SEC. But the DOJ's 'Thompson Memorandum' also bestows attractive benefits for cooperation, measured in part by the corporation's willingness 'to disclose the complete results of its internal investigation.' The prosecution may grant a corporation 'immunity or amnesty or pretrial diversion' or 'a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation.'