MFS/Sun Life Trust-High Yield Series v. Van Dusen Airport Services. Co.
910 F. Supp. 913 | District Court, S.D. New York | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A company (Van Dusen Airport Services) was purchased using a leveraged buyout in 1988, where the company's own assets were used to finance the deal. Creditors who held notes sued, claiming the buyout was fraudulent and left the company unable to pay debts. The court ruled the buyout was valid because the company received reasonably equivalent value and wasn't rendered insolvent by the transaction. This matters to subcontractors because it clarifies when asset-based financing deals are protected from creditor challenges.
Key Takeaways
- •Leveraged buyouts are legally valid if the purchased company receives fair market value and remains solvent after the transaction
- •Creditors cannot automatically reverse a buyout just because a company later defaults—they must prove actual fraud or insolvency at the time of sale
- •Document the fair value exchanged in any major financing or acquisition deal to defend against future fraudulent conveyance claims
VDAS received reasonably equivalent value in the leveraged buyout transaction.
Frequently Asked Question
Can creditors undo a company buyout if the company later can't pay its debts?
Not automatically. Courts will only reverse a buyout if creditors prove it was fraudulent or the company was insolvent at the time of the sale. If the company received fair market value and remained solvent after the deal, the buyout stands even if payment problems arise later.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.