Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy Co.

82 A.3d 696 (Del. 2013) · Supreme Court of Delaware · November 26, 2013

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court considered whether a receiver could be appointed for a dissolved corporation whose only assets were unexhausted liability insurance policies. The Court held that contingent contractual rights capable of vesting constitute property under 8 Del. C. § 279, and that Delaware’s corporate dissolution statutes do not generally time-bar third-party claims against a dissolved corporation. The Court also held that after the three-year winding-up period under § 278, a dissolved corporation may conduct litigation commenced during that period, but must act through a court-appointed receiver or trustee for litigation commenced afterward.

Holdings

  1. Contingent contractual rights, including unexhausted liability-insurance policies, constitute property of a dissolved corporation under 8 Del. C. § 279 when the rights are capable of vesting.
  2. Delaware's dissolution statutes do not generally time-bar or extinguish third-party claims against a dissolved corporation after the three-, five-, or ten-year periods described in §§ 278-282.
  3. After the three-year winding-up period expires, a dissolved corporation may participate in litigation commenced after that period only through a receiver or trustee appointed under 8 Del. C. § 279.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether contingent contractual rights, including unexhausted liability-insurance policies, constitute property of a dissolved corporation under 8 Del. C. § 279.
  2. Whether Delaware's corporate-dissolution statutes impose a generally applicable statute of limitations that extinguishes third-party claims against a dissolved corporation after the applicable five- or ten-year period.
  3. Whether a dissolved corporation may participate in litigation commenced after the three-year winding-up period in 8 Del. C. § 278 without a court-appointed receiver or trustee.
  4. Whether the petition for appointment of a receiver was justiciable despite the insurers' representation that they would continue defending certain claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • Addy v. Short, 89 A.2d 136 (Del. 1952)(followed)
  • In re Texas Eastern Overseas, Inc., 998 A.2d 852 (Del. 2010)(affirmed and reaffirmed)
  • In re Citadel Industries, Inc., 423 A.2d 500 (Del. Ch. 1980)(followed)
  • In re RegO Co., 623 A.2d 92 (Del. Ch. 1992)(followed)
  • In re Dow Chemical International Inc., 2008 WL 4603580 (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2008)(followed in part)
  • In re Krafft-Murphy Co., Inc., 62 A.3d 94 (Del. Ch. 2013)(reversed)
  • Alvarez v. Castellon, 55 A.3d 352 (Del. 2012)(followed)
  • LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185 (Del. 2009)(followed)
  • Motorola, Inc. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., 849 A.2d 931 (Del. 2004)(followed)
  • Rhudy v. Bottlecaps, Inc., 830 A.2d 402 (Del. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…