CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Associates

640 F.3d 209 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Associates

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
640 F.3d 209 (2011)

Facts

Cadant was incorporated in 1998. In early 2000, Venrock Associates (Venrock) and J.P. Morgan (JPM) (lenders) invested in Cadant in exchange for preferred stock. By autumn 2000, Cadant experienced financial problems, leading it to take an $11 million short-term loan from the lenders. Cadant quickly spent that money and took a second short-term loan from the lenders, who would receive double the outstanding principal plus accrued interest if Cadant were liquidated. At the time, four Cadant directors (lender-directors) (defendants), including Venrock’s Eric Copeland, were or recently had been affiliated with a lender. Copeland may have conspired with JPM to induce Cadant to take the second loan, even though Cadant likely could have obtained a loan elsewhere on better terms. Cadant’s independent directors approved the second loan but did not retain external financial advisers. Cadant defaulted on the second loan and filed for bankruptcy. In January 2002, Cadant’s assets were sold for $55 million, enough to pay Cadant’s creditors and preferred shareholders, including the lenders. Several months later, a similar company, River Delta, sold its assets for $300 million. The CDX Liquidating Trust (CDX) (plaintiff), a trust holding Cadant’s common stock, sued the lender-directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty to Cadant with respect to the second loan. The lender-directors moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that (1) CDX failed to prove that their alleged breaches—rather than external market forces—proximately caused Cadant’s demise and (2) they were not disloyal because they fully disclosed their conflicts of interest. The district court granted the lender-directors’ motion. CDX appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership