Haskell v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.) (Genesis I)
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
324 B.R. 510 (2005)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Multicare AMC, Inc. (debtor) and Genesis Health Ventures, Inc. (Genesis) (debtor) filed a joint Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan in July 2001. The plan was confirmed in September 2001. In January 2004, 275 of Genesis’s investors (subordinated investors) (creditors), who held about $205 million in debentures issued by Genesis, sued Genesis, Goldman, Sachs & Company (Goldman) (creditor), and other firms (creditors), alleging fraud. The debentures were subordinated to roughly $1.3 billion in senior debt, about half of which was held by Goldman. The subordinated investors alleged that the senior lenders paid Genesis’s management to understate Genesis’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) were based. The understated EBITDA was used to depress assessments of Genesis’s enterprise value. The subordinated investors asserted that if Genesis’s value had been calculated accurately, the subordinated investors would have received the full value of their notes. The subordinated investors sought $200 million in monetary damages from Genesis and the senior lenders. Under United States Bankruptcy Code (code) § 1144, a party could ask a court to revoke confirmation of a reorganization plan for fraud provided the request was made within six months.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wizmur, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.