Production Res. Group, LLC v. NCT Group, Inc.

Delaware Court of Chancery · 2004 · Corporations

863 A.2d 772 (2004)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsInsolvencyReceiversFiduciary DutiesDerivative Claims8 Del. C. § 2918 Del. C. § 102(b)(7)receiver

Facts

PRG obtained a Connecticut judgment of about $2 million against NCT but had collected only a small portion while NCT continued operating. The complaint, relying heavily on NCT's own SEC filings, alleged that NCT's liabilities far exceeded its assets, it had defaulted on debts as they came due, it lacked funds even to hold annual meetings, and it had issued or pledged stock far beyond the amount authorized in its charter. PRG also alleged that NCT's primary creditor, Carole Salkind, functioned as a de facto controlling stockholder through secured debt, liens, and conversion rights, while the board favored her and affiliated entities through consulting payments, insider compensation, and capital infusions routed through a subsidiary to frustrate PRG's collection efforts.

Issue

Whether PRG's complaint sufficiently alleged insolvency and circumstances warranting possible appointment of a receiver under 8 Del. C. § 291. Also, whether an insolvent corporation's creditor may assert fiduciary-duty claims directly against directors and officers free of Rule 23.1 and free of a § 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter provision, or only derivative claims subject to those limitations unless non-exculpated bad-faith or self-dealing conduct is adequately pled.

Rule

To plead a § 291 claim, a plaintiff need only allege facts that, if true, show insolvency; insolvency may be shown either by a deficiency of assets below liabilities with no reasonable prospect of successful continuation, or by inability to meet maturing obligations as they fall due in the ordinary course of business. Upon insolvency, creditors gain standing to pursue fiduciary-duty claims belonging to the corporation, but ordinary claims of mismanagement or injury to firm value remain derivative corporate claims, not direct creditor claims. A § 102(b)(7) exculpatory charter provision applies to those corporate due-care claims even when asserted derivatively by creditors, but it does not protect directors from non-exculpated claims based on bad faith, disloyalty, intentional misconduct, knowing legal violations, or improper personal benefit.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Components, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating in Cleveland, owes a Denver supplier $900,000 on a final judgment. The supplier files in Delaware alleging that Lakeshore's SEC filings show liabilities exceeding assets by $18 million, recurring operating losses, a going-concern warning, and repeated defaults on trade debt, but no evidentiary record has yet been developed.

On a motion to dismiss the receiver count under 8 Del. C. § 291, what is the strongest argument for denying dismissal?

Explanation. At the pleading stage, a § 291 complaint states a claim by alleging facts that, if true, demonstrate insolvency. The clear-and-convincing standard applies to the actual appointment of a receiver after a developed record, not to the complaint itself. A judgment alone does not make appointment automatic, and exhaustion of other remedies is not a stated pleading prerequisite.