CTC Litigation Trust, The v. Courage et al

In re
CTC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.,
et al
Debtors
______________________________________
THE CTC LITIGATION TRUST,
Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT J. FABBRICATORE,
KATHERINE D. COURAGE, et al.,
Defendants
U NITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
D ISTRICT OF M ASSACHUSETTS
Chapter 11
Case No. 02-12873 (PJW)
(District of Delaware)
(Jointly Administered)
Adversary Proceeding
No. 05-01441-RS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are two motions seeking dismissal of this adversary proceeding
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff is a litigation trust
established in the underlying bankruptcy cases. The moving parties are ten of the seventeen
defendants in the adversary proceeding and are also former directors of the debtors.
In the adversary proceeding, the litigation trust claims that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the debtors and their shareholders thereby causing them harm for which the
litigation trust may recover against the directors. In their dismissal motions, the directors
respond that the litigation trust has failed to allege facts sufficient to support its claims against
them. The litigation trust opposes dismissal.
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 9

2
At issue, then, is whether, on the facts alleged in the complaint commencing the
adversary proceeding, the litigation trust clearly cannot recover against the directors under any
viable theory. For the reasons set forth below, I find that the directors have not made this
showing, and I therefore deny the dismissal motions.
Procedural Status
On October 2, 2004, the litigation trust commenced this adversary proceeding in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where the underlying bankruptcy
cases are being jointly administered (“Delaware Court”). On February 23, 2005, at the request
of the litigation trust and two of the defendants, the Delaware Court transferred the adversary
proceeding to this Court. On November 22, 2005, the litigation trust amended the complaint and
requested a status conference which I held on December 15, 2005. That status conference
occasioned a procedural order establishing a schedule for responsive pleadings to the amended
complaint. 	In response, the directors filed the dismissal motions which are the subject of this
decision; the other seven defendants answered the amended complaint. On March 16, 2006, I
held a hearing on the dismissal motions and took them under advisement. I now make my
ruling.
Background
A. 	The CTC Bankruptcy Cases
On October 3, 2002, CTC Communications Group, Inc., a holding company, and CTC
Communications Corp., its operating subsidiary, commenced separate Chapter 11 cases in the
Delaware Court. On October 9, 2002, two affiliates of these debtors also commenced separate
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 9

1Hereinafter, for convenience, I refer to the Chapter 11 cases as “Case” and to the four
debtors as “CTC”.
3
Chapter 11 cases in that court, where these four cases are now being jointly administered.1
CTC began its business life in 1981 as an interconnect provider, supplying and installing
telephone equipment for business customers. In 1984, CTC extended its business to sales
agency for NYNEX Corp. and then Bell Atlantic (which became Verizon). In 1994, CTC
became a reseller of long-distance telecommunications services and in 1998 a reseller of local
telecommunications services and an integrated communications provider. As the decade drew to
a close, the capital borrowings that funded CTC’s business expansion became a burden that
occasioned a financial decline that resulted in the Case.
On November 20, 2003, after a not-atypical (but nonetheless fairly rapid) round of
administrative, operational, financial and litigation activities in the Case, the Delaware Court
confirmed CTC’s plan of reorganization whereby CTC restructured its debt, transferred its
ownership to an outside investor and resumed its business operations outside bankruptcy
(“Plan”).
B. 	The Litigation Trust
Under the Plan, a litigation trust is established for the benefit of CTC’s general unsecured
creditors (“Trust”). The Trust is vested with various rights, powers and duties including to
pursue causes of action against CTC’s former directors for prepetition acts and omissions
(“Director Actions”). The Director Actions expressly exclude causes of action against former
directors to the extent they are released from liability for such acts and omissions under the Plan.
The parties to the adversary proceeding appear to accept the standing and the authority of
the Trust to commence the adversary proceeding. In any event, I find that the adversary
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 9

2Fabbricatore denies the Trust’s allegations.
4
proceeding is within the contemplation of the Trust’s authority under the Plan and its
implementing documentation.
C. 	The Complaint
As to the directors, the adversary proceeding rests on two separate but related sets of
allegations, which may be summarized thusly: Robert Fabbricatore, CTC’s founder, chairman
and chief executive officer, looted CTC while the directors stood by and did nothing.
More particularly, the Trust’s allegations portray a pervasive misuse and abuse of CTC
and its assets by which Fabbricatore is alleged to have caused CTC to do the following (among
other self-serving transactions): (a) contract with a Fabbricatore-controlled company to out-
source various aspects of CTC’s business operations (some of which CTC itself could have
profitably performed), and did so on terms unfavorable to CTC and favorable to Fabbricatore;
(b) lease real estate from a Fabbricatore-controlled company in circumstances where CTC itself
could have acquired the property on favorable and fully financed terms yet wound up with an
unfavorable long-term lease; (c) lease an apartment in New York City paid by for CTC but
restricted to the personal use of Fabbricatore and his family; (d) maintain Fabbricatore’s yacht,
horse farm and vacation home at CTC’s expense; (e) lease a yacht from a Fabbricatore-
controlled company at CTC’s expense but for the personal use of Fabbricatore and his family; (f)
provide CTC aircraft for the personal use of Fabbricatore and his family and at CTC’s expense;
and (g) employ Fabbricatore family members who provided few if any services for such
employment. A sorry saga, if true. 2
Further, the Trust’s allegations portray a board inattentive to the point of abdication,
failing in the most elemental oversight, neither monitoring nor inquiring into Fabbricatore’s
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 9

3The Trust does not challenge as an affirmative defense the release argument raised by
the four directors but rather disputes it on the merits. The Court addresses this issue below.
5
activities, docilely accepting whatever explanation he proffered regarding those activities
(including no explanation at all).
D. 	Dismissal
In seeking dismissal, the directors argue as follows: (a) the Trust’s allegations do not
support its claim that the directors acted or failed to act in breach of their fiduciary duties; (b)
even if the Trust’s allegations do support such a claim, their acts and omissions constitute, at
worst, a breach of their duty of care; (c) they are protected from personal liability for a breach of
their duty of care (x) by the business judgment rule, (y) by the exculpatory clause in the CTC
charter and (z) as to four directors, by a release effectuated under the Plan; and (d) the Trust’s
allegations do not support its claim that the directors acted or failed to act in breach of their
duties of loyalty and good faith, which would be a necessary predicate to overcome the
protections of the business judgment rule and the exculpatory clause.
The Trust argues for the sufficiency of its allegations, contending that (a) neither the
business judgment rule nor the exculpatory clause are properly deployed in a Rule 12(b)(6)
setting where, as here, they are matters outside the complaint and in the nature of affirmative
defenses3; and (b) its allegations regarding loyalty and good faith breaches support a cognizable
claim in that the directors are alleged to have utterly failed to ensure that an adequate
information and reporting system was established to monitor and provide oversight for
Fabbricatore’s activities.
Discussion
A. 	The Dismissal Standard
The directors seek dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 9

6
can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The standard for dismissal on such grounds is long-
established. “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 335 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The analytical framework
for such determination is also well-settled: the Court must “take the factual averments contained
in the complaint as true, indulging every reasonable inference helpful to the plaintiff’s cause.”
Garita Hotel Ltd. v. Ponce Federal Bank, 958 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1992). See also In re Walt
Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 825 A.2d 275, 285 (Del. Ch. 2003). Ultimately, the dismissal
motions test not the sufficiency of the proof of the matters alleged but the sufficiency of the
allegations to state a cause of action.
B. 	The Business Judgment Rule
The business judgment rule is a presumption that, in making a business decision,
directors act in good faith, on an informed basis, honestly believing that their action is in the
company’s best interests. In re Tower Air, Inc., 416 F.3d 229, 238 (3rd Cir. 2005); Aronson v.
Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. Supr. 1984). To invoke the rule’s protection, directors have a
duty to inform themselves of all material information available to them. Aronson v. Lewis, 473
A.2d at 812. In a Rule 12(b)(6) context, the plaintiff “must plead that he overcomes the
presumption created by the rule.” Tower Air, 416 F. 3rd at 238.
Proceeding on that basis, that is, considering whether the Trust’s complaint is subject to
dismissal in the face of the invocation by the directors of the protections afforded by the business
judgment rule, I find that the Trust has alleged precisely the facts necessary to overcome the
presumption created by the rule. In effect, the Trust advances facts which support the charge
that the directors “failed to establish an information and reporting system reasonably designed to
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 9

4CTC Communications Corp. is a Massachusetts corporation. CTC Communications
Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. The exculpatory provision in each statute is substantially
the same.
7
provide...the board with information regarding the corporation’s legal compliance and business
performance, resulting in liability.” Tower Air, 416 F.3rd at 238. See also In re Caremark Int’l
Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959, 967-970 (Del. Ch. 1996). Such a failure constitutes a
breach of good faith by the directors not protected by the business judgment rule. Caremark,
698 A.2d at 971. Accordingly, the business judgment rule does not serve as a basis for dismissal
of the complaint.
C. 	The Exculpatory Clause
Both Massachusetts and Delaware 4 permit the inclusion in a corporate charter of a
provision that eliminates or limits the personal liability of a director for monetary damages for
breach of fiduciary duty. The authorizing statutes exclude from such protection a breach of the
duty of loyalty and acts or omissions not in good faith. M.G.L. ch. 156B §13(b)(1½); 8 Del. C.
§102(b)(7). “Our jurisprudence since the adoption of the statute has consistently stood for the
proposition that a Section 102(b)(7) charter provision bars a claim that is found to state only a
due care violation.” Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075, 1095 (Del. Supr. 2001). Stated
differently, the Trust must allege facts that establish a breach of the duty of loyalty or bad faith.
Here, it is conceded that the CTC corporate charter contains the statutory exculpatory
clause affording the protections for unexcluded breaches. Two questions arise: is this an
affirmative defense not properly raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) setting and, if properly raised, does it
warrant dismissal.
Courts considering the first issue treat such a clause as an affirmative defense. Tower
Air, 416 F.3rd at 242; 780 A.2d at 1079. See also Emerald Partners, 726 A.2d 1218, 1223-24
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 9

5I note that the allegations of the complaint that I have found overcome the business
judgment rule would also seem to overcome the exculpatory clause. However, I expressly
decline to rule on that matter and reserve it for later determination, either at trial or on summary
judgment. See Malpiede 780 A.2d at 1095.
8
(Del. Supr. 1999). However, courts have reached somewhat different conclusions regarding the
deployment of the clause in a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal setting.
In Tower Air, the court observed that the exculpatory clause in question “appears to be in
the nature of an affirmative defense” first asserted on appeal. The court thus declined to address
it on appeal but did note the general proposition that affirmative defenses will not form the basis
for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Tower Air, 416 F.3d at 242. In Malpiede, the court similarly
viewed the exculpatory clause as an affirmative defense, outside the complaint and hence, as a
general matter, not the basis for a Rule12(b)(6) dismissal. However, the court nonetheless held
that, ultimately, the exculpatory clause was properly considered because the plaintiff did not
contest its existence, terms, validity or authenticity and thus the dismissal request could be
treated (and decided) as a summary judgment request. Malpiede, 780 A.2d at 1092.
Here, it is a close question whether the CTC exculpatory clause, though an affirmative
defense, should nonetheless be considered in this dismissal context. I elect not to do so for the
reason that, although the Trust has not contested the existence, terms, validity or authenticity of
the CTC exculpatory clause, the Trust has contended that the CTC clause does not afford any
protection in a cause of action against directors by a litigation trust on behalf of creditors where
the statutory text speaks quite plainly of personal liability of directors to the corporation or its
shareholders, neither of whom is the claimant or the putative beneficiary of the action. Thus,
unlike Malpiede, here there is a dispute regarding the applicability of the CTC exculpatory
clause, a matter for trial or summary judgment, not dismissal.5 Accordingly, the CTC
exculpatory clause does not serve as a basis for dismissal of the complaint.
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 9

6I note that a reasonable construction of the release language in the Plan would require
that the four directors demonstrate that they had obtained the requisite consent to their release by
certain Plan constituents. Whether the directors obtained that consent is disputed. Hence, here,
too, I expressly decline to rule on the matter and reserve it for later determination, either at trial
or on summary judgment.
9
D. 	The Release
Four of the ten directors seek dismissal on the basis that the Plan has released them.
They refer the Court to specific sections of the Plan which they say support their contention.
This basis for dismissal is clearly outside the complaint, an affirmative defense, not properly
considered in the dismissal setting and bereft of any of the saving considerations attendant upon
the deployment of the business judgment rule and the exculpatory clause.6 Accordingly, the
purported release of the four directors under the Plan does not serve as a basis for dismissal of
the complaint.
Conclusion and Order
The Trust has made allegations in the complaint which, if proved, would establish
personal liability of the directors for a breach of their duty of loyalty and good faith to CTC and
its shareholders. The presumption of the business judgment rule is rebutted by these allegations.
The CTC exculpatory clause and the purported release of the four directors under the Plan are
affirmative defenses properly considered at trial or on summary judgment. The dismissal
motions are hereby denied.
Date: March 13, 2007 	_______________________________
Robert Somma
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-01441 Doc 322 Filed 03/13/07 Entered 03/13/07 15:51:41 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 9