n. 96; see also In re Greater Se. Comm. Hosp. Corp., 353 B.R. 324, 342 n. 24 (Bankr.D.D.C.2006) (citing Trenwick for the proposition that fiduciary duties of director of wholly-owned subsidiary flow to parent corporation, except when subsidiary becomes insolvent). Although a wholly-owned subsidiary is not owed fiduciary duties by its corporate parent under normal circumstances, Trenwick, 906 A.2d at 191-92 (citing Anadarko, 545 A.2d at 1174), the Supreme Court of Delaware has recognized “that a parent owes fiduciary duties to its subsidiary when that subsidiary is insolvent.” In re Tronox Inc., 450 B.R. 432, 438 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2011) (citing N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92, 101-02 (Del.2007)); see In re Scott Acquisition Corp., 344 B.R. at 288-89 (<HOLDING>). Here, central to Boccard’s alter ego claims
recognizing similar duties holding that directors of whollyowned insolvent subsidiary owe fiduciary duties not only to subsidiarys creditors but also to subsid iary because duties owed to creditors are derivative of duties owed to subsidiary holding under delaware law that corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors holding that directors of an insolvent corporation are trustees for the creditors