failure to act caused the Debtors’ trade debt to increase by at least $5 million, which is alleged to be “real and direct damage to Communications’ creditors.” (Id.) In 2007, after the filing of the Amended Complaint (and after argument on the Motions to Dismiss), the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, without opinion, a lengthy 2006 decision by the Delaware Chancery Court, extinguishing — with verve — any notion that deepening insolvency is a valid cause of action under Delaware law. Trenwick Am. Litig. Trust v. Billett, 931 A.2d 438 (Del.2007) aff'g Trenwick Am. Litig. Trust v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 906 A.2d 168, 204-07 (Del.Ch.2006). See also Off'l Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC (In re Radnor Holdings Corp.), 353 B.R. 820, 842 (Bankr.D.Del.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Chancery Court wrote: Delaware law
recognizing the cause of action recognizing rejection of deepening insolvency as a cause of action under delaware law recognizing a cause of action under texas law for misappropriation holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors recognizing cause of action