Robert J. Stearn Jr.

Director

Contact

Overview

Robert Stearn Jr. is a “very strong bankruptcy litigator, with an extremely strong courtroom presence” (Chambers USA).

Focusing his practice on bankruptcy litigation, Bob handles preference and fraudulent transfer litigation as well as all types of contested matters. His clients, including large corporate debtors as well as defendants, report that he is “knowledgeable, hard-working, extraordinarily thorough, an excellent oral advocate and a pleasure to work with” (Chambers USA).

Bob spent his first 10 years of practice in the firm’s Corporate Department and has substantial experience litigating corporate issues such as D&O liability. He also handles commercial disputes in the Delaware state and district courts.

PRACTICES

Bankruptcy & Corporate Restructuring

Select Experience

Advanced Marketing Services: Provided variety of litigation services to this debtor, including obtaining approval of management incentive plans, motion practice to compel performance by asset purchaser under asset purchase agreement, and commencing litigation for breach of contract and related claims against major vendor
Advent Venture Partners: Defense of fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of purchase of business
Allied Holdings: Provided variety of litigation services to this debtor arising out of disputes with first lien lenders and committee
American Airlines: Defense of $17m preference and fraudulent transfer action
Bank of America: Representation of secured lender in various disputes with debtor
Bank of New York: Represented lender in successful appeal of bankruptcy court ruling denying claim
Barclays Capital: Defense of $1.5m preference and fraudulent transfer action
Clearwire: Defense of Rule 2004 motion
Crowe Horwath: Defense of Rule 2004 litigation
De La Rue plc: Defense of $20m fraudulent transfer action
Dechert: Defense of former debtors’ counsel in malpractice action
Goldman Sachs: Defense of $5m and $2.5m preference and fraudulent transfer actions
Grupo American Industries: Defense of $5m preference action
Horsehead Holding: Lead trial counsel for equity committee opposing plan confirmation
Houlihan Lokey: Advice concerning solvency analyses
Linens ‘n Things, Inc.: Provided variety of litigation services to this debtor, including defense of Rule 2004 motion, enforcement of automatic stay, evaluating and commencing multiple preference actions, and defense of challenges to use of cash collateral
John Martillo: Defense of $50m fraudulent transfer action brought against former president and 50% shareholder
Micron Semiconductor: Defense of $14m preference and fraudulent transfer action
Motor Coach Industries: Commenced litigation on behalf of this debtor and obtained temporary restraining order to prevent loss of exit financing
National Financial Services: Defense of claims asserted in adversary proceeding seeking approx. $100m in damages
New Century Financial: Provided variety of litigation services to this debtor, including obtaining approval of management incentive plans, defense of litigation concerning deferred compensation plans, and defense of WARN action
Reliant Energy Channelview: Provided variety of litigation services to this debtor, including litigation to exclude certain contracts from asset sale, litigation with stalking horse bidder, and litigation with asset purchaser

Education

University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 1990
Order of the Coif
Dickinson College, B.S., magna cum laude, 1985

Publications

State Attorney-Client Privilege Rule Incorporated into Federal Law

Law Journal Newsletters | September 2018

Because state law applies at the time a transaction is negotiated, the parties might assume — reasonably so — that state privilege law will govern communications with their attorneys and financial professionals. But what happens if, years later, a suit is filed in federal court and brings claims under federal law? Does state privilege law still…

State Attorney-Client Privilege Incorporated Into Federal Law

The Bankruptcy Strategist | July 2018

Fraudulent transfer plaintiffsfrequently challenge transactionsthat they say contributed tothe company’s insolvency: leveragedbuyouts, cash-out mergers,share redemptions or othermajor transactions where thecompany parts with assets orincurs liabilities. State law (oftenDelaware law) typically governsthese types of transactions,and structuring them usually requiresthe involvement of attorneys,financial professionals andsometimes investment bankers. Because state law applies atthe time the transaction is negotiated,the parties…

Delaware’s Solvency Test: What Is It and Does It Make Sense?

Delaware Journal of Corporate Law | 2011

This article examines the ambiguities in Delaware solvency law and recommends that the Delaware courts clarify the law and adopt uniform solvency tests.

Proving Solvency: Defending Preference and Fraudulent Transfer Litigation

The Business Lawyer | February 2007

Litigating solvency can be a complicated endeavor. This article provides a general road map for proving solvency in the defense of preference and fraudulent transfer litigation. The three common measures of solvency are discussed: the “balance sheet” test; the “unreasonably small capital” test; and the “ability to pay debts” test. The article also provides practical suggestions…

Recognition

Chambers USA
The Best Lawyers in America
Benchmark Litigation

Bar Admissions

Delaware
United States District Court, District of Delaware
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Related Firm News

Bankruptcy & Corporate Restructuring

Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Richards, Layton & Finger’s Outstanding Litigators

November 18, 2020

Read Now