## Facts

- Two Tennessee hosiery companies, FLR Hosiery and Lora Lee Knitting, faced serious financial problems in early 1995 and collectively owed about $3 million to trade creditors, many of whom supplied yarn or related textile goods and services.
- To keep the businesses operating, the companies consolidated into a new corporation, Star Hosiery, Inc. (Star), and used Star as the vehicle for a debt restructuring with the trade creditors (plaintiffs).
- The restructuring converted the plaintiffs’ trade debt into Star-issued convertible debenture notes governed by an Indenture Agreement.
- The Indenture Agreement stated that the notes would be secured by a lien on Star’s assets, which in practice required filing UCC financing statements to perfect the security interest.
- Renee E. Castle, an attorney involved in forming Star and handling the transaction, was appointed as indenture trustee for the noteholders; her firm was Wolff Ardis, P.C.
- Castle did not file the financing statements needed to perfect the creditors’ security interest, and the Indenture Agreement did not expressly list perfection as one of the trustee’s duties.
- Star later entered bankruptcy. Plaintiffs alleged that, because the lien was unperfected, they were treated as unsecured creditors and recovered less than they would have recovered with a perfected security interest.
- Plaintiffs sued Castle and Wolff Ardis asserting multiple theories (including negligence and breach of fiduciary duty) tied to Castle’s role as indenture trustee and her participation in the restructuring.
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability on several counts, and defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether, before default, an indenture trustee’s duties are generally limited to the duties stated in the indenture rather than the broader duties of a traditional trustee.
2. Whether the Indenture Agreement (or applicable law) made Castle, as indenture trustee, responsible for perfecting the security interest securing the debenture notes.
3. Whether Castle’s dual role as transactional counsel and indenture trustee could support claims based on conflict, disclosure, or breach of duties owed to the noteholders.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability, or whether disputes of fact remained as to duty, breach, causation, and damages.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied in its entirety.
- Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court declined to rule, as a matter of law on the plaintiffs’ motion, that the indenture trustee necessarily had a duty to perfect the security interest where the indenture did not expressly assign that responsibility.
- The court also declined to enter complete judgment for defendants because the record left fact questions on certain theories, including what Castle undertook to do in the transaction and whether plaintiffs’ alleged losses were caused by the failure to perfect.

## Legal Principles

- An indenture trustee is not the same as a traditional trustee; before default, the trustee’s duties are generally defined and limited by the indenture’s terms.
- When an indenture does not expressly assign responsibility for filing financing statements, a court may be unwilling to impose that obligation as a matter of law at summary judgment, especially where contract language and surrounding facts permit competing readings.
- A lawyer’s simultaneous service as transaction counsel and indenture trustee can raise questions about conflict, disclosure, and the scope of obligations actually assumed, which may require factfinding.
- Causation and damages based on a “what would have happened in bankruptcy if the lien had been perfected” theory are often fact-intensive and not suited to broad summary resolution on an undeveloped or disputed record.

## Conclusion

In *Harriet & Henderson Yarns v. Castle*, trade creditors who exchanged roughly $3 million in claims for “secured” debenture notes sued the lawyer who served as indenture trustee after she failed to file UCC financing statements to perfect the lien and Star later went bankrupt. The court denied the creditors’ request for summary judgment on liability and granted defendants summary judgment only in part, reasoning that an indenture trustee’s pre-default duties are typically tied to the indenture, the agreement did not clearly assign perfection to the trustee as a matter of law on this record, and disputed facts remained on the scope of Castle’s undertakings, possible conflicts from her dual roles, and causation and damages.


Harriet & Henderson Yarns v. Castle, 75 F. Supp. 2d 818 (1999)