Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.

When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).

上周，曾在新加坡证券交易所有限公司（“新交所”）上市的Otto Marine有限公司（以下简称“Otto Marine”）提出申请将公司提交司法托管（“司法托管申请”）并请求任命临时司法管理人。

该公司系总部为新加坡的Otto Marine集团的核心成员，Otto Marine集团拥有约70家子公司，联营公司和间接子公司，在全球拥有622名员工。 Otto Marine集团从事投资控股，船舶建造，维修和服务，船舶租赁和租赁以及离岸服务业务。 Otto Marine的独任董事暨实际股东是马来西亚大亨拿督斯里丘志肖。

司法托管申请发生于2015年约1.83亿美元的亏损以及2016年10月自新加坡证券交易所自愿退市之后。根据该公司截至2017年12月31日的管理账目初稿，本财政年度累计录得亏损约8100万美元。 在支持司法托管申请的法院文件中，该公司估计总负债约为8.77亿美元，并宣称自己无力偿还债务，并援引大华银行提交的清盘申请和各种未决执行申请等事宜。

根据法庭文件，拿督斯里丘志肖本人似乎是该公司最大的单一债权人，其本人或其附属公司享有2.08亿美元债权。

The company sits at the apex of the Singapore-headquartered Otto Marine Group, which has some 70 subsidiaries, associate companies and indirect subsidiaries, employing more than 622 employees worldwide. The Otto Marine Group is in the business of investment holding, construction, repair and servicing of vessels, chartering and leasing of vessels, and offshore services. The sole director and effective shareholder of Otto Marine is Malaysian tycoon Datuk Seri Yaw Chee Siew.

On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.