The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative, if not questionable, decisions in the past six months. Their decisions have not only created uncertainty, but will also generate further litigation over reorganization plan manipulation, arbitration of routine bankruptcy disputes and the treatment of trademark licenses in reorganization cases. Each decision apparently disposes of routine issues in business cases. A closer look at each case, though, reveals the sad truth: they are anything but routine.

“ . . . [A] bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a [reorganization] plan . . . and/or

“Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 22, 2018. In re Franchise Services of North America Inc., 2018 WL 2325909, *1 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). According to the court, applicable Delaware law would not “nullify the shareholder’s right to vote against the bankruptcy petition.” Id.

Relevance

A bankruptcy trustee could not “avoid [a] debtor’s transfer” of encumbered asset sale proceeds when the debtor holds the funds “as a mere disbursing agent [under] a contract that” restricted its use, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 18, 2018. Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9772 *14 (1st Cir. Apr. 18, 2018).

A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a debtor’s asserted violation of the court’s discharge injunction, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, *20 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018).

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

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.

A super-priority debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lender with a lien on all of the debtor’s assets has no “better claim” to a Chapter 11’s debtor’s leased property than the lessor, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Jan. 11, 2018.Banco Panamericano, Inc. v. City of Peoria, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 738, *12 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018). According to the court, the “lease between [the debtor] and [the lessor] gave [the debtor] no post-termination property interest” in “installations or structures” on the debtor’s property.Id.

“[T]he largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned [business] was not a fraudulent [transfer] and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duty of the company’s directors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Dec. 4, 2017. In re Irving Tanning Co., 2017 W.L. 5988834, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).