Background

Following various disputes as to the scope of the collateral given to secured creditors, the debtors and certain of their noteholders jointly proposed a chapter 11. The plan included a rights offering that the consenting noteholders agreed to backstop. These consenting noteholders were granted the right to purchase significant equity of the reorganized debtors at a discount and receive significant premiums for their agreement to backstop the rights offering and support the plan.

Merit Management

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

It is a well-established principle of bankruptcy law that claims generally crystallize as of the bankruptcy petition date. Of course, section 506(b) of the bankruptcy code allows over-secured, secured creditors to recover post-petition interest and costs, including reasonable legal fees, if their documentation provides them with the right to recover these costs. But what about unsecured creditors – are post-petition legal fees incurred by an unsecured creditor whose contract with the debtor provides for reimbursement of legal fees allowed or not?

Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.

Two United States Bankruptcy Judges for the Southern District of New York recently issued a joint opinion addressing common issues raised by motions to dismiss in two separate adversary proceedings – one pending before Judge Bernstein and the other before Judge Glenn (the “Adversary Proceedings”). The Adversary Proceedings were filed by the debtors in two chapter 11 cases, each involving an Anguillan offshore bank – National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd. and Caribbean Commercial Investment Bank Ltd. (the “Debtor Banks”).

Manley Toys Limited once claimed to be the seventh largest toy company in the world. Due to ongoing litigation and declining sales, it entered into a voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong. On March 22, 2016, the debtor’s appointed liquidators and foreign representatives filed a motion for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion was opposed by ASI Inc., f/k/a Aviva Sports, Inc. (“Aviva”) and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“TRU”).

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.

U.S. Bankruptcy Rule 9019 provides that on a motion brought by a trustee (and thus a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession as well) the court may approve a settlement. The prevailing view is that due to the court’s approval requirement, pre-court approval settlement agreements are enforceable by the debtor but not against the debtor. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently disagreed. It held that the statutory approval requirement is not an opportunity for the debtor to repudiate the settlement.