8 fathom . AUGUST 2015 Shipping Case Digest |by Andrew Chiew Ean Vooi and Jennifer James Ilango| MV “Sanko Mineral” With the current downturn in the shipping industry, shipowner insolvency is often a concern. In the MV “Sanko Mineral” (the Sanko Mineral),1 we find juxtaposition between in rem proceedings in the Admiralty court and cross-border insolvency proceedings. (i) Tokyo insolvency proceedings In July 2012, the owners of the Sanko Mineral, Sanko Holdings (“Sanko”) entered into reorganisation proceedings under the Corporate Reorganisation Act in Japan.
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsuibishi UFJ Ltd v Sanko Mineral (The MV Sanko Mineral) [2014]EWHC 3927 (Admlty)
Cargo Interests began proceedings in the U.S. against the Defendant former owner of the M/V SANKO MINERAL for breach of a contract of carriage. The bill of lading under which the claim was brought incorporated the terms of a charterparty which contained a time bar of 12 months from discharge of cargo.
In a recent landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court deliberated on the question of whether an overseas defendant had to have submitted to the jurisdiction under common law before a foreign bankruptcy order would be recognised and enforced in England. Richard Keady and Jay Qin of Bird & Bird consider the practical implications of the decision and the significance it may have on practitioners going forward.
Reprinted with permission from the March 18, 2011 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.
Over the last couple of years, the predominant goal in many business bankruptcy proceedings has been the sale of substantially all of the estate's assets. Such bankruptcy sales are often favored by buyers under Section 363(f), which enables a "free and clear" transfer of the assets.
Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a trustee or debtor-in-possession may sell property free and clear of “any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate.” Thus, a buyer can generally acquire assets from a bankruptcy estate without subjecting itself to liability or claims based on the seller’s prior actions. InMorgan Olson, LLC v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), No. 02-16131, 2011 WL 766661 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Reaffirmation agreement becomes effective upon filing with the Court if represented by an attorney and not presumed an undue hardship. Per the reaffirmation agreement language set out in the Code, “…No court approval is required if your reaffirmation agreement is for a consumer debt secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, security deed, or other lien on your real property, like your home.” § 524(k)(3)(J)(i)7.
Introduction
The ability of a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”) to sell bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear” of competing interests in the property has long been recognized as one of the most important advantages of a bankruptcy filing as a vehicle for restructuring a debtor’s balance sheet and generating value. Still, section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, which delineates the circumstances under which an asset can be sold free and clear of “any interest in such property,” has generated a fair amount of controversy.
On May 4, 2012, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that the Bankruptcy Court has the injunctive power to enforce the automatic stay against entities falling within the Bankruptcy Court’s in personam jurisdiction, and that, in this case, the enforcement of the automatic stay did not violate interests of comity. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC), No. 11 Civ. 8629 (JPO), 2012 WL 1570859 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012).
The Bottom Line: