Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/386226826/Appendix-to-Appellant-Petitioner-s-Brief-In-Re-Ocean-Rig-UDW-Inc-Second-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Case-No-18-1374
Timestamp: 2019-08-17 21:37:14
Document Index: 789081620

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1501', '§ 186', '§ 1520', '§ 304', '§ 304', '§ 1508', '§ 1501']

Appendix to Appellant/Petitioner's Brief (In Re: Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Second Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 18-1374) | Appeal | Bankruptcy
saveSave Appendix to Appellant&#x2F;Petitioner&amp;#39;s Brief (In Re: O... For Later
Zeh Appellate Ruling
Mercado vs CHED
4D07-1487.op
Joseph v. Atherton, 10th Cir. (2000)
Gilles v. Torgersen, 4th Cir. (1997)
United States v. Donald L. Bowers Janet E. Bowers, 983 F.2d 1058, 4th Cir. (1993)
Davey James Reedy v. Augusta Correctional Center, Commonwealth of Virginia, Davey James Reedy v. Buckingham Correctional Center, Commonwealth of Virginia, Davey James Reedy, Vsv. Augusta Correctional Center, Dental Department, Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appelllees. Davey James Reedy v. Buckingham Correctional Center, Medical Department, Commonwealth of Virginia, Davey James Reedy v. Augusta Correctional Center, Medical Department, Commonwealth of Virginia, 935 F.2d 268, 4th Cir. (1991)
Melendres #1989 - Ps Brief Re Courts Jurisdiction Over Recusal&Discovery Motions
United States v. Olanitan Olaniyi, 4th Cir. (2015)
Mountain Highlands, LLC v. Hendricks, 616 F.3d 1167, 10th Cir. (2010)
Ada J. Vant and Walter J. Vant v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, a Corporation, 262 F.2d 803, 3rd Cir. (1959)
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page1 of 47
119 west 72nct Street, PMB 350
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page2 of 47
District Court Docket Entries...................................... Al
Transcript of October 26, 2017 Conference..................... AS
Memorandum Opinion and Order of Judge Jolm J. Koeltl
entered April 6, 2018, Appealed From....................... A23
Judgment of the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, entered April 6, 2018,
Appealed From... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A42
Notice of Appeal, dated May 4, 2018........................... .. A43
Appellant's Statement of Issues to be Presented on Appeal
and Designation of Record on Appeal,
dated May 16, 2018............................................. A44
8/10/2018 Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018,
SONY 2366772,
CM/ECF Version 6.2.2 Page3 of 47
CLOSED,APPEAL,ECF
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 1:17-cv-07222-JGK
In Re: Ocean Rig UDW Inc. Date Filed: 09/22/2017
Assigned to: Judge John G. Koeltl Date Terminated: 04/06/2018
Case in other court: USBC-SDNY, l 7-B-10736 (MG) Jury Demand: None
Cause: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA Nature of Suit: 422 Bankruptcy Appeal
Am1ellant
Tally Mindy Wiener represented by Tally Mindy Wiener
Law Offices of Tally M. Wiener, Esq.
(212)-574-7975
Fax: (212)-496-4170
Email: tally.wiener@thecomi.com
A1n1ellee
Ocean Rig UDW Inc. represented by Evan Craig Hollander
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (NYC)
212-506-3528
Email: echollander@orrick.com
Email: steven.fink@sjfinkpllc.com
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl? 13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 1/7
CM/ECF Version 6.2.2 Page4 of 47
A2 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
(212)-506-5000
Fax: (212)-506-5151
Email: drubens@orrick.com
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP (DC)
1152 15th Street, N.W.,
(202)-339-8400
Fax: (202)-339-8500
Email: kcorkran@orrick.com
Al!l1ellee
Simon Appell represented by Evan Craig Hollander
Foreign Representative (See above for address)
Eleanor Fisher represented by Evan Craig Hollander
Iraklis Sbarounis represented by Daniel Adam Rubens
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl? 13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 2f7
CM/ECF Version 6.2.2 Page5 of 47
A3 ATTORNEY TO BE N OTICED
Drill Rigs Holdings fuc. represented by Daniel Adam Rubens
ATTORNEY TO BE N OTICED
Drillships Financing Holding Inc. represented by Daniel Adam Rubens
Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc. represented by Daniel Adam Rubens
09/22/2017 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO THE S.D.N.Y. from the
Order of Judge Martin Glenn dated August 24, 2017. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers:
17-B-10736 (MG). Certified copies of file received.Document filed by Tally Mindy
Wiener. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2. Exhibit 2)(bkar) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
09/22/2017 2. CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (bkar) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
09/22/2017 Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(l) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed
before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl? 13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 3f7
8/10/2018 Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, SONY CM/ECF Version
08/13/2018, 6.2.2
2366772, Page6 of 47
necessary form at the following ~ httP- : 1/nY.s d. uscourts . gov/foons . P-hP-.. (bkar) (Entered:
09/22/2017)
09/22/2017 Case Designated ECF. (bkar) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
09/22/2017 J DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL re: l Bankruptcy Appeal,.
Document filed by Appellant Tally Mindy Wiener. (bkar) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
10/02/2017 1 ORDER, It is hereby ordered that: The appellant shall serve and file a brief with any
supporting papers by October 30, 2017. Response( s) to the appellant's brief shall be served
and filed by November 20, 2017. Any replies to the response(s) shall be served and filed
by December 4, 2017. The Court will contact the parties shortly thereafter for oral
argument. SO ORDERED. (Appellant Brief due by 10/30/2017., Reply to Response to
Brief due by 12/4/2017., Responses to Brief due by 11120/2017) (Signed by Judge John G.
Koeltl on 9/29117) (yv) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
10/04/2017 2 COUNTER DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL Document
filed by Appellees Simon Appell, Eleanor Fisher. (bmlo) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
10/ 13/2017 fi NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Daniel Adam Rubens on behalf of Ocean Rig UDW Inc.,
Iraklis Sbarounis, Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships
Ocean Ventures Inc .. (Rubens, Daniel) (Entered: 10/ 13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Appearance served on Tally Mindy Wiener on
October 13, 2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc.,
Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc.,
Iraklis Sbarounis. (Rubens, Daniel) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 £ MOTION for Kelsi Brown Corkran to Appear Pro Hae Vice . Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings
Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW
Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Attachments: # l Declaration in Support of Motion for Admission
Pro Hae, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # l Text of Proposed Order)(Corkran, Kelsi)
(Entered: 10/ 13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion for Pro Hae Vice and Order for Admission Pro
Hae Vice served on Tally Mindy Wiener on October 13, 2017. Service was made by Mail.
Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships
Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Corkran, Kelsi) (Entered:
10/13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 lQ LETTER MOTION for Conference re: anticipated motion to dismiss addressed to Judge
John G. Koeltl from Evan C. Hollander dated October 13, 2017. Document filed by Drill
Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc.,
Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis.(Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/ 13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Pre-Motion Letter served on Tally Mindy Wiener on
Iraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
10/ 13/2017 12 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent
Ocean Rig UDW Inc. for Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc.,
Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc.; Other Affiliate Canyon Capital Advisors LLC, Other
Affiliate Elliott International Capital Advisors Inc., Other Affiliate BlueMountain Capital
Management, LLC, Other Affiliate Avenue Capital Group, Other Affiliate Prime Cap
Shipping Inc. for Ocean Rig UDW Inc .. Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc.,
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 4f7
8/10/2018 SONY
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, CM/ECF Version
2366772, Page7 of 47
Drillships Financing Holding In~illships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc ..
(Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/ 3 17)
10/ 13/2017 l l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Corporate Disclosure Statement served on Tally Mindy
Wiener on October 13, 2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Drill Rigs
Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean
Rig UDW Inc .. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
10/ 16/2017 Pro Hae Vice Fee Paid electronically via Pay.gov: for .8. MOTION for Kelsi Brown
Corkran to Appear Pro Hae Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by
Clerk's O ffice staff.. Filing fee$ 200.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208-14242864, paid on
10/13/2017. (wb) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
10/ 16/2017 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No.~
MOTION for Kelsi Brown Corkran to Appear Pro Hae Vice . Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document h as been reviewed and
there are no deficiencies. (w b) (Entered: 10/ 16/2017)
10/ 16/2017 14 LETTER addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Tally M. Wiener dated October 16, 2017
re: Response to Letter of Friday the 13th of October 2017 Seeking to File Motion or Set
Hearing on Emergency Basis. Document filed by Tally Mindy Wiener.(Wiener, Tally)
(Entered: 10/16/2017)
10/ 17/2017 12 ORDER granting 10 Letter Motion for Conference. Conference scheduled for 10/26/17 at
4:30 p.m. So Ordered. (Status Conference set for 10/26/2017 at 04:30 PM before Judge
John G. Koeltl.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/16/ 17) (yv) (Entered: 10/ 17/2017)
10/26/2017 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John G. Koeltl: Pre-Motion Conference
held on 10/26/2017. (Fletcher, Donnie) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
10/27/2017 16. ORDER: After holding a conference in this matter on October 26, 2017, the Court hereby
orders that the appellee shall file the moving papers for its motion to dismiss by October
30, 2017, the appellant shall file the appellant's opposition papers by November 13, 2017,
and the appellee shall file its reply papers by November 20, 2017. The briefing on the
appellant's appeal is stayed pending the Court's decision on the appellee's motion to
dismiss. The opening and opposition brief should be no more than 25 pages. The appellee's
reply brief should be no more than ten pages. All briefs should be submitted in size 14 font
(both text and footnotes), and all footnotes should be double spaced. The appellee should
provide the appellant with copies of any cases cited in the appellee's briefs that are
reported only on Westlaw or Lexis. The Clerk is directed to correct the mailing address for
the appellee to: 119 West 72nd Street, PMB 350, New York, NY 10023. (Motions due by
10/30/2017. Responses due by 11/13/2017. Replies due by 11120/2017.) (Signed by Judge
John G. Koeltl on 10/26/2017) (ap) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
10/27/2017 17 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting .8. Motion for Kelsi Brown Corkran
to Appear Pro Hae Vice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice
Pro Hae Vice in the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the
Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. So
Ordered. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/27/17) (yv) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
10/30/2017 l l MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing
Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis.
(Attachments:# l Exhibit A - Bankruptcy Court Order, # 2. Exhibit B - Bankruptcy Court
Opinion)(Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
10/30/2017 12 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: l l MOTION to Dismiss .. Document filed by
Drill Rigs Holdings Inc. , Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 Sf?
2366772, Page8 of 47
Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., IraklA.f)>arounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
10/30/2017 20 DECLARATION oflraklis Sbarounis in Support re: 18. MOTION to Dismiss .. Document
filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean
Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Attachments:# l Exhibit A-
Restructuring Press Release, # 2. Exhibit B - SEC Form 6-K, # .3. Exhibit C - Valuation)
(Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
10/30/2017 2 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Dismiss and Exhibits, Memorandum in
Support of Motion to Dismiss, Declaration in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Exhibits
served on Tally Mindy Wiener on 10/30/2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed
by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc. , Drillships Ocean Ventures
Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., lraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
11/13/2017 22 Appellant's BRIEF. Document filed by Tally Mindy Wiener. Appellee Brief due by
12/13/2017. (Attachments: # l Declaration, # 2. Exhibit A, # .3. Exhibit B, # :! Exhibit C, #
2 Exhibit D, # §. Exhibit E, # 1 Exhibit F)(Wiener, Tally) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/ 13/2017 23 Appellant's BRIEF. Document filed by Tally Mindy Wiener. Appellee Brief due by
12/13/2017. (Wiener, Tally) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/20/2017 24 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 18. MOTION to Dismiss .. Document
Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered:
11/20/2017)
11/20/2017 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Appellees' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion to Dismiss served on Tally Mindy Wiener on November 20, 2017. Service was
made by Mail. Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings Inc., Drillships Financing Holding
Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander,
Evan) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
11/21 /2017 26 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Letter Motion to StrikeAppellees'
Reply Brieffor Exceeding Page Limit addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Tally M.
Wiener dated November 21, 2017. Document filed by Tally Mindy Wiener. (Wiener, Tally)
(Entered: 11/21 /2017)
11/28/2017 27 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Evan C.
Hollander dated November 28, 2017 re: 26 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess
Pages Letter Motion to StrikeAppellees' Reply Brieffor Exceeding Page Limit addressed
to Judge John G. Koeltl from Tally M. Wiener dated November 21, 2017 .. Document filed
Inc., Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
11/28/2017 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Letter Response (Dkt. 27) served on Tally Mindy Wiener
on November 28, 2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Drill Rigs Holdings
Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. (Hollander, Evan) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
04/06/2018 29 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: 18. MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Ocean
Rig UDW Inc., Drillships Financing Holding Inc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Drill
Rigs Holdings Inc., Iraklis Sbarounis. For the reasons stated above, the appellees' motion
to dismiss the appeal is granted. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No.18, dismiss the
appeal, and close this case, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge John G.
Koeltl on 4/5/2018) ( ap) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
04/06/2018 Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 29 Memorandum & Opinion
to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (ap) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 6f7
2366772, Page9 of 47
04/06/2018 :ill CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 22 ~randum & Opinion in favor of Drill Rigs Holdings
Inc., Drillships Financing Holding nc., Drillships Ocean Ventures Inc., Ocean Rig UDW
Inc., Eleanor Fisher, Iraklis Sbarounis, Simon Appell against Tally Mindy Wiener. It is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 6, 2018, the appellees' motion to
dismiss the appeal is granted; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court
Ruby Krajick on 04/06/2018) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal)(km) (Entered:
05/04/2018 l l NOTICE OF APPEAL from ;ill Clerk's Judgment,, 29 Memorandum & Opinion,.
Document filed by Tally Mindy Wiener. Filing fee$ 505.00, receipt number 0208-
15029012. Form C and Form Dare due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit. (Wiener, Tally) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
05/04/2018 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of
Appeals re: .ll Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
05/04/2018 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
Electronic Files for l l Notice of Appeal, filed by Tally Mindy Wiener were transmitted to
the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
05/ 16/2018 32 DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL Document filed by
Appellant Tally Mindy Wiener. (Wiener, Tally) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
05/23/2018 31 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERNECE held on 10/26/2017 before Judge John
G. Koeltl. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that
date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/13/2018. Redacted
Transcript Deadline set for 6/25/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/2 112018.
(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
05/23/2018 34 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an
official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 10/26/ 17 has been filed by the
court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7)
calendar days to file with the court a Notice oflntent to Request Redaction of this
transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days ... (McGuirk, Kelly)
(Entered: 05/23/2018)
I PACER Service Center
I Transaction Receipt
I 08/10/2018 12: 34:58
trnwiener:5579660:0 Client Code: lrw
Description: !Docket Report
: Crit eria:
1 : 17 -cv-07222-
Pages: 17 IIcost: 110.70
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?13632687733123-L_ 1_0-1 ?fl
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page10 of 47 1
haq2oceC
3 TALLY MINDY WIENER,
4 Appellant, New York, N.Y.
5 v. 17 Civ. 7222(JGK)
6 OCEAN RIG UDW INC.,
7 Appellee.
8 ------------------------------x Conference
9 October 26, 2017
HON. JOHN G. KOELTL,
16 TALLY M. WIENER
18 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
19 BY: DANIEL A. RUBENS
23 ALSO PRESENT:
24 WILLIAMS. HAFT, ESQ., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page11 of 47 2
haq2oceC /\9
2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: All parties please state who they
3 are for the record.
4 MS. WIENER: Good afternoon. I am Tally Wiener. I'm
5 pro se. I'm the appellant.
6 MR. RUBENS: Good afternoon, your Honor. I am Daniel
7 Rubens with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, I am here for
8 the appellees.
9 MR. HOLLANDER: Good afternoon, your Honor Evan
10 Hollander, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, also for the
11 appellees.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Please have a seat.
13 The appellees want to make a motion to dismiss the
14 bankruptcy appeal. So, very briefly, Mr. Rubens, do you want
15 to tell me the basis for the motion in view of the appellant's
17 MR. RUBENS: Yes, your Honor.
18 Just by way of brief background on this restructuring,
19 Ocean Rig Group is an international offshore oil drilling
20 contractor. It got caught up in a down cycle in the crude oil
21 market in the past few years. So Ocean Rig had some debts
22 coming due and began restructuring negotiations and discussions
23 in 2016 and came to agreement with a large group of affected
24 creditors; and, earlier this year, for affiliated Ocean Rig
25 companies, they reorganized in proceedings in the Cayman
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page12 of 47 3
1 Islands under court supervision.
2 In aid of that restructuring, Ocean Rigs' foreign
3 representatives filed Chapter 15 petitions here in New York,
4 and those were assigned to Judge Glenn. All these proceedings
5 have now concluded. The Cayman court approved four
6 interrelated restructuring plans, and the Chapter 15 court
7 recognized the Cayman proceedings and entered injunctions in
8 aid of the restructuring that came out of those proceedings,
9 and everything became fully consummated on September 22 when
10 that was the effective date under the Cayman plans.
11 THE COURT: What was the date?
12 MR. RUBENS: September 22, 2017.
13 We are here on Ms. Wiener's appeal from the
14 recognition order in the bankruptcy court. Ms. Wiener is the
15 only person who filed an objection to the recognition motion.
16 She did so in her capacity as an alleged shareholder, and she
17 is now appealing. Ms. Wiener did not participate in the any of
18 the Cayman proceedings and she has never sought to stay any
19 court order in the Cayman Islands or in the bankruptcy court
20 proceedings, so the restructuring has become effective.
21 So we are seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss on
22 two grounds:
23 The first is lack of standing. Standing in bankruptcy
24 appeals is more stringent than the typical Article III standing
25 requirement. It requires the appellant be the person
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page13 of 47 4
1 aggrieved, meaning that they have to have a direct pecuniary
2 stake in the restructuring. We submit here that that's lacking
3 because, as an equityholder, an alleged equityholder of
4 insolvent enterprise, Ms. Wiener did not stand to recover in
5 the underlying proceedings.
6 I understand there has been some question raised in
7 Ms. Wiener's letter about solvency, but the entire premise of
8 the proceedings in the Cayman Islands is that the debtors were
9 insolvent, and Ms. Wiener has not participated in those
10 proceedings. There is an extensive record and findings of the
11 Cayman court in respect to the restructuring being in the best
12 interest of creditors who themselves were not made whole, the
13 value available as distributed to creditors, and there is
14 nothing for equity.
15 So, in effect, Ms. Wiener's appeal and challenge to
16 the recognition order is asserting the rights of third parties
17 who are the creditors who overwhelmingly supported the
18 restructuring and have never made any of these objections.
19 THE COURT: How much did the creditors recover?
20 MR. RUBENS: It was about 2.6 billion total. There
21 was new equity issued, there was new secured debt, and there
22 were cash distributions
23 THE COURT: No, no. The creditors were not paid 100
24 cents on the dollar.
25 MR. RUBENS: That's right. The total outstanding debt
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page14 of 47 5
1 involved was about 3.7 billion.
2 THE COURT: 3.7 billion?
3 MR. RUBENS: Yes.
4 THE COURT: And available for distribution was?
5 MR. RUBENS: It was 2.6 billion.
6 THE COURT: And the second part of your argument is
7 equitable mootness because the plan has been consummated?
8 MR. RUBENS: That's right. Everything in the Cayman
9 Islands has been consummated. The injunction entered by the
10 bankruptcy court has gone into effect, and no stay was ever
11 assigned so -- and none of the factors that might be considered
12 the same in applying the doctrine apply here. There is new
13 equity issued, new debt issued, the test of cash equities has
14 been made, management agreements have been entered into. So
15 there are so many things that undoing the recognition order
16 would require the equities on third parties.
18 Ms. Wiener.
19 MS. WIENER: Your Honor, thank you. Good afternoon.
20 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
21 MS. WIENER: I think that the presentation is a little
22 confusing by the appellees. This is a straight up and down
23 appeal of a Chapter 15 recognition order. Also, what came out
24 of the Cayman schemes, which I am not challenging and have not
25 challenged, is a debt for equity swap mostly. So it is not 2.6
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page15 of 47 6
1 billion in value that was distributed. And analytically,
2 anyway, the shareholders are not out of the money in the same
3 way that they would be in a Chapter 11 plan if creditors
4 weren't paid in full. This is just different, this is --
5 structurally, this is a scheme and shareholders were left with
6 0.02 percent of the equity. So the repetition of the reference
7 in the letter to allegedly asserting creditor rights, I'm not.
8 I'm asserting my right as a shareholder to what's left in the
9 money as part of the scheme
10 THE COURT: Their argument with respect to lack of
11 standing is that in fact, as an equityholder, you have no
12 standing because there was nothing left for equity. The entire
13 estate could have been left to the creditors who were not paid
14 100 percent on the dollar in any event.
15 MS. WIENER: But they didn't do that. They left
16 equity. They could have possibly wiped out equity, but no
17 court has ever entertained that because they left equity with
18 0.02 percent.
19 THE COURT: But the argument is that equity got
20 something that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
21 MS. WIENER: Equity got something there for a reason,
22 which is that this is a publicly traded company. It's a NASDAQ
23 traded debtor. Upon the Chapter 15 filing, as is normal,
24 NASDAQ stepped in to try to delist the debtors, but the debtor
25 wanted to stay publicly traded and keep taking money out of the
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page16 of 47 7
1 capital markets; and then now it remains publicly traded under
2 the same ticker symbol, which allows its creditors to sell off
3 the debt that was equitized into the market. So in this case
4 in particular, the shareholders staying in the money was a
5 critical part of the plan.
6 THE COURT: And the argument of equitable mootness?
7 MS. WIENER: That, yeah, I would like to address that.
9 I have been reviewing law, including a pretty new
10 decision that just came out of the United States Court of
11 Appeals for the Second Circuit just this -- I think it was last
12 Friday, October 20, and that's -- the case is called In the
13 Matter of MPM Silicones, LLC. I don't know if there is a
14 Westlaw number yet. I can give you the docket number or hand
15 up my copy.
16 So in that case, there was a complicated Chapter 11
17 plan. The debtors moved to dismiss appeals for equitable
18 mootness, and the court didn't allow it. First, the district
19 court was faced with a motion to dismiss and made no ruling on
20 the motion and got to the merits. Then the debtors tried to
21 move to dismiss on equitable mootness grounds with the Second
22 Circuit, which summarily denied without prejudice. So the
23 appellate courts, the district court, and then the circuit
24 court both reached the issue, the substantive issue and
25 declined to cut off the appeals on an equitable mootness basis.
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page17 of 47 8
haq2oceC A 15
1 But additionally equitable mootness is a Chapter 11
2 concept. I have been researching thoroughly. I have been
3 looking at the cases that the other side cited, and then other
4 cases. These are Chapter 11 cases.
5 Reading from the Second Circuit's opinion in the
6 Borders bankruptcy, In re: BGI, Inc., 772 F.3d 102, "Equitable
7 mootness was developed judicially in response to the particular
8 problems presented by the consummation of plans of
9 reorganization under Chapter 11. It admits of considerable
10 flexibility and its application depends on and varies according
11 to the specific factors presented in the particular case.'' It
12 goes on to discuss, "There is only a trigger for equitable
13 mootness where there is substantial consummation," which is a
14 term that's defined in the Bankruptcy Code.
15 Chapter 15 is just different. So I think that the
16 appellees are trying to graft on to a straight up and down
17 Chapter 15 recognition order appeal standard from Chapter 11.
18 And the trend and the most recent ruling out of the Second
19 Circuit anyway is not to cut off an appeal summarily, but to
20 let it go to the merits, and then the court can consider in the
21 case-specific context what relief can be granted. Because
22 equitable mootness, I think, as your Honor knows, is not
23 constitutional mootness. So I think it would be very severe to
24 cut off a Chapter 15 appeal on equitable mootness grounds
25 without letting the briefing proceed.
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page18 of 47 9
2 MS. WIENER: Thank you.
3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
4 I have a premotion conference in order to talk out the
5 motions. The parties have an absolute right to make any
6 motions available to them under the rules. I can't tell
7 parties not to make motions. I can't tell parties to give in
8 to motions. All I can do is get a better sense of the motions
9 and, if appropriate, attempt to discourage any motions, but
10 ultimately the parties have the right to make motions.
11 It is clear to me in this case there is going to be a
12 motion, so the next step is how much time?
13 MR. RUBENS: Your Honor, we would be prepared to file
14 our motion papers on Monday, and I would just add, from our
15 perspective, this is a threshold ground for dismissing the
16 appeal.
17 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
18 MR. RUBENS: Because this is a threshold ground for
19 disposing of the appeal, we think it would be sensible to stay
20 the briefing schedule on the merits pending resolution of the
21 motion, but we defer to your Honor on that matter. But we can
22 put in the papers on Monday.
24 MS. WIENER: Your Honor, I have spent a lot of time
25 reviewing their letter, responding to their letter, preparing
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page19 of 47 10
1 for the conference today. Thank you for hearing us. So I
2 would like a little more time on my opening brief, which is due
4 THE COURT: No, no, you don't have to worry about
5 Monday. The appellee says they can make their motion to
6 dismiss by October 30. That's fine. Motion to dismiss due
7 October 30. You do not have to worry about Monday. You tell
8 me when you reasonably want to oppose the motion to dismiss,
9 and I will give you that time.
10 I will stay the briefing on the ultimate appeal so
11 that you don't have to worry about filing the initial brief on
12 the appeal. I will decide the motion. If I decide that the
13 motion should be denied or deferred or whatever, we will go
14 forward with the briefing on the appeal. But meanwhile, the
15 only thing you have to worry about is when do you want to
16 respond to the motion to dismiss.
17 MS. WIENER: Thank you.
18 Two weeks for my response
19 THE COURT: That would be fine.
20 MS. WIENER: -- if I could have that.
21 THE COURT: That would be fine.
22 So the response is due November 13.
23 MS. WIENER: I would also like to, getting a little
24 bit ahead of the reply date, I would also like, if I could, to
25 have an opportunity to surreply, because as the appellant here
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page20 of 47 11
1 I would have had two briefs -- an opening brief and a reply
2 brief -- but if this is flipped around to a motion to dismiss
3 posture, they have a motion to dismiss, I have a response and
4 they have a reply, so I would like to be able to have two
5 briefs as I would have as had we proceeded first with
6 substantive briefing.
7 THE COURT: No. Surreply briefs are discouraged, and
8 then only appropriate if there is some new matter that is
9 raised in their reply, which they shouldn't be raising new
10 matter in a reply. If for some reason you thought that there
11 was a particular reason for a surreply, you can make a motion
12 for a surreply. I'm not encouraging that. I don't think in
13 general it is a good idea, but I don't preclude anyone from
14 making any motions that they are otherwise entitled to make.
15 So we have a response that is due on November 13.
16 When is the reply due?
17 MR. RUBENS: We would ask for one week, so November
19 THE COURT: November 20. Yes.
20 MR. RUBENS: Just a housekeeping matter on the
21 motions. As your Honor may be aware, there are special
22 bankruptcy rules that govern the form of motions that are
23 different than the court's local rules and your Honor's
24 individual practices, so I don't know if your Honor has a
25 preference about just filing it as a normal motion with notice
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page21 of 47 12
1 of motion and 25 pages or if we should adhere to the bankruptcy
3 THE COURT: What are the bankruptcy rules?
4 MR. RUBENS: The bankruptcy rules are 20 pages in 14
5 point font, so it's shorter.
6 THE COURT: Our rules are 25, 25, and 10?
7 MR. RUBENS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: I think we also specify the size of the
9 font.
10 MR. RUBENS: That's right, which is smaller.
11 THE COURT: We go smaller?
12 MR. RUBENS: Yes. These look like a Second Circuit
13 brief.
14 THE COURT: What do the parties want? Do you want the
15 smaller or the larger font?
16 MR. RUBENS: Appellees are prepared to comply with the
17 bankruptcy rules with larger font.
18 THE COURT: I would prefer larger font, but you can
19 use our rules with respect to 25, 25, and 10.
20 MR. RUBENS: Okay.
21 THE COURT: And my own rule is footnotes should be
22 double-spaced to avoid compressing matter in footnotes and
23 circumventing the page limits that way. Footnotes should be
24 double-spaced and the same font size as the text. That also
25 saves me having to use a magnifying glass to read the
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page22 of 47 13
1 footnotes.
2 MR. RUBENS: Thank you, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: I will stay the briefing on the appeal
4 until the motion to dismiss is decided.
5 MS. WIENER: Your Honor, if we would like oral
6 argument on the motion to dismiss, is that something we would
7 be setting now or asking for in the future.
8 THE COURT: I usually have argument on motions to
9 dismiss. I usually don't set them until I have a full set of
10 the papers and I have had an opportunity to review the papers.
11 I appreciate that there is some urgency here because when there
12 is a motion to dismiss based on equitable mootness grounds, I
13 know that I should get to it soon, but I don't want to set an
14 argument date until I have your papers.
15 The defendant also has the obligation to submit the
16 fully briefed motion to the court, a courtesy set of the
17 papers. You both should file the papers on ECF, but I want a
18 courtesy set from the defendant, because that will trigger my
19 office procedures to say this is a fully briefed motion, that I
20 should get to it.
21 MR. RUBENS: All right.
22 THE COURT: Okay?
23 MS. WIENER: Your Honor, I just have one housekeeping
24 matter. I am an attorney, but I am proceeding pro se here.
25 The local rules have some provisions to help pro ses, such as,
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page23 of 47 14
haq2oceC A21
1 for example, getting copies of the cases that are cited by the
2 other side.
3 THE COURT: Right.
4 MS. WIENER: I would really appreciate, that because I
5 don't have Westlaw, or Lexis access on a regular basis. It
6 would really, really help me out to be able to see their cases
7 without going to a library.
8 THE COURT: I think the local rule well, I know
9 that the local rule says that, in decisions by the court, the
10 court should provide the pro se litigant with copies of the
11 otherwise unreported cases. Whether our local rule says with
12 respect to the briefs submitted by the other side or not, the
13 appellee should provide the plaintiff with any cases that are
14 reported only in Lexis or Westlaw.
15 MS. WIENER: Thank you.
16 I think there is a housekeeping issue also. They have
17 been mailing me papers to West 42nd Street and my box is on
18 West 72nd Street, and appellee said there is some kind of
19 docket entry
20 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
21 MS. WIENER: My address for mailing is 119 West 72nd
22 Street.
23 THE COURT: Oh.
24 MS. WIENER: They have been sending to 42nd, because
25 it is docketed that way, but I don't know why that happened,
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772, Page24 of 47 15
1 because I think it was right on the civil cover sheet which I
2 filled out.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MS. WIENER: So how do I fix that?
5 THE COURT: We will enter an order which corrects the
6 plaintiff's mailing address to 119 West 72nd Street, PMB 350,
8 MS. WIENER: Yes.
9 THE COURT: I will make sure we enter that order.
10 The rest is correct? The telephone, fax, e-mail?
11 MS. WIENER: I don't have it in front of me, but the
12 phone number is (212) 574-7975.
14 MS. WIENER: The E-mail is Tally.Wiener@thecomi.com.
15 THE COURT: The fax is (212) 496-4170, right?
16 MS. WIENER: Yes.
17 THE COURT: And your e-mail is
18 Tally.Wiener@thecomi.com.
19 MS. WIENER: Yes. Thank you very much.
20 THE COURT: Anything else?
21 MS. WIENER: I'm good. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Appellee?
23 MR. RUBENS: Nothing from the appellee. We will
certainly send recorded cases and send service to that address.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all. Good to see you
Case1:17-cv-07222-JGK
Case 18-1374, DocumentDocument
43-2, 08/13/2018,
29 Filed2366772,
04/06/18Page25 ofof19
l 7-cv-7222 (JGK)
IN RE OCEAN RIG UDW INC. , ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is about the recognition under Chapter 15 of the
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq., of the Cayman
Islands-based reorganization of Ocean Rig UDW Inc. ("UDW"), a
Cayman Islands exempted company, and three of its subsidiaries
(together with UDW, the "appellees," or the "debtors") . 1 Tally M.
Wiener (the "appellant"), an attorney proceeding prose, filed
an appeal of the bankruptcy court's August 24, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion recognizing the debtors' Cayman Islands restructurings
as foreign main proceedings, In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 570 B.R.
687 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (the "Recognition Order"), and the
accompanying order of the same date granting related relief, In
re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 17-10736-mg (Dkt. No. 130) (the
"Enforcement Order"). The debtors now move to dismiss the
1 UDW' s three subsidiaries are Drill Rigs Holdings Inc. ("DRH"),
Drillships Financing Holding Inc. ("DFH"), and Drillships Ocean
Ventures Inc ("DOV") . Each of the subsidiaries is registered as
a non-resident corporation in the Republic of the Marshal
Islands ("RMI") and as foreign companies under § 186 of the
Cayman Companies Law.
04/06/18Page26 ofof4719
appeal. For the reasons explained below, the debtors' motion to
dismiss is granted.
On appeal, the Court reviews a bankruptcy court's factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo,
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonnanzio, 91 F.3d 296, 300 (2d
Cir. 1996); In re Lyondell Chemical Co., et al., No.
17-cv-4375(DLC), 2018 WL 565272, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2018).
The Court may affirm on any ground that finds support in the
record and need not limit its review to the bases raised or
relied upon in the decisions below. See, e.g., Borrero v.
Connecticut Student Loan Found., No. 97-cv-1382, 1997 WL 695515,
at *1 (D.Conn. Oct. 21, 1997); In re Coronet Capital Co., No.
94-cv-1 1 87, 1995 WL 429494, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 1995); see
also Freeman v. Journal Register Co., 452 B.R. 367, 369
The debtors are each holding companies that own, through a
large group of non-debtor companies, a fleet of deepwater oil
drilling rigs, which are leased to exploration oil and gas
companies. Recognition Order at 689. Together, they operate as
an international offshore oil drilling contractor, owner, and
operator of drilling rigs and provide drilling services for
offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
04/06/18Page27 ofof4719
Id. at 693. The debtors specialize in the ultra-deepwater and
harsh-environment segments of the offshore drilling industry.
The joint provisional liquidators and authorized foreign
representatives (the nJPLs") of the debtors petitioned the
bankruptcy court for recognition of the Cayman Provisional
Liquidation Proceedings and subsequent applications for the
sanctioning of schemes of arrangement in respect of foreign
debtors under section 86 of Part IV of the Companies Law (the
ncayman Schemes," together with the Cayman Provisional
Liquidation Proceedings, the "Cayman Proceedings") as a foreign
main proceeding and for certain related relief under Chapter 15
of the Bankruptcy Code. Id. at 690-91.
The appellant filed an objection to the JPL's recognition
request on July 10, 2017, asserting that the appellant was a
shareholder of UDW. Id. at 691; In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc.,
17-10736-mg, Dkt. 89. On August 24, 2017, after a trial where
the appellant was allowed to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses, the bankruptcy court granted the JPLs' petitions.
Recognition Order at 691, 707; Enforcement Order at 6. Although
the bankruptcy court observed that the appellant "offered no
evidence" supporting her contention that she in fact owned
shares in UDW, and had therefore "failed to establish that she
is a party-in-interest with standing to contest recognition" of
04/06/18Page28 ofof
Page 4 4719
the Cayman Proceedings, the bankruptcy court nonetheless treated
the appellant's objection as if she had standing and reached the
merits of her objection. Recognition Order at 691-92.
The debtors employ their drilling rigs to drill wells for
customers on a "day rate" basis, charging a fixed price per day
of rig operation dependent upon the level of efficiency with
which the rig is operating. Id. at 693-94. As of the date of the
Recognition Order, the debtors were dependent for revenues on
five drilling rigs, operating offshore near Norway, Brazil, and
Angola. Id. at 694. One of the rigs was under a long-term
contract, expiring in September 2020; two of the rigs were under
contracts set to expire in 2017; and two of the rigs were under
contracts set to expire during the first half of 2018. Id. Rigs
not under use must be deactivated, at a cost of $5 million each,
and either "warm stacked" at a cost of approximately $40,000 per
day, or "cold stacked" at a cost of approximately $5,000 per
day. Id.
Each of UDW's subsidiaries had incurred substantial debt,
which UDW had guaranteed and secured with UDW's shares of each
respective subsidiary. Id. at 692. As of the date of the
Recognition Order, DRH had approximately $460 million in
outstanding debt, DFH had approximately $1.83 billion in
outstanding debt, and DOV had approximately $1.27 billion in
outstanding debt. Id. at 692-93. Additionally, at the time of
04/06/18Page29 ofof
Page 5 4719
the Recognition Order, UDW had approximately $131 million in
outstanding unsecured notes. Id. at 693.
An oil and gas drilling industry down-cycle -- with crude
oil prices falling from $100 per barrel to $52 per barrel
between March 2014 and March 2017 -- together with the debtors'
outstanding debt obligations, their expiring contracts, and the
high costs of deactivating and stacking drilling rigs, combined
to place the debtors under financial pressure. Id. at 694. As of
the date of the Recognition Order, the debtors were experiencing
declining "day rates" and expected continued reduction in
customer demand until at least 2019. Id.
As of the debtors' initiation of the Cayman Proceedings,
UDW was insolvent and had an upcoming interest payment that it
did not have the money to pay without borrowing funds, which UDW
would not have been able to repay. Antonios Kandylidis Deel.
("Kandylidis Deel.") 'JI 15, I n re Ocean Rig UDW Inc.,
17-10736-mg, Dkt. 5. UDW also would not have had sufficient
assets to pay off its debt at maturity later in 2017, which
would have triggered cross-default provisions in the debtors'
credit agreements, accelerating approximately $3.7 billion in
debt. Id. ~ 16; see Recognition Order at 694.
However, the Republic of the Marshall Islands ("RMI"),
where the debtors previously maintained their center of main
interests ("COMI"), does not have a statute or any procedures
04/06/18Page30 ofof
Page 6 4719
permitting reorganization. Recognition Order at 694. The debtors
therefore sought to move their COMI to the Cayman Islands, which
does have statutory law and procedures permitting restructuring.
Id. The bankruptcy court found that none of the debtors have
ever maintained administrative, management, or executive offices
in the RMI, have ever had any directors who were residents or
citizens of the RMI, or have ever held a meeting of its
directors or shareholders in the RMI. Id. at 696. In contrast,
the bankruptcy court determined that, in light of the fact that
several directors of the debtors had residences in the Cayman
Islands, the debtors held regular board meetings in the Cayman
Islands, several significant officers of UDW resided and worked
in the Cayman Islands, office and administrative services for
the debtors were performed from the Cayman Islands, the share
certificates of UOW's subsidiaries securing the various debt
obligations were held in the Cayman Islands, the debtors all had
bank accounts used for the debtors' business in the Cayman
Islands, and the debtors' books and records were held in the
Cayman Islands, that the debtors' COMI was the Cayman Islands.
Id. at 696-98, 702. The bankruptcy court further determined that
the debtors had not manipulated their COMI in bad faith and that
the requirements of sections 109(a) and 1517(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, necessary for a bankruptcy court to confirm a
04/06/18Page31 ofof
Page 7 4719
foreign proceeding under Chapter 15, were met. Id. at 699-700,
The bankruptcy court therefore granted the JPLs' petition
for recognition of the Cayman Proceedings under Chapter 15 of
the Bankruptcy Code and ordered related relief, including an
automatic stay of all proceedings against the debtors in the
United States. See 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a).
Although the appellant did not seek a stay of the
Enforcement Order, on September 7, 2017, the appellant filed a
notice of appeal of both the Recognition Order and the
Enforcement Order. Among the appellant's contentions are that
venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York, that
the debtors' COMI was not in the Cayman Is l ands, tha t the
debtors improperly attempted to change their COMI, and that
recognition of the Cayman Proceedings violates the public policy
of the United States. In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 17-10736-mg
(Dkt. No. 89). The debtors' reorganization became final on
September 22, 2017. See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Form 6-K - Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule
13A-16 or 150-16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for UDW
(Exhibit B to the debtors' motion to dismiss).
The debtors now move to dismiss the appeal on two grounds.
First, that the appellant lacks standing to appeal the
04/06/18Page32 ofof
Page 8 4719
bankruptcy court's orders because she is not an "aggrieved
person" with a pecuniary interest in the debtors'
reorganization, but rather is asserting the rights of third
parties. Second, that, in any event, the appeal is equitably
moot because the debtors' reorganization has already been
substantially implemented.
To have standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order, an
appellant must be an "aggrieved person." Licensing by Paolo,
Inc. v. Sinatra (In re Gucci}, 126 F.3d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1997)
"[A] party to the bankrupt cy proceedings is permitted to appeal
a particular order only if the order directly affects his
pecuniary interests." Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In re Johns-
Manville, Corp.}, 843 F. 2d 636, 642 (2d Cir. 1988). In a
bankruptcy context, "if appellate standing is not limi ted,
bankruptcy litigation will become mired in endless appeals
brought by the myriad of parties who are indirectly affected by
every bankruptcy court order." Id.
In addition to satisfying the aggrieved person standar d, an
appellant must also have prudential standing. This requires that
the appellant assert the appellant's own legal rights and
interests and not those of third parties. In re Quigley Co., 391
B.R. 695, 705 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[T]he objecting party can
only challenge the parts of the plan that directly implicate its
04/06/18Page33 ofof
Page 9 4719
own rights and interests."). Prudential standing is particularly
important in a bankruptcy context where one party may seek to
challenge the plan based on the rights of third parties who
favor the plan. In re Johns-Manville, 843 F.2d at 644. "In this
context, the courts have been understandably skeptical of the
litigant's motives and have often denied standing as to any
claim that asserts only third-party rights." Id.; see also
Freeman v. Journal Register Co., 452 B.R. 367, 371 (S.D.N.Y.
As a purported shareholder in UDW, the appellant is not an
"aggrieved person" and therefore lacks standing to pursue this
appeal. As of the i nitiation of the Cayman Proceedings, UDW was
insolvent and had an upcoming interest payment that it did not
have the money to pay, and the appellant does not contest the
debtors' insolvency prior to the Cayman Proceedings. UDW also
would not have had sufficient assets to pay off its debt at
maturity later in 2017, which would have triggered cross-default
provisions in the debtors' credit agreements, accelerating
approximately $3.7 billion in debt. Moreover, under the Cayman
Scheme, UDW's debt was to be exchanged for new equity
representing the value of UDW immediately prior to the
restructuring of the other debtors. Kandylidis Deel. ~ 19. That
is, the total value of UDW, represented by the new equity, would
go to UDW's creditors pro rata, with no value left for its
1:17-cv-07222-JGK 43-2, 08/13/2018,
04/06/18 Page34 of of
Page 10 4719
pre-restructuring shareholders. The appellant, as a purported
shareholder, did not stand to lose anything from, and thus had
no pecuniary interest in, UDW's restructuring. While the Cayman
Scheme called for a small portion of new equity -- 0.02% -- to
go to pre-reorganization shareholders, it did so not because
those shareholders were entitled to those newly issued shares
(i.e., not because the debtors' creditors had all been paid in
full), but rather in an effort to avoid having to re-register
UDW's shares on the NASDAQ, which would have "adversely
affected" the newly issued shares. See Appellant's Mem. Law
Opp'n to Appellees' Mot. Dismiss Ex. C at 2-3.
The appellant also contends that because UDW's
pre-restructuring shareholders were to receive 0.02% of the
UDW's newly issued equity under the Cayman Scheme, that she had
a pecuniary interest in UDW's restructuring. However, the fact
that UDW's creditors chose to provide its pre-restructuring
shareholders with this nominal amount of new equity in an effort
to avoid having to re-register its stock on NASDAQ, thereby
providing increased liquidity for the creditors' own shares of
UDW, does not change the fact that the appellant was not
entitled to receive anything as part of the debtors'
restructuring because the debtors' creditors had not received
the full portion of their claims. While unsecured creditors may
have standing to challenge such "gifts" to shareholders when
04/06/18 Page35 of 47
Page 11of19
their own recovery is adversely affected, none of the creditors
in this case opposed this plan, and the appellant does not point
to any authority for the proposition that such "gifts" provide
the recipient shareholders with standing to contest the
restructuring. See In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., 634 F.3d 79, 95 (2d
Cir. 2011) ("Absent the consent of all impaired classes of
unsecured claimants, therefore, a confirmable plan must ensure
either (i) that the dissenting class receives the full value of
its claim, or (ii) that no classes junior to that class receive
any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or
Rather than contesting the debtors' insolvency, the
appellant contends that under the decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals' in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d 127
(2d Cir. 2013), shareholders of an insolvent entity have
standing to contest recognition of the ent ity's reorganization
under Chapter 15. However, In re Fairfield Sentry is
distinguishable. In that case, a shareholder of Fairfield Sentry
Limited, a feeder fund that invested with Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC, appealed the district court's
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order recognizing the
liquidation of Fairfield Sentry Limited, the feeder fund, in the
British Virgin Islands under Chapter 15. The shareholder's
standing was not contested, and the shareholder's appeal was
04/06/18 Page36 of of
Page 12 4719
decided on the merits. However, there wa s no indication that the
case involved any creditors of the feeder fund -- or that any
existed -- other than its shareholders, who therefore would have
had a claim to any proceeds of the liquidation. In fact, the
Court of Appeals explained that, as of the date of the petition
for recognition of the foreign liquidation, the feeder fund had
tens of millions of dollars in liquid assets and billions in
claims and causes of actions. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714
F.3d at 131. The Court of Appeals did not reference any
liabilities. In re Fairfield, therefore, does not stand for the
proposition that a shareholder of an insolvent foreign company
has standing to appeal the recognition of the company's foreign
reorganization when the company's creditors will not recover in
The appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal because the
appellant lacks standing is therefore granted.
The appellant's appeal must be dismissed for the additional
reason that it is equitably moot because the debtors'
reorganizat i on pursuant to the Cayman Proceedings has already
taken place, and the appellant did not seek a stay of the
bankruptcy court's Recognition Order.
"An appeal [of a reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code] should . be dismissed as moot when, even
04/06/18 Page37 of of
Page 13 4719
though effective relief could conceivably be fashioned,
implementation of that relief would be inequitable." Official
Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Aerospace & Def. Co. v.
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel Co. (In re
Chateaugay Corp.), 988 F.2d 322, 325 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Chateaugay
!"l. "Equitable mootness is a prudential doctrine that is
invoked to avoid disturbing a reorganization plan once
implemented." Deutsche Bank AG v. Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
(In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.), 416 F.3d 136, 144 (2d
Cir. 2005). Courts have imported the policy from its origin in
Chapter 11 to cases under Chapters 7, 9, and 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code. See Stokes v. Gardner, 483 F. App'x 345 (9th
Cir. 2012) (Chapter 7); In re City of Detroit, 838 F.3d 792,
800-01 (6th Cir. 2016) (Chapter 9); Bace v. Babitt, No.
07-cv-2420 (WHP), 2008 WL 800579 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2008)
(Chapter 13) . And the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
has dismissed on mootness grounds an appeal from an injunction
that enforced, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 304 (the predecessor of
Chapter 15), provisions of a foreign arrangement winding up
foreign companies. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 174 B.R. 884
(S.D.N.Y. 1994).
04/06/18 Page38 of of
Page 14 4719
In the context of a reorganization under Chapter 11, when
a reorganization has been substantially consummated,2 there is a
"strong presumption" that an appeal of an unstayed order is
moot. Allstate, 174 B.R. at 889; see also In re Metromedia Fiber
Network, Inc., 416 F.3d at 144; A & K Endowment, Inc. v. Gen.
Growth Props., Inc. (In re General Growth Props., Inc.),
09-cv-5508, 2010 WL 532504, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010);
Compania Internacional Financiera S.A. v. Calpine Corp. (In re
Calpine Corp.), 390 B.R. 508, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). This
presumption may only be overcome when five circumstances are
(a) th~ court can still order some effective relief;
(b) such relief will not af feet the re-emergence of
the debtor as a revitalized corporate entity; (c) such
relief will not unravel intricate transactions so as
to knock the props out from under the authorization
for every transaction that has taken place and create
an unmanageable, uncontrollable situation for the
Bankruptcy Court; ( d) the parties who would be
adversely affected by the modification have notice of
the appeal and an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings; and (e) the appellant pursued with
diligence all available remedies to obtain a stay of
execution of the objectionable order if the
2 In the context of Chapter 11, the Bankruptcy Code defines
"substantial consurrunation" as:
(A) transfer of all or substantially all of the
property proposed by the plan to be transferred; (B)
assumption by the debtor or by the successor to the
debtor under the plan of the business or of the
management of all or substantially all of the property
dealt with by the plan; and (C) corrunencement of
distribution under the plan.
04/06/18 Page39 of of
Page 15 4719
failure to do so creates a situation rendering it
inequitable to reverse the orders appealed from.
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay, Corp.), 10
F. 3d 94 4, 952-53 ( 2d Cir. 1993) ("Chateaugay II") (internal
citations, quotations, and alterations omitted) .
Courts in this Circuit have emphasized the importance of an
appellant seeking a stay in the context of Chapter 11
proceedings. Loral Stockholders Protective Comm. v. Loral Space
& Commc'ns Ltd. (In re Loral Space & Commc'ns Ltd.), 342 B.R.
132, 141 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("[S]eeking a stay is of the
utmost importance to an appellant desiring to preserve an appeal
of a confirmation order."). "The failure to seek a stay of the
confirmation order pending appeal, with the result that the
reorganization is substantially consummated, in particular lends
itself to a finding that an appeal is moot." In re Calpine
Corp., 390 B.R. at 517. "In the absence of any request for a
stay, the question is not solely whether we can provide relief
without unraveling the Plan, but also whether we should provide
such relief in light of fairness concerns." In re Metromedia
Fiber Network, Inc., 416 F.3d at 145 (citing Chateaugay I and
II) (emphasis omitted) ; see also Journal Register Co. , 4 52 B. R.
at 372-73. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explained
that, while seeking a stay is not explicitly required in order
to pursue an appeal, "[t]he party who appeals without seeking to
04/06/18 Page40 of of
Page 16 4719
avail himself of that protection does so at his own risk.n
Chateaugay I, 988 F.2d at 326.
In this case, the appellant did not seek a stay of the
bankruptcy court's recognition of the Cayman Proceedings. The
appellees argue persuasively that, since the finalization of the
Cayman restructuring on September 22, 2017, the debtors'
positions have comprehensively changed, and the Cayman
reorganization has been substantially completed, because the
debtors have issued new equity and made cash distributions to
creditors and entered into a new secured debt facility, as well
as a long-term management services agreement. There is thus a
strong presumption that the appellant's appeal is moot because
the debtors' reorganization has already been substantially
The appellant argues that the cases dealing with
reorganizations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and
recognition under former Bankruptcy Code section 304 have no
force in the context of Chapter 15, which replaced former
section 304. However, the appellant cites no auth ority for this
proposition, and it is unpersuasive. The inequi ty of unwinding a
reorganization that has been substantially completed, and which
the appellant failed to seek to stay, applies equally in the
context of foreign reorganizations as it does to domestic ones.
See Chateaugay I, 988 F.2d at 325 (noting that in the bankruptcy
04/06/18 Page41 of of
Page 17 4719
context "the ability to achieve finality is essential to the
fashioning of effective remedies."). Moreover, the principles of
comity that underlay the recognitions of foreign reorganizations
under former Bankruptcy Code section 304 apply just as
forcefully in the context of recognitions of foreign proceedings
under Chapter 15. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
explained, "[c]entral to Chapter 15 is comity." Ad Hoc Group of
Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de CV (In re Vitro S.A.B. de
CV), 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2012) (noting that
"[w]hile § 304 has been replaced by Chapter 15, caselaw applying
that section remains rel evant to evaluating requests for
relief"); Allstate, 174 B.R. at 890 (citing "concerns of comity"
when explaining the court's reluctance to modify an injunction
enforcing certain provisions of a foreign reorganization).
Congress explicitly instructed that "[i]n interpreting [Chapter
15], the court shall consider its international origin, and the
need to promote an application of this chapter that is
consistent with the application of similar statutes adopted by
foreign jurisdictions." 11 U.S.C. § 1508. Refusing to recognize
foreign bankruptcy proceedings that have been substantially
consummated plainly would not promote the application of similar
statutes in foreign jurisdictions, nor would it promote
international cooperation and legal certainty, enumerated
objectives of Chapter 15. 11 u.s.c. § 1501(a).
04/06/18 Page42 of of
Page 18 4719
Just as in domestic reorganizations, the principles of
finality and fairness weigh heavily in favor of dismissing as
moot the appeal of a substantially consummated reorganization
where the appellant failed to seek a stay of the reorganization.
And just as under former Bankruptcy Code section 304, concerns
of comity and the interest in promoting the application of
statutes in foreign jurisdictions that are similar to United
States bankruptcy proceedings weigh heavily in favor of
recognizing reorganization schemes enacted by foreign
authorities. Because the appellant has failed to show why these
same concerns do not apply in this case, the appellees' motion
to dismiss this appeal as equitably moot is granted.
The appellant has moved to strike the appellees' reply
brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The gist of the
appellant's argument is that, unless the district court orders
otherwise, under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
8013 (f) (3) (B) a reply brief must not exceed ten pages, see Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 8013(f) (3) (B), and that the appellees' reply brief,
"which is 15 pages long, exceeds the 10-page limit . .
Appellant's Letter Mot. Seeking Strike Appellees' Reply Brief
(Dkt. No. 26) at 2.
The appellant's letter motion lacks merit and is denied.
The appellees' reply brief is ten pages long. See Appellees'
04/06/18 Page43 of of
Page 19 4719
Reply Mem. Law Supp. Mot. Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 24). The
appellant's argument is based on the contention that because
Rule 8013 does not specifically exempt the cover page, table of
contents, table of authorities, and the signature block from the
ten-page limit, that the Rule' ten-page limit is inclusive of
this non-substantive content. The appellant does not posit any
rationale for why non-substantive portions of a brief should
count toward a page limit. Under the appellant's reading of Rule
8013, in fact, no cover page, table of contents, or table of
authorities is required, and litigants would therefore have an
incentive to exclude such non-substantive -- but
useful -- content in order to save space for argument. Such an
outcome is not required by the Rule. In any event, the Court
would grant any necessary motion to include these
non-substantive items nunc pro tune pursuant to Rule 8013(f) (3).
For the reasons stated above, the appellees' motion to
dismiss the appeal is granted. The Clerk is directed to close
Docket No.18, dismiss the appeal, and close this case.
April 5, 2018 \Z'~ {/~
f "<J John G. Koel tl
bni'fed States District Judge
Case 18-1374, Document Document
43-2, 08/13/2018, 2366772,
30 Filed Page44
04/06/18 Page of 471
A42 rFusr)c~- s!·iNv · ·- _-:. ·-·-· · -
11 DOCl r ~.11El\ i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT l ED~~:
I I :(' J-P()N·'('t,f l 'y'
#: " . J I . . .
J"7 1 l r-f) ,'
l 1 ! L
lbrE52:,~j:_1/_~Q~~-~ .
IN RE OCEAN RIG UDW INC., ET AL. 17 CIVIL 7222 (JGK)
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in
the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Apri I 6, 2018, the appel lees' motion to
dismiss the appeal is granted; accordingly, the case is closed.
Case 18-1374, Document 43-2, 08/13/2018,
Document 2366772,
31 Filed Page45
05/04/18 Pageof
In r Occun R ig UD\V Inc. et al .
Tally M. W iener, File No. J 7-cv-7222 (J G K)
Ocean Rig D\\' Inc.,
Drill Ri~ Holding Inc.•
Drill hip' Fina ncing H olding Inc.•
Orilhhip Oce n \'eotures Inc,
Eleanor Fbhcr. l raklis barouni
a nti ...'imon ppell
Notice of Appeal to the United S tate· C ourt of Appeals for the cc ond C ircuit
Shareholder 1 ally M. Wiener appeals Lo the Uni Led States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from
the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment of the United States District Court !'or the Southern
D1stncl of New York, entered in this c.isc on the sixth day of April. 2018 in faH>r of Ocean Rig UDW
Inc .. Drill Rig~ Holdings [nc .• Drillships FinanLing llolding. Inc .. Drillships Ocean\ cnturcs Inc. Eleanor
Fi her. lrakli::. barounis and Simon Appell dismi. sing the hareholder appeal lo th~ nited . tates District
Court for the Southern District of Nev. York from th~ United rates Bankruptcy oun for the outhern
District of 1 'e\\ York.
·1he panic ~ to the Judgment appealed from and the names and addresses of their re pecth e counsel are as
follO\\ :
Ocean Rig l D\lv Inc .. Drill Rigs Holdings Inc .. Drillsh1ps Financing Holding Inc .. Drillships Ocean
Ventures Inc .. Eleanor Fisher, lraklis Sbamunis and ~imon Appell
Counsel: Evan C. lfollander, Orrick, I lcrrington & Sutcli ffe LLP, 5 l West 52"d Street. New York. NY
Date: The 4th day of~1ay, 2018
-~~fl\. w~ll._
Add re c o La\\'Olce of Tall) M. Wiener. Esq.
119 west 72rtd s rect, P~1B 350
'\e\\ York. Y I0023
212.574. 7975
tally .wienerr~thecomi com
32 Filed Page46
05/16/18 Page of 472
IN RE OCEAN RIG UDW INC., ET AL. 17-cv-07222 (JGK)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE PRESENTED ON APPEAL
AND DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6, Tally M. Wiener,
the Appellant to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
In Re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., USCA Case Number 18-1374, from the
Judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York entered in the above-captioned case, respectfully submits the
following statement of issues to be presented on appeal and designation of
Issues To Be Presented On Appeal
32 Filed Page47
Additionally, the Appellant incorporates by reference the issues on
appeal presented to the District Court on appeal from the Bankruptcy Court.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b )(2)(B), the
Appellant redesignates the record on appeal to the District Court from the
Bankruptcy Court, and designates the proceedings in the District Court,
including the documents filed by the parties and entered by the District
Court reflected in the certified indexed record of appeal transmitted to the
United States Court of Appeals by the District Court.
by the Appellant this 16th day of May, 2018
Isl Tally M. Wiener
tally. wiener@thecomi.com
Documents Similar To Appendix to Appellant/Petitioner's Brief (In Re: Ocean Rig UDW Inc., Second Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 18-1374)
United States v. Moreno, 1st Cir. (1994)
Westley Brian Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210, 11th Cir. (2003)
United States v. Jack Leon Lucas, 597 F.2d 243, 10th Cir. (1979)
C2. Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, 430 SCRA 92
United States v. Zwede Smith, 4th Cir. (2014)
solu15
SofiVar
Sintex Industries Ltd 2015-04-14
Prophet NDA Mission, Trust
Amir Elegante
AICO Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting