Practices

Mark D. Kotwick is a partner in Seward & Kissel’s Litigation & Investigations Group, which he joined out of law school in 1989, became a partner in the Firm in 2000 and was named General Counsel of the Firm in 2020, while at the same time maintaining an active practice.

Mr. Kotwick represents clients in a wide variety of complex and sensitive matters, including those involving corporate trust disputes, securities litigation, banking and commercial controversies, trusts and estates disputes, employment law and bankruptcy and restructuring litigation. He has also led investigations in multiple bankruptcy cases with respect to potential estate claims against insiders and related third parties. Mr. Kotwick is also a contributor to Seward & Kissel’s Corporate Restructuring & Bankruptcy blog, Back in (the) Black.

Mr. Kotwick received a J.D. with Honors, from University of North Carolina School of Law, and a B.S. with High Honors from Grand Valley State University. He is a member of the New York County Lawyers’ Association; the New York State Bar Association; the American Bar Association; the Federal Bar Council; and the International Bar Association.

Representative Experience

Representative litigation matters include:

  • Represent a Collateralized Loan Obligation Trustee in the successful defense of claims that it aided and abetted the breach of the issuer’s obligations under its agreement with its members and wrongfully withheld distributions to investors, see Terry v. Charitable Donor Advised Fund, L.P., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18009 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2024)
  • Represent a Collateralized Loan Obligation Trustee with respect to the dismissal of claims that it mismanaged the structures and breached its obligations to investors, see Nexpoint Diversified Real Estate Trust v. ACIS Capital Mgmt., L.P., 620 F. Supp. 3d 36 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)
  • Represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Furniture Factory Ultimate Holding L.P. in an investigation into potential estate causes of action and subsequently represent the Trustee of the Liquidation Trust in an adversary proceeding brought against the Debtors’ former officers and directors and private equity sponsor, see Balasiano v. Borell, et al. (In re Furniture Factory Ultimate Holding, L.P.), 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 2164 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 31, 2023)
  • Represent a privately held shipping company in connection with dismissal of allegations that it aided and abetted the fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty of former officers of affiliated company in multi-jurisdiction litigation, see, e.g., Meimaris v. Royce, et al., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164414 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019), aff’d, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33072 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2021); Meimaris v. Royce, et al., Index No. 656782/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 17, 2022)
  • Represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the chapter 11 cases of Schurman Fine Papers (Papyrus) with respect to the investigation of potential sources of recovery on behalf of the debtors’ estate, including causes of action against related third parties, In re SFP Franchise Corp., et al., Case No. 20-10134 (Bank. D. Del.)
  • Represent the Administrative and Collateral Agent of $1.5 billion secured loan facility of J. Crew Group, Inc. in successfully dismissing claims that it breached the terms of a loan agreement in connection with J. Crew’s restructuring of its corporate debt, see Eaton Vance Mgmt. v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1488 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 25, 2018), aff’d, 171 A.D.3d 626 (1st Dep’t 2019)
  • Represent the debtors, at the direction of a Special Committee of the Board of Managers, in the chapter 11 cases of Payless Holdings LLC with respect to the investigation of potential estate causes of action arising out of related party and insider transactions, In re Payless Holdings, et al., Case No. 19-40882 (Bankr. E.D. Mo.)
  • Represent the Trustee of five Collateralized Loan Obligation structures with respect to the involuntary bankruptcy and successful restructuring of the collateral manager of the vehicles in the Acis Capital Management chapter 11 cases, see In re Acis Capital Mgmt., L.P., 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 294 (Bankr. N.D. Texas Jan. 31, 2019)
  • Represent the bank agent for $24 billion in first lien debt in the Energy Future Holdings, Corp. bankruptcy proceedings in connection with disputes between and among different lender groups over competing claims over priority of payment, see, e.g., Marathon Asset Mgmt, LP v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 548 B.R. 79 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016), aff’d, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45228 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017), aff’d, 748 Fed. Appx. 455 (3rd Cir. 2018) and Delaware Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 566 B.R. 669 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), aff’d, 585 B.R. 341 (D. Del. 2018), aff’d, 773 Fed. Appx. 89 (3rd Cir. 2019)
  • Represent the Trustee of several hundred residential mortgage backed securities trusts in litigation over the loan originator’s repurchase obligations in the Residential Capital, LLC bankruptcy proceedings, and in connection with the bankruptcy court approval of chapter 11 plan, In re Residential Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
  • Represent the Debtor’s CRO in investigating causes of action with respect to decisions of the Board of Directors related to SPAC and de-SPAC transactions prior to the filing of the chapter 11 case and prosecuting causes of action with respect to its current or former directors, officers, insiders and affiliates, In re Quanergy Systems, Inc., Case No. 22-11305 (Bankr. D. Del.)
  • Represent the plan administrator with respect to, inter alia, the investigation of potential claims against insiders in connection with pre-petition transactions, In re Ion Geophysical Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-30987 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)
  • Represent pro bono client at trial and in precedent-setting New York Appellate Division decision modifying religious upbringing clause in a separation agreement to the extent that it compelled a parent to observe a particular religion or adopt a particular lifestyle as a condition of custody of her children, see Weisberger v. Weisberger, 154 A.D.3d 41 (2d Dep’t 2017)
Publications