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 co-General Counsel of the Firm in 2020.

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 a member of the Firm’s Energy Finance Restructuring Team, a specialized cross-disciplinary team dedicated to energy sector bankruptcies and restructurings; the LIBOR Transition Task Force, created to develop solutions and protocols to support the Firm’s clients in connection with the adoption and implementation of replacement benchmarks for LIBOR legacy transactions; and the Firm’s recently announced Commercial Lease and Loan Restructuring Task Force, a multi-disciplinary team formed to assist clients in all aspects of commercial lease and loan workouts created by the COVID pandemic and associated economic distress. 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 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
  • Represent 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, see Meimaris v. Royce, et al., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164414 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019)
  • Represent 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 the 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
  • Represent Indenture Trustee in action brought by the issuer under a $169 million secured loan facility alleging that it breached the terms of the Indenture in issuing a notice of event of default at the direction of the senior secured lenders
  • 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)
  • 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