Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC has agreed to provide sufficient security to stay the enforcement of the other creditors’ judgments, which would further stay the receivership that is currently set to resume next month.
According to a joint stipulation filed with the U.S. District Court for the NMI, the other creditors who have stepped into the shoes of USA Fanter in regards to the receivership have been working toward finalizing agreements with IPI “under which the parties have worked to resolve issues related to proper form of the supersedeas bonds where multiple installment payments are being made.”
Yesterday, one of the creditors, Ping Shun Corp., officially filed its stipulation with the court stating that it has executed an agreement with IPI to stay enforcement of its judgment in exchange for IPI securing a supersedeas bond in the amount of $445,000 on or before Feb. 22.
In addition, Ping Shun agrees to extend the stay of the limited receivership in USA Fanter Corp. Inc. v. Imperial Pacific International through March 2.
As of Jan. 20, Ping Shun, through its counsel, Samuel Mok, said that IPI has secured an initial supersedeas bond in the amount of $250,000 through surety American Contractors Indemnity Company.
“In the event IPI defaults, as defined in the Stay Agreement, including by failing to increase the value of the supersedeas bond to $445,000 on or before Feb. 22, and fails to cure the default within the cure period defined in the stay agreement, then the $250,000 supersedeas bond posted by IPI shall be promptly released to Ping Shun,” the agreement states.
Chief Judge Ramona Manglona said in a previous order that she did not fully dissolve the receivership as other creditors have “piggy backed” on the judgment originally granted in favor of USA Fanter.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states that the court may relieve a party…from a final judgment, order, or proceeding based on a number of circumstances, including that the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged or any other reason that justifies relief. Here, because IPI has fulfilled its bond obligations, the court finds that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate in this case. This decision does not, however, dissolve the receivership as it applies to the other creditors just yet,” the judge stated.
Currently, the stay on the receivership until the end of January is as to the receivership between IPI and its other creditors.