TRANSNATIONAL INSOLVENCY 201: AN UPDATED GUIDE TO CROSS-BORDER BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2017.1.7.110-156
Abstract
Chapter 15 of the United States Code addresses “Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases.” It is complex body of law designed to facilitate cooperation between the United States and foreign countries in transnational insolvency cases. Cross-border insolvencies do not exist in a vacuum; Chapter 15 requires many courts and systems to work together and respect each country’s statutory law and common law. This article explains Chapter 15’s purpose, “terms of art,” implementation, and practical realities. U.S. courts have interpreted the law consistently and consonant with Congressional intent of promoting comity and international cooperation in transnational insolvencies. Even so, eleven years after its passage by the U.S. Congress, Chapter 15 has proven to be complicated and somewhat controversial. Case law development continues to shape application of Chapter 15, and this article addresses Chapter 15 disputes such as a debtor’s COMI, standards for eligibility when interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 109(a), and guidance for foreign representatives seeking recognition under Chapter 15.
Keywords
U.S. courts,
cross-border insolvency,
cases,
Chapter 15,
transnational insolvency and business,
international,
bankruptcy,
BAPCPA,
comity,
center of main interests,
property of the estate,
foreign representative,
foreign proceeding,
recognition,
petition for recognition,
cases,
case law authority
About the Authors
H. S. Brooks
Colorado Bankruptcy Court Directory
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. J. Birnberg
Lindquist & Vennum LLP
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. D. Lantz
Coan, Payton & Payne, LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Pub. L. No. 109-8, § 801 (2005)
2. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (Dec. 19, 1997, updated 2013), available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/ insolvency/1997Model.html (accessed Jan. 10, 2016).
3. Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. (In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V.), 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 2010); Iida v. Kitahara (In re Iida), 377 B.R. 243, 256 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007)).
4. American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003).
5. Fletcher, I. F. and Wessels, B. (2012). Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases. VCU. 1211. ALI-ABA 75, 130 (Dec. 11).
6. Glosband, D. M. and Westbrook, J. L. (2015). Opinion: No Debtor “Presence” Is Required for Chapter 15. Recognition. 34-May Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 24.
7. Klidonas, G. (2010). The International Scene Automatic Stay in Chapter 15: Global Stay Applicable only in Chapter 11 Cases. ABIJ. 29-9. 38. November. at 39.
8. In re ABC Learning Centres Ltd., 445 B.R. 318, 335-36 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010); In re Compania de Alimentos Fargo, S.A., 376 B.R. 427, 437 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); and In re Qimonda , 433 B.R. at 566-71
9. In re Tri-Continental Exchange, 349 B.R. at 637
10. U.S.C. § 1521(c).
11. U.S.C. § 1513.
12. U.S.C. § 1514 and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1010, Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2002.
13. U.S.C. § 1522(a). The word “adequately” in Model Law, articles 21(2) and 22(1), has been changed to “sufficiently” in sections 1521(b) and 1522(a) to avoid confusion with the Bankruptcy Code’s defined term “adequate protection.” See: H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.
14. U.S.C. § 1522(a).
15. U.S.C. § 1522(b). See also In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. at 636; In re Atlas, 404 B.R. at 739.
16. In re Rede Energia, SA., 515 B.R. 69, 92 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014).
17. In re Rede Energia, SA., at 82-84.
18. In re Rede Energia, SA., at 90-94.
19. In re Rede Energia, S.A., at 97.
20. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053-1054.
21. In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 242.
22. In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 242 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d at 131).
23. In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 244.
24. In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 244.
25. H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.
26. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1054.
27. Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (In re Jaffe), 737 F.3d 14, 30 (4th Cir. 2013).
28. In re Jaffe at 19; 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5); In re Qimonda AG, 462 B.R. 165, 175 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2011).
29. In re Jaffe, 737 F.3d at 30.
30. U.S.C. § 1520(a).
31. U.S.C. § 1520(b).
32. U.S.C. § 1520(c).
33. U.S.C. § 1521(a).
34. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(1).
35. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(2).
36. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3).
37. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4).
38. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5).
39. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(6).
40. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7).
41. U.S.C. § 1518 (emphasis added).
42. H.R. Rep. No. 31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1518 (2005).
43. H.R. Rep. No. 31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1518 (2005).
44. In re Cozumel Caribe, S.A. de C.V., 508 B.R. 330, 337-338 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)
45. Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 174.
46. H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.
47. U.S.C. § 1519(a) (emphasis added).
48. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3).
49. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4).
50. U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7).
51. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053.
52. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053 (citing In re Artimm, S.r.L., 335 B.R. 149, 161 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2005)).
53. In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 112.
54. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053 (citing In re Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments, 421 B.R. 685, 697 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)), In re Artimm, 335 B.R. at 160 n.11).
55. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1985).
56. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1985) at 164.
57. U.S.C. § 1527.
58. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(q)(1)
59. American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003).
60. The North American Free Trade Agreement, Can.-Mex.-US., art. 102(1)(a), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 i.l.m. 296 (1993).
61. The Board of Governors for the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges supports the use and application of the Guidelines. See also: the Judicial Preface to American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003)
62. The various translations are available on the website of the International Insolvency Institute at: http://www.iiiglobal.org (last visited Jan. 10, 2016)
63. Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 213.
64. Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 218.
65. U.S.C. § 1525 (emphasis added).
66. U.S.C. § 1526 (emphasis added).
67. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 242-243. When approving the sale, the BVI court specifically discussed that its decision should not affect whether the U.S. bankruptcy court would approve the sale.
68. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 244-245.
69. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 246 (discussing that the language of § 1520(a) (2) plainly requires a bankruptcy court to conduct a 11 U.S.C. § 363 review when the debtor seeks to transfer property).
70. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 245; In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1054 (stating that comity is an important factor in determining whether relief will be granted, but the court must analyze the requested relief under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1521 or 1507).
71. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 539 B.R. 658, 668-672 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015).
72. In re Atlas Shipping, 404 B.R. at 726.
73. U.S.C. § 1508.
74. U.S.C. § 1502(8).
75. Kyrs v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239, 245346 (2d Cir. 2014).
76. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 241-242.
77. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 242.
78. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 242.
79. U.S.C. § 1507(b), see also: In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726, 738 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
80. Victrix S.S. Co., S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B. (In re Victrix), 825 F.2d 709, 713 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987).
81. In re Victrix at 713.
82. In re Atlas Shipping, 404 B.R. at 733 (citing In re Artimm, S.R.L., 335 B.R. 149, 161 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005) (internal citations omitted)).
83. Tacon v. Petroquest Res. Inc. (In re Condor Ins. Ltd.), 601 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. Miss. 2010).
84. In re Condor Ins. Ltd. at 327.
85. In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 201; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, 2701-2712.
86. In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 198.
87. In re OAS, SA., 533 B.R. at 103-106.
88. U.S.C. § 1507(b).
89. In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 570.
90. In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 564-565 (emphasis in original).
91. In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 571.
92. In re Thow, 392 B.R. 860 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2007).
93. In re Thow, 392 B.R. at 868-869.
94. In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 186.
95. U.S.C. § 1506.
96. In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 570.
97. Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 102-104
98. U.S.C. §1506
99. In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 570
100. U.S.C. § 1519(a).
101. U.S.C. § 1506.
102. In re Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig., 433 B.R. 547, 567 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing In re Master, 381 B.R. at 45 n.27 and In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 638 (Bankr. E.D.Cal. 2006)).
103. Collier on Bankruptcy 1506.01,1506-1. (Alan N. Resnick & Hanry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2009)
104. In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 562.
105. U.S.C. § 1517(c) (emphasis added).
106. In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1021 (citing In re Bear Stearns , 389 B.R. at 334).
107. In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1021 (“[R]ecognition under Section 1517 of the Bankruptcy Code is not a ‘rubber stamp exercise.’ ”) (citing In re Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master), 381 B.R. 37, 40 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)); see: In re Creative Fin., 543 B.R. at 514 (same).
108. U.S.C. § 1512.
109. U.S.C. § 1507(a).
110. U.S.C. § 1509(b)(1).
111. U.S.C. § 1511(a).
112. Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004. Rule 2004 is triggered “[o]n motion of any party in interest.”
113. In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226 (internal citations omitted).
114. U.S.C. § 1410.
115. U.S.C. § 1516(a) and (b).
116. U.S.C. § 1334(c); but see: In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 239-240.
117. U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(P).
118. In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226.
119. In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226-227.
120. In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 223, 226-227
121. U.S.C. § 1504; see also: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1010 and 2002(q)(1) set forth the noticing requirements of the application for recognition; see also: In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 555. In In re Loy, the Court considered the terms “commencement of the case” for purposes of Chapter 15 application, and specifically related to transfers subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1). The court in re Loy found that “for purposes of Chapter 15 application, the ‘commencement of the case’ under Section 549 is the date of filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court of a petition for recognition of the foreign insolvency proceeding.” Finding another date as the “commencement of the case” may create an absurd result. Id. at 563. Ultimately, the court decided that a transfer is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1) because it had occurred prior to the debtor’s filing for recognition of a foreign proceeding, and thus, prior to the commencement of the case. Id. at 564.
122. In re Iida, 377 B.R. at 258 (emphasis added) (citing 11 U.S.C. §1509(f) (other citations omitted)).
123. U.S.C. § 1515(b) (emphasis added)
124. U.S.C. § 1515(c) and (d)
125. U.S.C. § 1515(b) (emphasis added)
126. In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. at 347-348; see also: 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), providing that “(a) The commencement of a case under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title creates an estate. Such estate is comprised of all the following property, wherever located and by whomever held.” (emphasis added)
127. O’Sullivan v. Loy (In re Loy), 432 B.R. 551, 558 (E.D. Va. 2010) (internal citation omitted)
128. United States v. J. A. Jones Const. Group, LLC, 333 B.R. 637, 638 39 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
129. In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 555
130. In re Loy, 432 B.R., at 556
131. In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1044; (citing In re Schimmelpenninck, 183 F.3d 347, 364 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)); Overseas Inns S.A. P.A. v. U.S., 911 F.2d 1146, 1149 (5th Cir. 1990) (applying 11 U.S.C. § 304 to foreign bankruptcy proceeding); In re Sivec SRL, 476 B.R. 310, 324 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 2012) (“The fact that priority rules and treatment of claims may not be identical is insufficient to deny a request for comity”))
132. In re Schimmelpenninck, 183 F.3d at 365
133. In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. at 347-348
134. Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284 (citing In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd, 389 B.R. 325, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
135. Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284 (citing In re Bear Stearns, 389 B.R. at 334 and In re SPhinX, Ltd., 351 B.R. at 120, n.22).
136. Lavie, 406 B.R., at 285.
137. Lavie, 406 B.R., at 285.
138. U.S.C. § 1509(b)(2); In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d at 1044; see also: United States v. J.A. Jones Constr. Grp., LLC, 333 B.R. 637, 638 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
139. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d at 138 n.10.
140. See: OAS, S.A., 533 B.R. at 101-103.
141. U.S.C. § 1502(5).
142. Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.
143. Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.
144. Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.
145. In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 419-420.
146. In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 420.
147. In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. 498, 518 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 714 F.3d 127, 133-134 (2d Cir. 2013))
148. In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. 498, 518.
149. In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. at 519 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. at 65).
150. In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. at 501 (citing In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 118); see: id. at 518.
151. In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R., at 519 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d at 129).
152. In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 72; 11 U.S.C. § 1504; In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 192 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also: In re Kemsley, 498 B.R. 346, 360 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
153. In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 72.
154. In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 72.
155. In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 416-417.
156. In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 417-419.
157. H.R. Rep. 109-131, pt. 1, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. at 112-113 (2005).
158. In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 117.
159. In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025 (individual chapter 15); In re Betacorp Ltd., 400 B.R. at 290-292 (business chapter 15); In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 425 B.R. at 909-911 (business chapter 15); In re Fairfield Sentry, Ltd., 440 B.R. at 60 (business chapter 15).
160. U.S.C. § 1502(4); see also: In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025
161. U.S.C. § 1502(4); see also: In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025.
162. In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1026; Betacorp relied on a lower court decision in Ran., 400 B.R. at 290-91 (citing In re Ran, 390 B.R. 257, 264, n.3 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)).
163. In re British Am. Isle of Venice (BVI), Ltd., 441 B.R. 713, 720 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2010); In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 10 Civ. 7311 (GBD), 2011 WL 4357421, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011); In re Ran, 607 F. 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 2010); In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd., 458 B.R. 63, 76-77 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).
164. In re British Am. Isle of Venice (BVI), Ltd., 441 B.R. at 720.
165. Hertz v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010); In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)
166. U.S.C. § 1516(c)
167. In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 76; In re Tri-Continental, 349 B.R. at 635; In re Betacorp, 400 B.R. at 285
168. U.S.C. § 1516(c) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary..”); In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. 103, 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).
169. H.R. Rep. 109-131, pt. 1, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. at 112-113 (2005).
170. In re ABC Learning Centres, 728 F.3d at 313
171. Lavie v. Ran, 406 B.R. 277, 283 (S.D. Tex. 2009)
172. U.S.C. § 1511(a)(2)
173. U.S.C. § 1520(a)(1).
174. In re British Am. Ins. Co., 425 B.R. at 908-909; In re Bear Stearns HighGrade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 374 B.R. 122, 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), affd, 389 B.R. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 633 (Bankr. E.D.Ca. 2006).
175. Reserve Int’l Liquidity Fund, Ltd. v. Caxton Int’l Ltd., No. 09cv9021(PGG), 2010 WL 1779282, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010); (citing Finanz AG Zurich v. Banco Economico S.A., 192 F.3d 240, 246 (2nd Cir. 1999))
176. U.S.C. § 1509; See: In re OAS, S.A., 533 B.R. 83, 99-100 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)
177. U.S.C. § 1502(4)
178. U.S.C. § 1520(a); see also: In re ABC Learning Centres, 728 F.3d 301, 311 (3d Cir. 2013).
179. In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. at 222-23 (“In a chapter 15 case, the United States court acts only in an ancillary role.. In light of the United States court’s ancillary role under chapter 15, there is no estate created.. [s]ection 541(a), establishing the estate under all chapters other than chapter 9, does not apply.”)
180. In re Qimonda AG, 482 B.R. 879, 887 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2012).
181. Compare 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) with 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(1).
182. In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 284
183. U.S.C. § 101(24)
184. In re Betacorp, Ltd., 400 B.R. 266 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009).
185. In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283-284.
186. In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283 n 23.
187. In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283 n 23. See also: In re Tradex Swiss AG, 384 B.R. 34,
188. In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd, at *3.
189. In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd.
190. U.S.C. § 101(23)
191. House Report on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 110 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 170
192. In re Octaviar Admin. Pty, Ltd., 511 B.R. at 370-373; Barnet, 737 F.3d at 238.
193. Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 374-375.
194. In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., 520 B.R. 399, 413 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 373).
195. In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., at 406-407.
196. In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., at 412-413.
197. In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)).
198. In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd., 540 B.R. 80, 82 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)
199. U.S.C. § 1501(b)(1)
200. Daniel M. Glosband & Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Opinion: No Debtor “Presence” Is Required for Chapter 15 Recognition, 34-May Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 24 (2015)
201. In re Bemarmara Consulting A.S., Case No. 13-13037 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 17, 2013).
202. R. Adam Swick and Paul Harle, Section log(a)’s Jurisdictional Requirements Applied to Chapter 15, 33-3 ABIJ 30, March 2014, (citing Tom Hals, Chapter 15 Ruling in Delaware Splits with 2nd Circuit, Reuters Legal (Jan. 16, 2014) (internal link omitted)).
203. R. Adam Swick and Paul Harle, Section log(a)’s Jurisdictional Requirements Applied to Chapter 15, 33-3
204. In re Octaviar Admin. Pty, Ltd., 511 B.R. 361, 367-68 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)
205. Octaviar conducted discovery to investigate assets, identify causes of actions, and pursue those actions against specific defendants, despite the Second Circuit’s reversal in Barnet. The debtor then filed commenced actions in federal and state court before filing its second Chapter 15 petition. See: Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 370
206. generally In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 238.
207. In re Barnet. at 250.
208. In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 193 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).
209. In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. 205, 228 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2013).
210. In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. 205, 228.
211. U.S.C. § 109(b).
212. U.S.C. § 109(c).
213. U.S.C. § 109(d).
214. U.S.C. § 109(f).
215. U.S.C. § 109(e).
216. U.S.C. § 109.
217. U.S.C. § 1502(1).
218. H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1502 (2005).
219. In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. 334 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
220. In re JSC BTA Bank
221. George Klidonas, The International Scene Automatic Stay in Chapter 15: Global Stay Applicable only in Chapter 11 Cases, 29-9 ABIJ 38, November 2010 at 39.
222. Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238, 246 (2nd Cir. 2013).
223. Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet.
224. U.S.C. § 109(a)
225. U.S.C. § 1501(a)(1). Although permeating all sections of Chapter 15, the cooperative elements are expressly evident in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1508-1509, 15251527, 1529-1530
226. U.S.C. § 1501(a)(2). Sections addressing legal certainty include, but are not limited to, 11 U.S.C. §§ 15*-05, 1513, 1518, 1522-1523, 1532
227. U.S.C. § 1501(a)(3). For example, administrative elements are addressed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1507, 1509, 1512, 1514, 1518-1523, 1532
228. U.S.C. § 1501(a)(4). Protection and maximization of value of a debtor’s assets are addressed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1522-1523, 1532, among other sections
229. U.S.C. § 1501(a)(5)
230. U.S.C. § 101(13) with 11 U.S.C. § 1502(1)
231. U.S.C. § 1508
232. Hon. Sidney B. Brooks, Transnational Insolvency 101: Guide to CrossBorder Bankruptcy Proceeding, available at: http://www.iiiglobal.org/node/1580 (accessed Jan. 10, 2016)
233. u.s.c. § 1501(a).
234. H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 110 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 178.
235. U.S.C. § 1501(a).
236. G.A. Res. 52/158, U.N. Doc. A/52/649 (Jan. 30, 1998).
237. The provisions contained in the Model Law were influenced by the debates and discussions that led to the European Union Insolvency Regulation No. 1346/2000 of May 29, 2000 (“EU Insolvency Regulation”) (The EU Insolvency Regulation can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000R1346 (accessed Jan. 10, 2016)). Bluebook format: Council Regulation 1346/2000, art. 12, 2000 O.J. (L 160) 1 (EC)
238. Pub. L. No. 109-8, § 801 (2005)
239. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (Dec. 19, 1997, updated 2013), available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/ insolvency/1997Model.html (accessed Jan. 10, 2016)
240. Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. (In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V.), 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 2010); Iida v. Kitahara (In re Iida), 377 B.R. 243, 256 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007))
Review
For citations:
Brooks H.S., Birnberg E.J., Lantz R.D. TRANSNATIONAL INSOLVENCY 201: AN UPDATED GUIDE TO CROSS-BORDER BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. Kutafin Law Review. 2017;4(1):110-156. https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2017.1.7.110-156
Views:
337
Email this article 
