“Sanctions”
In Markus v. Rozhkov, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held: (1) it had jurisdiction over the appeals because the foreign representative was put on notice that counsel for the debtor was the aggrieved party who intended to file the appeals; (2) the appellant was barred from challenging a certain discovery order that was immediately appealable because the appellant failed to timely appeal; (3) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 is available in contested matters arising within chapter 15 cases; (4) an attorney can be sanctioned under Rule 37; (5) the foreign representative in the case cannot use Rule 37 to hold the attorney of the debtor in contempt because the bankruptcy court’s order were issued to enforce a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena that was served on a non-party; (6) the debtor’s attorney failed to comply with a subpoena without justification; (7) the debtor’s attorney was given notice of the threat of sanctions by the bankruptcy court; (8) the bankruptcy court has inherent sanctioning powers; (9) there was no basis to disturb the bankruptcy court’s exercise of its inherent authority to sanction the attorney; (10) the sanctions orders were remanded so the bankruptcy court may determine the sum of $1,000 per diem that should be imposed, rather than lump-sum retroactive sanctions that were improperly criminal in nature; (11) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in the calculation of a fee amount; and (12) the fees ordered were vacated and remanded for the bankruptcy court to specify the legal authority for the fee order – whether properly based on inherent authority or improperly based on Rule 37.