Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.
The Bankruptcy Code bars certain individuals or entities from filing for bankruptcy protection, generally because they do not reside or have a place of business or property in the United States, fail to satisfy certain debt thresholds, or are business entities, such as banks and insurance companies, subject to non-bankruptcy rules or regulations governing their rehabilitation or liquidation.
Determining a foreign debtor's "center of main interests" ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code can be problematic in cases involving multiple debtors that are members of an enterprise group doing business in several different countries. The U.S.
"Comity" is a principle of jurisprudence whereby, under appropriate circumstances, one country recognizes within its borders the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation. Many recent court rulings have examined the indispensable role of comity in the context of foreign bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings that have been "recognized" by U.S. courts during the two decades since the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, U.S.
In most cases seeking recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the foreign debtor's "foreign representative" has been appointed by the foreign court or administrative body overseeing the debtor's bankruptcy case.
Are the courts of England and Wales establishing themselves as a flexible forum for cross-border enforceability? Here, we consider this question in light of two recent High Court decisions: Re Silverpail Dairy (Ireland) Unlimited Co. [2023] EWHC 895 (Ch) (Silverpail) and Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors [2023] EWHC 2302 (Comm) (Invest Bank).
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling yesterday in the First Circuit case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, resolving a circuit split that had developed on “whether [a] debtor‑licensor’s rejection of an [executory trademark licensing agreement] deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” And it answered that question in the negative; i.e., in favor of licensees.
When it comes to offsets, bankruptcy law provides for two distinct remedies: (1) setoff and (2) recoupment.
Setoff allows a creditor to reduce the amount of prepetition debt it owes a debtor with a corresponding reduction of that creditor’s prepetition claim against the debtor. The remedy of setoff is subject to the automatic stay, as well as various conditions under § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code — including that it does not apply if the debts arise on opposite sides of the date on which the debtor’s case was commenced.
The Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which found that the bankruptcy of the Russian based oil company, Yukos, could not be recognised in the Netherlands because it violates Dutch public policy.
The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.