The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition in the United States of foreign bankruptcy proceedings have increased significantly during the more than 16 years since chapter 15 was enacted in 2005. Among the relief commonly sought in such cases is discovery concerning the debtor's assets or asset transfers involving U.S.-based entities. A nonprecedential ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue of whether discovery orders entered by a U.S. bankruptcy court in a chapter 15 case are immediately appealable.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.

In cases under both chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and its repealed predecessor, section 304, U.S. bankruptcy courts have routinely recognized and enforced orders of foreign bankruptcy and insolvency courts as a matter of international comity. However, U.S. bankruptcy courts sometimes disagree over the precise statutory authority for granting such relief, because the provisions of chapter 15 are not particularly clear on this point in all cases.

The European Commission decided on 5 July 2021 to open an in-depth investigation into the restructuring plan of the airline TAROM notified by Romania in May 2021, as well as into the EUR 190 million aid to support it under the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty.

The Romanian airline TAROM has been in financial difficulties for many years. In February 2020, the Commission approved rescue aid of EUR 36.7 million in favour of the airline in the context of a Romanian notification.

Swissport Belgium, one of the two licensed ground handling service providers at Brussels Airport, was declared bankrupt in June 2020, three months after the airport's operations were interrupted due to measures adopted by the Belgian government to limit the spread of COVID-19. Nearly 1,500 workers lost their jobs.

In order to support these workers, Belgium applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help these redundant workers back into employment (especially those with no professional qualifications or with a low level of education).

The EMEA Determinations Committee's recent bankruptcy determination involving Selecta CDS provides additional insight on the types of chapter 15 filings that are likely to trigger Credit Events.

In Short

The Situation: On August 11, 2020, a Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee for EMEA ("DC") unanimously determined that the Chapter 15 filing by British retailer Matalan triggered a Bankruptcy Credit Event under standard credit default swaps ("CDS").

The Result: The DC's decision diverged from its only prior decision (involving Thomas Cook) on whether a Chapter 15 petition constituted a Bankruptcy Credit Event.

Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines may escape fines from the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) notwithstanding the conclusion of an agreement providing for anticompetitive practices according to the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Authority.

In August 2017, the BCA had opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices resulting from the conclusion of a "Commercial Service Agreement" between Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines.