In In re O’Reilly, 598 B.R. 784 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the petition of a foreign bankruptcy trustee for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s Bahamian bankruptcy case. Although the Bahamian bankruptcy was otherwise eligible for chapter 15 recognition, the U.S.

For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.

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." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.

In In re Avanti Commc'ns Grp. PLC, 582 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code enforcing a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a court in England that included nonconsensual third-party releases. Judge Glenn determined that such releases should be recognized and enforced consistent with principles of "comity" and cooperation with foreign courts inherent under chapter 15.

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

1. 最实在的权利 清算优先权，或优先清算权(Liquidation Preference)，是指“清算事件”发生时，投资人在清算财产分配过程中享有优先顺位的权利。通常，越晚进来的投资人清算优先的顺位越高，但在老投资人强势时也可能会约定新老投资人之间平等顺位，按投资金额比例甚至股权比例分优先金额。相比实际上基本用不上的分红优先权，清算优先权是更实用、也更可能给投资人创造实际价值的经济权利。

2. 好坏通吃 清算优先权可以在公司情况不佳(downside)时让投资人优先拿回一点补偿，也可以在公司获得好的收购机会(upside)时使得投资人获利更多。

3. 只是清算？ 如果“清算事件”仅包括法律意义上的清算(例如公司解散或破产时的清算)，那实际用途不大，关键是它还包括“视同清算事件”。“视同清算事件”的情形通常包括导致控制权变更的合并、收购，以及出售、租赁、转让、以排他性许可或其他方式处置公司全部或大部分资产的事件。考虑到解散或破产清算时公司多半已经没有太多资产可分，发生并购事件才是清算优先权最大的用武之地。

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

In Short

The Situation: In cross-border restructuring cases, court-approved insolvency protocols are applied to facilitate communication between U.S. and foreign courts and standardize certain common procedures. The protocols are sometimes adapted to address case-specific issues.

The Result: Case-specific provisions tend to address information-sharing guidelines, claims reconciliation, the management of assets, and dispute resolution.

In the March/April 2013 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an opinion by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluding that a chapter 15 debtor’s sale of claims against Bernard Madoff’s defunct brokerage company was not subject to review as an asset sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.