As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

The Act of 17 December 2021 has extended the transitional measures provided for by the Act of 23 September 2020 until 31 December 2022. In practice, Luxembourg-based companies can hold either virtual board and shareholder meetings, even if their articles of association provide otherwise, or physical meetings if they respect the applicable sanitary conditions.

A recent decision has got the funding community talking and would, if times were different, have led to some water cooler moments. The decision is a mere 19 paragraphs long and, as will become evident, is perhaps as important for what it did not say as for what it did say.

A defendant’s bankruptcy filing need not spell doom for a plaintiff’s case. In fact, bankruptcy court is an attractive forum for plaintiffs in many ways.

Federal equity receivers frequently lack the resources necessary to pursue litigation against individuals and entities that have defrauded or manipulated consumers and investors. As a result, they often utilize contingent fee arrangements, which can deprive a receivership estate of a significant portion of a recovery, usually taking 30 percent to 50 percent of an award or settlement.

With contributions by Deirdre Carey Brown, ForsheyProstok LLP

A company is pursuing a high-value claim against a defendant. The case is strong on the merits, and a substantial recovery appears to be in the offing.

That is, until the defendant files for bankruptcy.

Arbitral awards benefit from being widely enforceable. This is the case particularly in jurisdictions that are members of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (New York Convention). Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention is rejected only on narrow grounds (Article V). There is, however, an additional ground for an award to become unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction that is often overlooked: limitation periods.

When stakeholders in a bankruptcy disagree as to how assets should be distributed, the result may be intercreditor litigation that is both expensive and time-consuming. Such litigation can seem antithetical to the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code, which encourages stakeholders to approve a consensual restructuring plan. Nevertheless, many creditors conclude they have no other choice but to litigate.