The ability of a foreign debtor to avail itself of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the automatic stay, with respect to its property located within the United States is one of the most fundamental and valuable tools available to foreign debtors with domestically located property. When a foreign debtor obtains “recognition” of its principal insolvency proceeding by U.S.

Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held inCT Investment v. Carbonell and Grupo Costamex, 2012 WL 92359 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2012), that comity should be extended to an order issued by a Mexican district court overseeing the Mexican bankruptcy proceeding (concurso mercantil) of Cozumel Caribe S.A. de C.V. (“Cozumel Caribe”) under Mexico’s Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (the “Mexican Business Bankruptcy Act”). In so holding, Judge Sweet stayed the U.S.

Two recent decisions from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court") have further contributed to the rapidly expanding volume of chapter 15 jurisprudence. In In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2011 WL 1998374 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011), and In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2011 WL 1998376 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011), bankruptcy judge Burton R. Lifland rendered two decisions involving offshore "feeder funds" that invested in the massive Ponzi scheme associated with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").

The Royal Court in Jersey has a varied and challenging workload. The cases that have come before it this quarter certainly live up to that description. Here we discuss just a handful of cases that the Royal Court has determined, that, whilst in some respects are unremarkable, in other respects serve to illustrate the breadth of the experience that the Royal Court judiciary possesses.

Representation of Private Equity Fund Finance Limited [2018] JRC 194

Advocates Mathew Newman and Sam Dingle acted for the Joint Administrators of a Guernsey company (Company), which was a party to ongoing court proceedings in England.

The Joint Administrators applied to the Royal Court of Guernsey seeking an order that it issue a Letter of Request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, requesting the High Court to act in aid of and auxiliary to the Royal Court pursuant to section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (1986 Act) in recognising the appointment of the Joint Administrators as administrators of the Company.

There has been a considerable amount of interest from clients recently on putting Jersey companies holding UK real property and other assets into English administration. Where a Jersey company and its creditors intend to rescue the company as a going concern, or English administration would achieve a better realisation for creditors than a désastre or a winding up, it may be advantageous to commence English administration.

The Statutory Position:

The provisions governing the recognition of a foreign (including a UK) insolvency office holder under Jersey law are found in Article 49 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the 'Law') and Article 6 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Order 2006 (the 'Order').

With an increasing number of businesses operating without regard to borders in today’s global economy, the importance of understanding Chapter 15 — the Bankruptcy Code provisions instructing the cooperation between the United States and courts of foreign lands involved in cross-border insolvency cases — has never been greater. This advisory will touch on the scope of Chapter 15 and its attempt to balance comity and domestic legal policy, as highlighted in the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro SAB de CV, No.

In a case of first impression, In re Qimonda AG, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Bankruptcy Court”) found that the protections of section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code are available to licensees of U.S. patents in a chapter 15 case even when these protections are not available under the foreign law applicable to the foreign debtor.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.