The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A pair of bankruptcy court rulings handed down in 2017 widened a rift among the courts on this issue.
The United States Bankruptcy Code prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an existing employee because of a bankruptcy filing.
When a special servicer or third-party manager takes over a distressed asset or franchise, no one thinks about labor and employment issues until a problem surfaces. While a special servicer or third-party manager with its own employees in the area can usually expect a smooth transition, these arrangements often occur in places that are far-removed from the headquarters or home office. A special servicer may simply assume that it is taking over the former operator’s employees, and not think twice about other labor issues.
When defending against an employee's claims, an initial step that every employer should take is to determine if the employee has filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition for bankruptcy in the recent past. If an employee filed for bankruptcy and failed to identify his EEOC charge or potential claims against his employer as an asset of his bankruptcy estate, the employee might be barred from pursuing the claim against the employer.
Because bankruptcy courts were created by Congress rather than under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is a disagreement over whether bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, have "inherent authority" to impose sanctions for civil contempt on parties that refuse to comply with their orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revisited this debate in In re Markus, 78 F.4th 554 (2nd Cir. 2023).
Businesses in a wide range of industries may now be forced to consider bankruptcy given the unprecedented economic challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This advisory is designed to provide a high-level view of issues to be considered by human resources when considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Please note that this advisory focuses specifically on a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (pursuant to which a business will be reorganized) rather than Chapter 7 bankruptcy (pursuant to which a business will be liquidated).
Doing business in the United States
2021
2
Hogan Lovells
Doing business in the United States 2021
3
Contents
Introduction1
I.Openness of U.S. markets to foreign investment
2
II.Direct or indirect market entry and choice of entity
8
III. Commercial contracting
20
IV.Labor and employment law considerations
26
V.Immigration laws
34
VI.Intellectual property laws
40
VII. Export control and economic sanction laws
46
VIII. U.S. antitrust laws
56
The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A pair of bankruptcy court rulings handed down in 2017 widened a rift among the courts on this issue.
The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.