Over the last several years, the number of Chapter 15 filings has continued to grow. One of the most prominent of these bankruptcy filings is the Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. case. When last we reported on theVitro case, the Texas bankruptcy court administering the Chapter 15 case had denied recognition to the Mexican restructuring plan of Vitro because the plan provided third party releases to non-debtors. See Vitro, S.A.B.: Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Recognize Mexican Concurso That Releases Claims Against Non-Debtors” (November 2012).
Those of us old enough to remember the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NAFTA) recall its promise of free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and greater economic prosperity in each of these countries.
* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.
Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay
This paper is based on a comparative study of the reorganization provisions of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Chapter 11”) with the reorganization provisions of Mexico’s Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (“LCM”). Although based on a comparative study, this work does not intend to be a complete description of the analyzed statutes.
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.
Founded in 1909, Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., is the leading glass manufacturer in Mexico, and one of the largest in the world, backed by more than 100 years of experience in the industry. It is headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico, and has subsidiaries in Europe and the Americas.
On August 2, 2010, Maru E. Johansen, in her capacity as the foreign representative (the “Foreign Representative”)1 in respect of Mexican insolvency proceedings regarding Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexicana”), filed a petition for recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), commencing a case under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.2 Mexicana and its affiliates operate Mexicana Airlines, Mexico’s largest airline.
On 1 September 2016 the Seoul Central District Court (6th Bench of Bankruptcy Division) decided on the request of Hanjin of 31 August 2016 to commence a rehabilitation procedure for the company since Hanjin is in a situation where it is unable to repay its payable debts without causing a substantial hindrance to the continuance of its business.
Preamble
Most if not all of our readers will be aware of a recent spate of decisions in which the English courts have been prepared to sanction schemes of arrangements (SofAs) for foreign entities having a “sufficient connection” with England and Wales. The latest decisions in Re Magyar Telecom B.V. (03/12/2013) show just how flexible the English courts can be in finding such a connection.
The background
Recent developments