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.

Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings. Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles. Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.

TRANSACTIONAL

May 2, 2017

Bankruptcy and Financial Restructuring Alert

Coming to America?--Applying Bankruptcy Code Section 109(a) to Vet Foreign Companies Filing US Bankruptcy Cases Under Chapter 15

By Andrew N. Goldman, Benjamin W. Loveland and Lauren R. Lifland

I. Introduction

THE RULING: CHAPTER 15 DEBTORS CAN ASSERT AVOIDANCE ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

The leading international insolvency practitioners and thought leaders in the world will convene for the 11th Annual Conference of the International Insolvency Institute at Columbia University in New York on June 13-14, 2011. The Conference will feature reports and analyses of the world’s most important current international insolvency issues and controversies described by speakers who are recognized globally as preeminent in their field.

Given the current worldwide economic climate, the number of companies facing insolvency that have assets in multiple jurisdictions around the world has increased dramatically. It is not unusual in today’s global economy for a corporation to have commercial offices, production plants and/ or research facilities in many different countries. A company that is faced with the bleak picture of insolvency may be forced to make decisions on whether to seek protection under a number of different statutory structures.

As previously reported, the International Insolvency Institute will hold its Ninth Annual International Insolvency Conference at Columbia University in New York on June 18 and 19, 2009. This Conference is likely to be the finest international insolvency Conference of the year and has an exceptionally talented and prominent faculty that will address today’s critical international insolvency issues and developments. Among the highlights of the Conference are the following:

From modest beginnings, the concept of Cross-Border Insolvency Protocols as a means of enhancing cooperation between administrations in international cases has become an established practice in major cases. From their origins in the International Bar Association’s Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat through the early Protocols in Maxwell Communication and Everfresh Beverages, Protocols have become a mainstay in international reorganizations and restructurings.

Summary

On 1 July 2009, UNCITRAL adopted the Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation. The Practice Guide provides a useful reference source on some practical aspects of cooperation and communication to deal with many of the conflicts and tensions between stakeholders and jurisdictions inevitable in cross-border cases. To ease these tensions, it is often essential for creditors and, importantly, the courts concerned to reach agreement about how the process will be handled.

International context