References

American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003).

Fletcher I.F. and Wessels B. (2012). Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases. VCU. 1211. ALI-ABA 75, 130 (Dec. 11).

Glosband D.M. and Westbrook J.L. (2015). Opinion: No Debtor "Presence" Is Required for Chapter 15. Recognition. 34-May Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 24.

Klidonas G. (2010). The International Scene Automatic Stay in Chapter 15: Global Stay Applicable only in Chapter 11 Cases. ABIJ. 299-38. November, at 39.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

*(1) Pub. L. No. 109-8, § 801 (2005).

*(2) See: The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (Dec. 19, 1997, updated 2013), available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/l997Model.h tml (accessed Jan. 10, 2016).

*(3) Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. (In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V J, 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing In re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 2010); Iida v. Kitahara (In re Iida), 377 B.R. 243, 256 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007)).

*(4) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a).

*(5) H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 110 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 178.

*(6) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a).

*(7) G.A. Res. 52/158, U.N. Doc. A/52/649 (Jan. 30, 1998).

*(8) The provisions contained in the Model Law were influenced by the debates and discussions that led to the European Union Insolvency Regulation No. 1346/2000 of May 29, 2000 ("EU Insolvency Regulation") (The EU Insolvency Regulation can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32000Rl346 (accessed Jan. 10, 2016)). Bluebook format: Council Regulation 1346/2000, art. 12, 2000 O.J. (L 160) 1 (EC).

The purpose of the EU Insolvency Regulation is to coordinate and define relationships between member countries of the European Union in insolvency cases. In 2011, an External Evaluation of Regulation No. 2346/2000/EC on Insolvency Proceedings was conducted amongst the twenty-six EU countries. The External Evaluation can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/evaluation_insolvency_en.pdf (accessed Jan. 10, 2016). The Evaluation determined that the Insolvency Regulation is "generally regarded as a successful instrument for the coordination of the insolvency proceedings of the EU-member states." Id. at 10.

Additionally, the evaluation observed that in the ten preceding years, most of the member states adapted their national laws to introduce restructuring proceedings and proceedings for the discharge of private debtors. Id. While member states have enacted these provisions, the Evaluation indicates that member states need to broaden the scope of insolvency regulation to include pre-insolvency proceedings and to include hybrid proceedings.

*(9) 11 U.S.C. § 1508.

*(10) See: Hon. Sidney B. Brooks, Transnational Insolvency 101: Guide to Cross-Border Bankruptcy Proceeding, available at: http://www.iiiglobal.org/node/1580 (accessed Jan. 10, 2016).

*(11) This is a survey article and a general overview of Chapter 15 with some special attention to aspects of Chapter 15 that have been more frequently addressed or litigated. This is not intended to be a comprehensive or expansive discussion of Chapter 15 as it has evolved since 2005.

*(12) 11  U.S.C. § 1501(a)(1). Although permeating all sections of Chapter 15, the cooperative elements are expressly evident in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1508-1509, 1525-1527, 1529-1530.

*(13) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(2). Sections addressing legal certainly include, but are not limited to, 11 U.S.C. §§ 15-05, 1513, 1518, 1522-1523, 1532.

*(14) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(3). For example, administrative elements are addressed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1507, 1509, 1512, 1514, 1518-1523, 1532.

*(15) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(4). Protection and maximization of value of a debtor's assets are addressed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1522-1523, 1532, among other sections.

*(16) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(5).

*(17) Compare 11 U.S.C. § 101(13) with 11 U.S.C. § 1502(1).

*(18) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(1).

*(19) H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1502 (2005).

*(20) In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. 334 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).

*(21) In re JSC BTA Bank.

*(22) George Klidonas, The International Scene Automatic Stay in Chapter 15: Global Stay Applicable only in Chapter 11 Cases, 29-9 ABIJ 38, November 2010 at 39.

*(23) Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238, 246 (2nd Cir. 2013).

*(24) See: Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet.

*(25) 11 U.S.C. § 109(a).

*(26) See generally In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 238.

*(27) In re Barnet. at 250.

*(28) In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 193 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

*(29) In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. 205, 228 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2013).

*(30) In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. 205, 228.

*(31) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109(b).

*(32) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109(c).

*(33) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109(d).

*(34) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109(f).

*(35) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).

*(36) See: 11 U.S.C. § 109.

*(37) 11 U.S.C. § 1501(b)(1).

*(38) Indeed, some believe the Second Circuit erred in Barnet by failing to acknowledge Section 1508 and instead imposed requirements for recognition beyond those in Section 1517. They suggest Congress amend Section 103(a) to preclude any other circuit court from reaching the same result. See: Daniel M. Glosband & Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Opinion: No Debtor "Presence" Is Required for Chapter 15 Recognition, 34-May Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 24 (2015).

*(39) In re Bemarmara Consulting A.S., Case No. 13-13037 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 17, 2013).

*(40) See: R. Adam Swick and Paul Harle, Section log(a)'s Jurisdictional Requirements Applied to Chapter 15, 33-3 ABIJ 30, March 2014, (citing Tom Hals, Chapter 15 Ruling in Delaware Splits with 2nd Circuit, Reuters Legal (Jan. 16, 2014) (internal link omitted)).

*(41) R. Adam Swick and Paul Harle, Section log(a)'s Jurisdictional Requirements Applied to Chapter 15, 33-3.

*(42) See: In re Octaviar Admin. Pty, Ltd., 511 B.R. 361, 367-68 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). Barnet is the foreign representative appointed over the assets of foreign debtor Octaviar.

*(43) Octaviar conducted discovery to investigate assets, identify causes of actions, and pursue those actions against specific defendants, despite the Second Circuit's reversal in Barnet. The debtor then filed commenced actions in federal and state court before filing its second Chapter 15 petition. See: Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 370.

*(44) See: In re Octaviar Admin. Pty, Ltd., 511 B.R. at 370-373; Barnet, 737 F.3d at 238.

*(45) Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 374-375.

*(46) In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., 520 B.R. 399, 413 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

2014) (quoting Octaviar, 511 B.R. at 373).

*(47) In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., at 406-407.

*(48) In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., at 412-413.

*(49) In re SunTech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)).

*(50) In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd., 540 B.R. 80, 82 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (discussing that the attorney retainer held by the foreign representative's New York counsel was a sufficient basis for elgibility notwithstanding the debt indenture).

*(51) In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd, at *3.

*(52) In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd.

*(53) 11 U.S.C. § 101(23) ("The term 'foreign proceeding' means a collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a foreign country, including an interim proceeding, under a law relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt in which proceeding the assets and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purpose of reorganization or liquidation."); see also: House Report on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 110 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 170 (discussing definitions, including "foreign court" as if adapted without change from Model Law).

*(54) In re British А111. Ins. Co., 425 B.R. 884, 902 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2010).

[T]he word 'collective' in section 101 (23) contemplates both the consideration and eventual treatment of claims of various types of creditors, as well as the possibility that creditors may take part in the foreign action. Notice to creditors, including general unsecured creditors, may play a role in this analysis. In determining whether a particular foreign action is collective as contemplated under section 101 (23), it is appropriate to consider both the law governing the foreign action and the parameters of the particular proceeding as defined in, for example, orders of a foreign tribunal overseeing the action.

*(55) In re Betacorp, Ltd., 400 B.R. 266 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009).

*(56) In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283-284.

*(57) In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283 11 23.

*(58) In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 283 1123. See also: In re Tradex Swiss AG, 384 B.R. 34, 42 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (Swiss Federal Banking Commission held to be a foreign court under chapter 15 because it controls and supervises liquidation of entities, such as the debtor, that are in brokerage trade).

*(59) See: In re Betacorp, Ltd., at 284.

*(60) 11 U.S.C. § 101(24). The Model Law provides that a foreign representative applying for recognition must be "a person or body within the meaning of article 2(d)." Model Law, art. 17. Article 2(d) contains the definition of "foreign representative," which means, "a person or body, including one appointed on an interim basis, authorized in a foreign proceeding to administer the reorganization or the liquidation of the debtor's assets or affairs to act as a representative of the foreign proceeding." Interestingly, it appears that there is a need for a technical amendment to section 101, so as to add the term "body." While "person" is defined in 11 US.C. § 101(41), "body" is not a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code. Reference to "body" is also made in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1516(a), 1517(a)(2), and 1527(1) with no linkage to any defined term.

*(61) Reserve Int'l Liquidity Fund, Ltd. v. Caxton Int'l Ltd., No. 09cv902l(PGG), 2010 WL 1779282, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010); (citing Finanz AG Zurich v. Banco Economico S.A., 192 F.3d 240, 246 (2nd Cir. 1999)).

*(62) 11 U.S.C. § 1509; See: In re OAS, S.A., 533 B.R. 83, 99-100 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) (holding that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not require judicial authorization or appointment of a foreign representative for foreign representative to have authority to act).

*(63) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(4).

*(64) 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a); see also: In re ABC Learning Centres, 728 F.3d 301, 311 (3d Cir. 2013).

*(65) In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 488 B.R. at 222-23 ("In a chapter 15 case, the United States court acts only in an ancillary role ... In light of the United States court's ancillary role under chapter 15, there is no estate created ... [ejection 541(a), establishing the estate under all chapters other than chapter 9, does not apply.").

*(66) In re Qimonda AG, 482 B.R. 879, 887 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2012).

*(67) Compare 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) with 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(1).

*(68) In re ABC Learning Centres, 728 F.3d at 313 (Plaintiffs in adversary proceeding are arguing bare legal title to properly cannot be considered "properly of the debtor" under in a Chapter 15 proceeding because it would not be "property of the estate" under 11 U.S.C. § 541(d) where the debtor has no equitable interest in the properly. The Third Circuit found it unpersuasive, reinforcing that where a debtor holds bare legal title without an equitable interest, the estate acquires bare legal title without any equitable interest as we'll).

*(69) Lavie v. Ran, 406 B.R. 277, 283 (S.D. Tex. 2009).

*(70) 11 U.S.C. § 1511(a)(2).

*(71) 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(1).

*(72) In re British Am. Ins. Co., 425 B.R. at 908-909; In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 374 B.R. 122, 129 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 389 B.R. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 633 (Bankr. E.D.Ca. 2006).

*(73) Hertz v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 93 (2010); In re Fairfield Sentiy Ltd., 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).

*(74) In re British Am. Isle of Venice (BVI), Ltd., 441 B.R. 713, 720 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2010); In re Fairfield Sentiy Ltd., 10 Civ. 7311 (GBD), 2011 WL 4357421, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011); In re Ran, 607 F. 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 2010); In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd., 458 B.R. 63, 76-77 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).

*(75) In re British Am. Isle of Venice (BVI), Ltd., 441 B.R. at 720.

*(76) 11 U.S.C. § 1516(c).

*(77) In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 76; In re Tri-Continental, 349 B.R. at 635; In re Betacorp, 400 B.R. at 285.

*(78) 11 U.S.C. § 1516(c) ("In the absence of evidence to the contrary..."); In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. 103, 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).

*(79) H.R. Rep. 109-131, pt. 1, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. at 112-113 (2005).

*(80) H.R. Rep. 109-131, pt. 1, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. at 112-113 (2005).

*(81) In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 117.

*(82) In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025 (individual chapter 15); In re Betacorp Ltd., 400 B.R. at 290-292 (business chapter 15); In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 425 B.R. at 909-911 (business chapter 15); In re Fairfield Sentry, Ltd., 440 B.R. at 60 (business chapter 15).

*(83) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(4); see also: In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025.

*(84) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(4); see also: In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1025.

*(85) In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1026; Betacorp relied on a lower court decision in Ran., 400 B.R. at 290-91 (citing In re Ran, 390 B.R. 257, 264, n. 3 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)).

*(86) In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 72; 11 U.S.C. § 1504; In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 192 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also: In re Kemsley, 498 B.R. 346, 360 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. 2013).

*(87) In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R at 72.

*(88) In re Millennium Global, 458 B.R. at 72.

*(89) In re SunTech, 520 B.R, at 416-417.

*(90) In re SunTech, 520 B.R, at 417-419.

*(91) In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 419-420.

*(92) In re SunTech, 520 B.R., at 420.

*(93) See: In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. 498, 518 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 714 F.3d 127, 133-134 (2d Cir. 2013)).

*(94) See: In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. 498, 518.

*(95) See: In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. at 519 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. at 65).

*(96) See: In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R. at 501 (citing In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 118); see: id. at 518.

*(97) See: In re Creative Fin. Ltd., 543 B.R., at 519 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d at 129).

*(98) In re Fairfield Sentry ltd., 714 F.3d at 138 11.10.

*(99) See: OAS, S.A., 533 B.R. at 101-103.

*(100) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(5).

*(101) Lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.

*(102) lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.

*(103) lavie, 406 B.R. at 284.

*(104) lavie, 406 B.R. at 284 (citing In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, ltd, 389 B.R. 325, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

*(105) lavie, 406 B.R. at 284 (citing In re Bear Stearns, 389 B.R. at 334 and In re SPhinX, ltd., 351 B.R. at 120, n. 22).

*(106) lavie, 406 B.R., at 285.

*(107) lavie, 406 B.R., at 285.

*(108) 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b)(2); In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d at 1044; see also: United States v. J.A. Jones Constr. Grp., LLC, 333 B.R. 637, 638 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

*(109) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1044; (citing In re Schimmelpenninck, 183 F.3d 347, 364 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)); Overseas Inns S.A.P.A. v. U.S., 911 F.2d 1146, 1149 (5й1 Cir. 1990) (applying 11 U.S.C. § 304 to foreign bankruptcy proceeding); In re Sivec SRL, 476 B.R. 310, 324 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 2012) ("The fact that priority rules and treatment of claims may not be identical is insufficient to deny a request for comity")).

*(110) In re Schimmelpenninck, 183 F.3d at 365.

*(111) See: In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. at 347-348.

*(112) See, e.g.: In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. at 347-348; see also: 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), providing that "(a) The commencement of a case under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title creates an estate. Such estate is comprised of all the following property, wherever located and by whomever held." (emphasis added).

*(113) O'Sullivan v. Loy (In re Loy), 432 B.R. 551, 558 (E.D. Va. 2010) (internal citation omitted).

*(114) See, e.g.: United States v. J. A. Jones Const. Group, LLC, 333 B.R. 637, 638-639 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

*(115) In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 555.

*(116) In re Loy, 432 B.R., at 556. The court's found that that a case under Chapter 15 is indeed a "case," albeit a limited one, that is commenced by the filing of a petition for recognition and not just an ancillary proceeding.

*(117) 11 U.S.C. § 1504; see also: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1010 and 2002(q)(l) set forth the noticing requirements of the application for recognition; see also: In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 555. In In re Loy, the Court considered the terms "commencement of the case" for purposes of Chapter 15 application, and specifically related to transfers subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1). The court in re Loy found that "for purposes of Chapter 15 application, the 'commencement of the case' under Section 549 is the date of filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court of a petition for recognition of the foreign insolvency proceeding." Finding another date as the "commencement of the case" may create an absurd result. Id. at 563. Ultimately, the court decided that a transfer is not avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 549(a)(1) because it had occurred prior to the debtor's filing for recognition of a foreign proceeding, and thus, prior to the commencement of the case. Id. at 564.

*(118) In re Iida, 377 B.R. at 258 (emphasis added) (citing 11 U.S.C. {51509(f) (other citations omitted)).

*(119) 11 U.S.C. § 1515(b) (emphasis added).

*(120) 11 U.S.C. § 1515(c) and (d).

*(121) 11 U.S.C. § 1516(a) and (b).

*(122) 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c); but see: In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 239-240. ("Proceedings related to a chapter 15 case, such as the adversary proceeding before the Court here, may still be subject to abstention, but only under the mandatory abstention provision of section 1334(c)(2)").

*(123) 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(P).

*(124) In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226.

*(125) In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226-227.

*(126) In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 223, 226-227 ("In considering whether there is related to jurisdiction under section 1334(b) with regard to a proceeding connected to a chapter 15 case, it is appropriate to substitute the chapter 15 case itself for the concept of the estate. The inquiry becomes - does the action in anyway impact upon the handling and administration of the chapter 15 case?").

*(127) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4) provides as follows:

(a) Upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, whether main or nonmain, where necessary to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors, the court may, at the request of the foreign representative, grant any appropriate relief, including-

(4) providing for the examination of witnesses, the taking of evidence or the delivery of information concerning the debtor's assets, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities[.]

*(128) Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004, provides, in pertinent parts, as follows:

On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity... [relating] only to the acts, conduct, or properly or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate, or to the debtor's right to a discharge.

*(129) Fed. R. Bank. P. 2004. Rule 2004 is triggered "[o]n motion of any party in interest."

*(130) In re British Am. Ins. Co., 488 B.R. at 226 (internal citations omitted).

*(131) 28 U.S.C. § 1410.

*(132) 11 U.S.C. § 1517(c) (emphasis added).

*(133) In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1021 (citing In re Bear Stearns, 389 B.R. at 334).

*(134) See: In re Ran, 607 F.3d at 1021 ("[Recognition under Section 1517 of the Bankruptcy Code is not a 'rubber stamp exercise.' ") (citing In re Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master), 381 B.R. 37, 40 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)); see: In re Creative Fin., 543 B.R. at 514 (same).

*(135) 11 U.S.C. § 1512.

*(136) 11 U.S.C. § 1507(a).

*(137) 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b)(1).

*(138) 11 U.S.C. § 1511(a).

*(139) 11 U.S.C. § 1519(a).

*(140) 11 U.S.C. § 1506.

*(141) In re Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig., 433 B.R. 547, 567 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing In re Master, 381 B.R. at 45 11.27 and In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 638 (Bankr. E.D.Cal. 2006)).

*(142) 8 Collier on Bankruptcy 1506.01,1506-1. (Alan N. Resnick & Haniy J. Sonuner eds., 16th ed. 2009).

*(143) In re Loy, 432 B.R. at 562.

*(144) See: Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 102-104.

*(145) 11 U.S.C. § 1506. One of the first published opinions to discuss what does - or does not - constitute an action that is "manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States" was In re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation, 349 B.R. 333, 56 Collier Bankr. Cas 2d (MB) 734 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). In that case, the court determined that the inability to have a jury trial in Canadian litigation, where it would be allowed in the United States, was not "manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States."

*(146) See: 11 U.S.C. § 1506.

*(147) In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 570.

*(148) In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 570.

*(149) In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 564-565 (emphasis in original).

*(150) In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 571.

*(151) In re Thow, 392 B.R. 860 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2007).

*(152) In re Thow, 392 B.R. at 868-869.

*(153) See: In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 186.

*(154) In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 201; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, 2701-2712.

*(155) In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 198.

*(156) See, e.g.: In re OAS, SA., 533 B.R. at 103-106.

*(157) 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b).

*(158) 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b), see also: In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726, 738 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal citations omitted).

*(159) Victrix S.S. Co., S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B. (In re Victrix), 825 F.2d 709, 713 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1987).

*(160) In re Victrix at 713.

*(161) In re Atlas Shipping, 404 B.R. at 733 (citing In re Artimm, S.R.L., 335 B.R. 149, 161 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005) (internal citations omitted)).

*(162) Tacon v. Petroquest Res. Inc. (In re Condor Ins. Ltd.), 601 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. Miss. 2010).

*(163) In re Condor Ins. Ltd.

*(164) In re Condor Ins. Ltd. at 327.

*(165) 11 U.S.C. § 1508.

*(166) 11 U.S.C. § 1502(8).

*(167) Kyrs v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239, 245-346 (2d Cir. 2014).

*(168) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.. at 241-242.

*(169) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.. at 242.

*(170) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 242.

*(171) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. at 242-243. When approving the sale, the BVI court specifically discussed that its decision should not affect whether the U.S. bankruptcy court would approve the sale.

*(172) In re Fairfield Sentiy Ltd. at 244-245.

*(173) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.. at 246 (discussing that the language of § 1520(a) (2) plainly requires a bankruptcy court to conduct a 11 U.S.C. § 363 review when the debtor seeks to transfer properly).

*(174) In re Fairfield Sentiy Ltd.. at 245; In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1054 (stating that comity is an important factor in determining whether relief will be granted, but the court must analyze the requested relief under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1521 or 1507).

*(175) In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 539 B.R. 658, 668-672 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015).

*(176) In re Atlas Shipping, 404 B.R. at 726.

*(177) Id. at 737 (citing In re Victrix, 825 F.2d at 713-714).

*(178) Id. at 733 (internal citations omitted).

*(179) 11 U.S.C. § 1525 (emphasis added).

*(180) 11 U.S.C. § 1526 (emphasis added).

*(181) See: Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 213.

*(182) Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 218.

*(183) See: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(k).

*(184) Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(q)(l).

*(185) Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(q)(l) ("The notice shall state whether the petition seeks recognition as a foreign main proceeding or foreign 11011 main proceeding.").

*(186) American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003).

*(187) The North American Free Trade Agreement, Can.-Mex.-US., art. 102(l)(a), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 296 (1993).

*(188) The North American Free Trade Agreement.

*(189) The Board of Governors for the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges supports the use and application of the Guidelines. See also: the Judicial Preface to American Law Institute, Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases (2003).

*(190) The various translations are available on the website of the International Insolvency Institute at: http://www.iiiglobal.org (last visited Jan. 10, 2016).

*(191) Ian F. Fletcher and Bob Wessels, Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases, VCU 1211 Л1.1-ЛВЛ 75, 130 (Dec. 11, 2012) (As of March 2012, Germany saw new legislation come into force in an effort to further flexibility of business reorganization, and incorporating EU Insolvency Regulation).

*(192) Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1985).

*(193) Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1985) at 164.

*(194) 11 U.S.C. § 1527.

*(195) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053.

*(196) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053 (citing In re Artinim, S.r.L., 335 B.R. 149, 161 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2005)).

*(197) In re SPhinX, 351 B.R. at 112.

*(198) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053 (citing In re Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments, 421 B.R. 685, 697 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)), In re Artimm, 335 B.R. at 160 n. 11).

*(199) 11 U.S.C. § 1519(a) (emphasis added).

*(200) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3).

*(201) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4).

*(202) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7).

*(203) 11 U.S.C. § 1518 (emphasis added).

*(204) H.R. Rep. No. 31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1518 (2005).

*(205) H.R. Rep. No. 31, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 1518 (2005).

*(206) In re Cozumel Caribe, S.A. de C.V., 508 B.R. 330, 337-338 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding that failure by the foreign representative to keep the court informed of developments in a proceeding in Mexico did not warrant termination of recognition, but instead required the foreign representative to file written status reports with the court no less often than the last day of each calendar quarter).

*(207) Guide to Enactment of Model Law, 174.

*(208) H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.

*(209) 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a).

*(210) 11 U.S.C. § 1520(b).

*(211) 11 U.S.C. § 1520(c).

*(212) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a).

*(213) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(1).

*(214) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(2).

*(215) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3).

*(216) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4).

*(217) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5).

*(218) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(6).

*(219) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7).

*(220) H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.

*(221) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1054.

*(222) Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (In re Jaffe), 737 F.3d 14, 30 (4th Cir. 2013).

*(223) In re Jaffe at 19; 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5); In re Qimonda AG, 462 B.R. 165, 175 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2011).

*(224) In re Jaffe, 737 F.3d at 30.

*(225) In re Rede Energia, S.A., 515 B.R. 69, 92 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014).

*(226) In re Rede Energia, S.A., at 82-84.

*(227) In re Rede Energia, S.A., at 90-94.

*(228) In re Rede Energia, S.A., at 97.

*(229) In re Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1053-1054.

*(230) In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 242.

*(231) In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 242 (citing In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 714 F.3d at 131).

*(232) In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 244.

*(233) In re Barnet, 737 F.3d at 244.

*(234) 11 U.S.C. § 1521(c).

*(235) 11 U.S.C. § 1513.

*(236) U.S.C. § 1514 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1010, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002.

*(237) 11 U.S.C. § 1522(a). The word "adequately" in Model Law, articles 21(2) and 22(1), has been changed to "sufficiently" in sections 1521(b) and 1522(a) to avoid confusion with the Bankruptcy Code's defined term "adequate protection." See: H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 149 (Apr. 8, 2005), 2005 WL 832198 at *82.

*(238) 11 U.S.C. § 1522(a).

*(239) 11 U.S.C. § 1522(b). See also In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. at 636; In re Atlas, 404 B.R. at 739.

*(240) In re Tri-Continental Exchange, 349 B.R. at 637.

*(241) Id. at 636-637.

*(242) See, e.g.: In re ABC Learning Centres Ltd., 445 B.R. 318, 335-36 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010); In re Compania de Alimentos Fargo, S.A., 376 B.R. 427, 437 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); and In re Qimonda, 433 B.R. at 566-71.