Search this site

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin moderates a cross-border panel on Commercial Real Estate Post-COVID at the ABI International Insolvency & Restructuring Symposium. A Worldwide View on Commercial Real Estate Post-COVID Open Events & Speaking Open November 22, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law Sequor Law Shareholder and International IWIRC Chair Leyza B. Florin moderated an insightful cross-border panel on Commercial Real Estate Post-COVID at the ABI International Insolvency & Restructuring Symposium. Joining the panel were Liz Machado, Dr. CS Mamta Binani, Jo Hewitt and Dr Annerose Tashiro. Congratulations on an informative session! Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law successfully defends a $19.5 million injunction protecting offshore-dissipated escrow funds, affirmed by Florida's Third District Court of Appeals in February 2019. Third District Court of Appeals Affirms $19.5 Million Mandatory and Prohibitory Temporary Injunction Order in Case No. 17-01358 CA 22 – Hakim v. Tawil et al. Open Case Results Open June 17, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law Sequor Law represented the Plaintiff in successfully obtaining a $19.5 million temporary mandatory and prohibitory injunction to protect the res of a constructive trust claim, which funds had been dissipated from Miami escrow accounts to offshore accounts during the pendency of the case. The Florida Eleventh Judicial Circuit Complex Business Litigation Court required the Defendants to return the $19.5 million to a Miami escrow account and prohibited further transfer of the funds. The Defendants appealed the adverse injunction order over the escrow funds by arguing, among other things, that the Court should not have entered the injunction without first determining it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Sequor Law represented the Plaintiff as Appellee in the appeal. After considering the briefing and oral argument, on February 26, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed injunction order in a written opinion. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Gregory Grossman advises on Marangoni Tread Latino America's Chapter 15 filing in Miami, seeking recognition of Brazilian restructuring proceedings to investigate detrimental transactions. Brazilian tyre co files Chapter 15 to probe “detrimental” transactions Open In the News Open February 21, 2019 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Declan Bush Marangoni Tread’s Brazilian subsidiary is restructuring in Lagoa Santa. A subsidiary of the Italian tyre conglomerate Marangoni has asked a Miami court to recognize bankruptcy proceedings it has entered in Brazil to investigate possible US assets. Marangoni Tread Latino America filed for Chapter 15 protection on 15 February in the US Bankruptcy Court in Miami, with Sequor Law partner Gregory Grossman advising. In the Chapter 15 filing, Marangoni Tread’s judicial manager Otávio De Paoli Balbino said he was appointed by the Second Civil Court of Lagoa Santa, Minas Gerais, on 25 January to investigate “detrimental” transactions between the company and its subsidiaries. Balbino, a partner at law firm Paoli Balbino & Barros Sociedade de Advogados, asked the court to recognize the Brazilian restructuring so he could investigate the company’s US dealings. Marangoni Tread filed judicial reorganization proceedings in the Lagoa Santa court in September 2017 and the case was accepted on 13 November. The company claimed it was hit by Brazil’s 2014 recession, low sales, payment defaults and a higher rubber price. It said it had about 58 million reais (US$15.6 million) and about 850 creditors at the time of filing. But the Brazilian court noted “many mistakes and inconsistencies” in the accounting records the company had provided, including an incomplete list of its managing director’s personal assets. The court tasked Balbino and accountant Cleber Batista de Sousa with investigating transactions between Marangoni Tread and its Italian owners, its one Argentinean subsidiary, and four Brazilian subsidiaries. Batista found “several inconsistencies between the balance sheets and the financial books provided” and concluded several transactions “had detrimental impacts to the debtor’s finances”. He also found the subsidiaries may have acquired products manufactured by Marangoni Tread for less than their production cost. Balbino said Marangoni Tread “may have had transactions with the US subsidiary of the (Marangoni) conglomerate and other American companies”. “I need to investigate the possibility that assets in the US may have been acquired using funds belonging to the debtor,” Balbino added. Marangoni Tread was incorporated in 1998 and is owned by Italian companies Marangoni and Eurorubber. The company owned 51% of Marangoni Argentina and 99% of four Brazilian subsidiaries, but sold its shares in the subsidiaries “for little or no consideration” a year before its bankruptcy filing, according to the documents filed in the Chapter 15 case. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Marangoni Tread Latino America Industria e Comercio de Artefatos de Borracha, case 19-12070 Judge Laurel Isicoff Counsel to Marangoni Tread Latin America Sequor Law Founding shareholder Gregory Grossman and associate Bruno de Camargo in Miami In the Second Civil Court of Lagoa Santa, Minas Gerais Judge Carlos Alexandre Romano Carvalho Judicial manager to Marangoni Tread Paoli Balbino & Barros Sociedade de Advogados Partner Otávio De Paoli Balbino De Almeida Lima in Belo Horizonte Read the full article here Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

An overview of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, one of the most powerful discovery tools available to foreign litigants, allowing evidence gathering in US federal courts for use in international proceedings. Section 1782 Remains One of the Most Powerful Discovery Tools as Appellate Courts Uphold its Use in Aid of Private Commercial Arbitration Open Legal Insights Open June 10, 2020 4 minutes read Sequor Law 28 U.S.C. § 1782, known colloquially as “Section 1782,” is a federal statute that allows foreign litigants and interested persons to request judicial assistance from U.S. federal courts to obtain evidence for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. Section 1782 is highly relevant to a wide array of legal practitioners, both within and outside the U.S., as federal courts have concluded that evidence obtained through Section 1782 may be used in civil, criminal, probate, bankruptcy, marital, administrative, and regulatory cases. In short, if your client is not using Section 1782 as part of its litigation strategy, there is a good chance that your client’s opponent is using it to your client’s disadvantage. Section 1782 is an alternative to the slower, and oftentimes cumbersome, cross-border discovery mechanisms such as letters rogatory and diplomatic or consular channels, because it can be pursued directly by the litigant or interested party without the involvement of the foreign court or tribunal or of the governmental authorities making up the traditional channels. Section 1782 was enacted decades ago and was revised extensively in 1964, but its widespread use did not take off until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. against Intel Corp. , or “Intel” as the seminal decision is widely known. In the Intel case, the Supreme Court clarified the statutory requirements that an applicant has to satisfy to obtain evidence using Section 1782 as well as a number of discretionary factors courts should also consider. If the applicant is successful, it can obtain U.S.-style discovery from persons or entities located where the application is filed (in the form of site inspections, requests for production of documents, or deposition testimony under oath) for use in the foreign proceeding. Typical Section 1782 subpoena targets include businesses (including affiliated companies and subsidiaries), financial institutions, professionals such as lawyers and accountants, brokers, escrow agents, art galleries and auction houses, former employees, and many more. This incredibly powerful tool can also be pursued on an ex parte basis (at least initially) and does not require the applicant to prove that she has exhausted her domestic evidence gathering tools in the foreign case or, significantly, that the evidence will be admissible in the foreign proceeding. One issue that has been contested since Intel was decided is whether Section 1782 can be used in support of a private commercial arbitration (as opposed to treaty-based arbitrations where the use of Section 1782 is clearly supported by the applicable case law). Recently, the Sixth Circuit and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals broke with the Second and Fifth Circuits and determined that interested parties may rely on Section 1782 to obtain evidence for use in a privately constituted international arbitration proceeding. In September 2019, the Sixth Circuit analyzed the definition and interpretation of the word “tribunal” at length (relying on the ordinary meaning of the word, several dictionary definitions, the use of the word in legal writing, and an examination of the statute’s text, context and structure) and held that the language of Section 1782 unambiguously “includes private commercial arbitral panels established pursuant to contract and having the authority to issue decisions and bind the parties.” Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation Co. Ltd. v. FedEx Corp. , 939 F.3d 710, 723 (6th Cir. 2019). A few months later, the Fourth Circuit followed. In March 2020, the Fourth Circuit agreed that private arbitral tribunals are “foreign tribunals” within the meaning of Section 1782, and rejected a litany of policy arguments advanced by the respondent. Servotronics, Inc. v. Boeing Co. , 954 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2020). Although district court decisions have been deeply divided on the issue since Intel, there is now strong momentum gathering at the appellate level favoring the use of Section 1782 in aid of private commercial arbitration. For example, California district courts had uniformly followed the Second and Fifth Circuits in holding that an applicant may not obtain evidence through Section 1782 for use in a private commercial arbitration—until recently. In February 2020, a federal court in the Northern District of California adopted the reasoning and conclusion of the Sixth Circuit’s decision regarding Section 1782’s application to private international arbitration. HRC-Hainan Holding Company, LLC v. Yihan Hu , No. 19-mc-80277, 2020 WL 906719 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020). That case is now on appeal, and the Ninth Circuit is positioned to rule on the issue. In sum, the already powerful Section 1782 has seen its applicability bolstered by two of the highest courts in the U.S. indicating that Section 1782 will remain an indispensable tool in any international lawyer’s toolbox for the foreseeable future. About the authors: Arnie Lacayo ( alacayo@sequorlaw.com ) is a Shareholder and Cristina Vicens ( cvicens@sequorlaw.com ) is an Attorney at Sequor Law. Lacayo and Vicens focus their practices on investigations, financial fraud and corruption-related asset recovery cases, as well as cross-border insolvency. Both Lacayo and Vicens have extensive experience with the Section 1782 statute, including in some of the most-cited cases in the U.S. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin and Raul Torrao explain UNCITRAL's 2019 Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and its implications for cross-border insolvency proceedings. Asset recovery column: The mechanics of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency Open Legal Insights Open December 4, 2019 8 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Raul Torrao in Miami discuss the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)’s newly approved Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. Purpose The model law, approved in July 2019, is a new legal framework designed to address domestic and cross-border insolvency cases involving multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group. Though it provides innovative tools to address the specific needs of proceedings involving enterprise groups, its practical use will be revealed throughout the next years by its implementation and actual application by the courts of states that adopt the model law. UNCITRAL developed the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency to fill a void left by the 1997 Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, with respect to the administration of multiple insolvency proceedings affecting different members of an enterprise group located in multiple jurisdictions. Indeed, in today’s global economy, the operations of the members of some enterprise groups are so interconnected and span so many jurisdictions that the group can only be appropriately reorganized or liquidated if there is a plan that embraces the whole group – or at least the part of the group that is affected by the insolvency proceedings. Both model laws provide for the cooperation of courts presiding over cross-border insolvency cases, although each applies in a different context. The Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency focuses on single debtor insolvency proceedings, while the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is designed to address the specific needs of insolvency proceedings that involve multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group in different jurisdictions. Concepts To address such specific needs, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency provides directives on coordination and cooperation between courts and among insolvency representatives, development of a group insolvency solution for the whole enterprise group or part of it in a single planning proceeding, the appointment of a single representative to coordinate the development of a group insolvency solution and voluntary participation of enterprise group members in the planning proceeding regardless of whether they are affected by the insolvency of part of the enterprise group. It also includes directives on access by foreign courts and insolvency representatives to the planning proceeding, cross-border recognition of foreign planning proceedings, and measures to minimize the commencement of non-main and main proceedings through the equal treatment of claims in a foreign main proceeding in an adopting jurisdiction. The Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency uses some nomenclature and definitions from the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such as what is a main proceeding, a non-main proceeding, and the center of main interest (COMI) of a debtor. In addition, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency contains several articles similar to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, especially in the chapters regarding the cooperation and coordination between courts and among insolvency representatives and in the chapters that provide for the recognition of a foreign proceeding. Among the new concepts introduced by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, the “group insolvency solution” is one of the most relevant ones. Article 2(f) of the model law broadly defines a group insolvency solution as “a proposal or set of proposals developed in a planning proceeding for the reorganization, sale or liquidation of some or all of the assets and operations of one or more enterprise group members, with the goal of protecting, preserving, realizing or enhancing the overall combined value of those enterprise group members.” The draft guide of enactment of the model law clarifies that the term is intended to be a flexible concept, that can be tailored to address the specific circumstances of the enterprise group, such as its structure, business model, degree and type of integration between enterprise group members and other factors. The group insolvency solution is developed in a “planning proceeding,” which is an insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to an enterprise group member that meets certain criteria. It must be a main proceeding taking place in the jurisdiction where an enterprise group member debtor has the COMI, in which the enterprise group member likely is a necessary and integral participant of the solution (although the concept is still undefined). It must include the voluntary participation of enterprise group members for the development of a group insolvency solution (although they may opt-out at any point), and include the appointment of a group representative, which may be the same person as the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding or a different person. Once a planning proceeding is established, the group representative may seek relief from the court that is either needed to preserve the possibility of developing or implementing a group insolvency solution, or to protect, preserve, realize, or enhance the value of assets of an enterprise group member subject to or participating in a planning proceeding or the interests of the creditors of such enterprise group member. Relief The model law provides for a non-exhaustive list of reliefs that are typically granted in insolvency proceedings. This includes empowering the group representative to seek recognition of the planning proceeding in other jurisdictions and seek any relief available to support the development and implementation of a group insolvency solution, as well as seek to participate in foreign proceedings relating to an enterprise group member regardless of whether the latter is participating in the planning proceeding. Despite the model law’s aim to centralize an enterprise group’s insolvency proceeding, nothing in the model law prevents more than one planning proceeding from being established. Obviously, the immoderate commencement of multiple planning proceedings would destroy the purpose of having a centralized proceeding where all parties can meet and develop a group insolvency solution. However, the special circumstances driven by the way enterprise groups are structured might justify the exceptional establishment of more than one planning proceeding to obtain the proper insolvency solution for the group. To aid its goal of centralizing and streamlining insolvency proceedings of members of an enterprise group, the model law also provides a mechanism to minimize the commencement of non-main proceedings in other jurisdictions. A creditor of any enterprise group member may choose to bring its claim directly in the main proceeding commenced in a jurisdiction that adopted the model law. The claim will be treated in the main proceeding in accordance with the treatment it would be accorded in its original jurisdiction; that is, the foreign claim will receive the same distribution and priority rights in the main proceeding as it would receive in its original jurisdiction. To accomplish such treatment of claims, the claim treatment must: be presented by the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding – or jointly by the insolvency representative and the group representative; meet any additional formal requirements established by the jurisdiction of the main proceeding; and be approved by the court of the main proceeding. Once the claim treatment is approved, it is enforceable and binding on the insolvency estate of the main proceeding, this way protecting the creditor of the foreign claim. In addition to the above-described mechanism, the model law allows the court of the foreign forum where the creditor could have brought the aforementioned foreign claim to approve the treatment accorded in the main proceeding and to stay any non-main proceedings already commenced or to decline the commencement of new non-main proceedings. The effect of this implementation is that creditors of similar foreign claims may only file such foreign claims before the court of the main proceeding. This measure is not mandatory and it is the option of the court of the original jurisdiction of the foreign claim to use such tool. The model law also provides for this undertaking on the treatment of foreign claims and the possibility of the court to stay or decline to commence a new insolvency proceeding also in relation to a main proceeding. In other words, creditors of a claim that may be brought in a main proceeding in one jurisdiction also have the option to file the claim in another main proceeding affecting one of the enterprise group members in another jurisdiction that adopted the model law, and courts of the first jurisdiction may approve the undertaking on the treatment of that claim and stay or decline to commence a main proceeding. This measure is counterintuitive and is inconsistent with the expectations of creditors, the enterprise group members, and third parties that expect that insolvency proceedings should be conducted in the jurisdiction where the COMI of the enterprise group is located. Thus, the draft guide to the enactment of the model law advises that such measure should only be taken in exceptional circumstances, specifically when the efficiency benefits largely outweigh the negative effects on the creditors’ expectations. The provisions that refer to minimizing the commencement of main proceedings are located in part B of the model law, and are available for adoption by jurisdictions that want to take this extra step on the centralization of cross-border insolvency proceedings. It is important to note that the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is not a workaround from the formalities of the insolvency laws of the adopting jurisdiction. The fact that a planning proceeding may address the reorganization or liquidation of a participating enterprise group member does not grant unrestrictive access by creditors to the assets of that enterprise group member. Under the model law, relief in the planning proceeding may not be granted with respect to the assets of participating enterprise group members if the entity is not subject to an insolvency proceeding under the forum’s applicable laws, unless the reason that such proceeding has not commenced was for the purpose of minimizing the commencement of insolvency proceedings in accordance with the Model Law. In addition, if the participating enterprise group member has its COMI in another jurisdiction, relief will only be granted in the jurisdiction that adopted the model law if it does not interfere with the administration of insolvency proceedings taking place in other jurisdictions. Impact The framework presented by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency not only creates new legal tools for specific insolvency cases, but also creates a new international cooperation system to enhance the insolvency proceedings of an enterprise group. Though issues regarding the jurisdiction and the power of courts may be minimized in a single-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such issues are more prevalent when members of an enterprise group are subject to insolvency proceedings in different jurisdictions. Indeed, in a multi-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, several issues regarding the jurisdictional power of the courts involved are likely to arise. This is because there are potentially multiple main proceedings, each located in a different jurisdiction, and only one – or a few – of them can be qualified as a planning proceeding for the development of a group solution, which will determinate the outcome of the insolvency proceedings. It is unclear if the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency’s cooperation system will only be useful if all jurisdictions involved have adopted its text. With regard to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, generally only the jurisdiction of the court that is providing assistance to the foreign proceeding must have adopted it in order for that cooperation system to work. On the other hand, the cooperation between courts of different jurisdictions in a group insolvency case might not work if one of the involved jurisdictions has not adopted the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. It is possible that jurisdictions that do not adopt provisions relating to centralized planning proceedings will be reluctant to defer their jurisdiction over an insolvency proceeding involving an enterprise group member to another jurisdiction. Hopefully, jurisdictions will see the benefits of having a group insolvency solution for maintaining or adding value to the whole group, or even to the group members that are affected by the insolvency proceeding in that jurisdiction, and utilize the new tools provided by the new model law. To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Global Restructuring Review profiles Sequor Law as a GRR 100 firm, highlighting its roots as a rebrand of Astigarraga Davis’s cross-border insolvency and asset recovery team led by Edward H. Davis, Jr. and Gregory Grossman, and its work for the Chilean liquidator of Onix Capital. Global Restructuring Review Top 100 Law Firms Listing Open Awards & Recognition Open July 31, 2017 2 minutes read Sequor Law Miami’s newly rebranded Sequor Law is the Chilean liquidator of bankrupt investment vehicle Onix Capital Global head of restructuring and insolvency Gregory Grossman History of the practice Shareholders Edward Davis and Gregory Grossman launched boutique Sequor Law in April, in what was effectively a rebrand of Miami firm Astigarraga Davis’ cross-border insolvency, international asset recovery and financial fraud team. Davis and Grossman, two of the founders of Astigarraga Davis, decided to establish the new outfit when their former firm’s international arbitration practice left to join global law firm Reed Smith. All of the attorneys from Astigarraga Davis’ cross-border insolvency, international asset recovery, and financial fraud practice were retained by Sequor Law. Network Grossman heads up the firm’s international insolvency and financial litigation practice, which operates out of a solitary office in Miami. Who uses it? The team represents international banks, sovereign governments and government institutions, liquidators and receivers, lenders and multinational corporations, as well as individuals. Some notable clients include Big Four professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Historic track record The practice, under Astigarraga Davis and Sequor Law, has made over 20 Chapter 15 filings in the US to recognise insolvency proceedings in diverse jurisdictions including Antigua, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Chile, Mexico, Romania and the UK. Indeed, Grossman says the firm has filed more Chapter 15s than any other law firm in the US. Notably, Davis and Grossman filed the first Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the state of Florida, on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers as the custodian of failed financial institution Bancafe International Barbados. Davis also served as lead civil counsel for the government of Antigua and Barbuda in relation to an alleged fraud in the payment of debt owed to a Japanese leader that sponsored the building of the Crabbs Desalination and Power Plant in northeast Antigua. Elsewhere, the team was instructed to represent the joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank in efforts to recover assets relating to a US $7 billion Ponzi scheme- the second largest Ponzi scheme in world history, which has seen filings in Antigua, the UK, the US and Canada. Recent events During our research period, Sequor Law was instructed as counsel to the court-appointed liquidator and foreign representative of bankrupt Chilean investment firm Onix Capital in Chapter 15 proceedings in Florida. The liquidator is seeking to recover assets in excess of $100 million* relating to an alleged Ponzi scheme operated by the group’s CEO, Chilean businessman Alberto Chang-Rajii. The Sequor team also continues to act as primary US counsel to the joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank. The complete GRR 100 guide will be accessible at Global Restructuring Review website * The GRR 100 incorrectly values the Onix case as a $7.4 million dollar Ponzi scheme. The correct value of the Ponzi scheme is in excess of $100 million. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Daniel Coyle explains the asymmetrical nature of discovery in Chapter 15 proceedings, where foreign representatives can obtain discovery while resisting demands from other parties. Just Say No: Discovery in Chapter 15 Bankruptcies is Asymmetrical Open Legal Insights Open April 21, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law By: Dan Coyle Foreign Representatives in Chapter 15 petitions are specifically permitted to conduct discovery to locate the debtor’s assets within the United States to increase estate and creditor recoveries in the overseas proceedings and to probe the debtor’s affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities. In the U.S. ancillary proceeding, the Foreign Representative will encounter resistance and other entities may seek to propound subpoenas under Fed. R. Bankr. 2004. Sometimes, these entities are creditors who seek information relevant to their claim or assets available to pay the same. Other times, these entities are subpoena targets who seek to gain a peek into the Foreign Representative’s search, seek to distract and/or delay the Foreign Representative from the asset search, or who seek to “punish” the Foreign Representative. The Foreign Representative may be able to avoid responding to such requests by moving for protective order or to quash the subpoena based upon 11 U.S.C. 1521(a)(4) and/or Rule 2004(a). The arguments are based upon: 1) the language of 1521(a)(4) and two canons of statutory construction, or, alternatively; 2) interpretive case law under Rule 2004 as to the requirements to show a “pecuniary interest” in a case. Read the original article here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Andrew B. Dawson, UM professor and Vice Dean, has been awarded the Judge A. Jay Cristol Endowed Chair in Bankruptcy at the University of Miami. Judge A. Jay Cristol Endowed Chair in Bankruptcy Open Awards & Recognition Open March 3, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law Andrew (Drew) B. Dawson , Of counsel at Sequor Law , distinguished law professor, and Vice Dean of Academic Affairs at the University of Miami, has been awarded the Judge A. Jay Cristol Endowed Chair in Bankruptcy. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

IWIRC announces its 2018–2019 board of directors, with Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin named Secretary of the Executive Board of this global women's insolvency and restructuring organization. IWIRC announces new board of directors Open In the News Open September 24, 2018 4 minutes read Sequor Law By Mohamed Dabo The International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC) has announced its newly elected and appointed incoming board of directors for 2018 – 2019. The international networking and professional growth organization, aimed at women in the restructuring and insolvency industries, announced the names of its five-member executive board and its ten-member management committee on 17 September. IWIRC also published the names of its new regional directors, directors at large, as well as its standing committee and vice directors. Carrianne Basler , a managing director at AlixPartners in Chicago who was vice chair, succeeds outgoing chair Jennifer McLemore . Michelle Pickett , a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Toronto, Canada, becomes the new vice chair. McLemore will remain on the board as immediate past chair. The executive board also includes Leyza B. Florin of Sequor Law in Miami as secretary, Jennifer Kimble of New York restructuring firm Prime Clerk as treasurer, and Marjorie Kaufman of Getzler Henrich in Boston as Vice Finance Director. Appointees to the group’s management committee include Tinamarie Feil , president of the California-based BMC Group, who becomes the group’s UNCITRAL committee director. Alexandra Schnapp , a law clerk at the US Bankruptcy Court in Atlanta, is the communications director. Eloise Fardon , a senior associate at Stephenson Harwood in Hong Kong, is now the Asia regional director. Rita Gismondi , an associate at Gianni Origoni Grippo Cappelli & Partners in Rome, is the new Europe regional director. Kelly McDonald , of Shearman & Sterling in New York, is US regional director and Toronto-based Dentons counsel Sara-Ann Van Allen is Canada regional director. Outgoing chair McLemore says, “The composition of the Board speaks to the depth and expertise of our membership base and we look forward to working with these talented women.” In a phone interview, she told GRR the organisation’s focus right now is to bring the international experience to the local level—so that members who are unable to attend international conferences can still have access to those international resources. IWIRC’s newsletter is one resource the organisation is aiming to make more accessible; for example, by using social media to give it a stronger international presence on the internet. Founded in 1993, IWIRC is a not-for-profit organisation currently located in Asia, Europe, and North America and continues to grow. McLemore says IWIRC welcomes the development of new networks in these or new regions. Executive Board (terms ending October 2019) Carrianne Basler, AlixPartners, Chair Michelle Pickett, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Vice Chair Leyza B. Florin , Sequor Law, Secretary Jennifer Kimble, Prime Clerk, Treasurer Marjorie Kaufman, Getzler Henrich & Associates, Vice Finance Director Jennifer McLemore, Christian & Barton, Immediate Past Chair Management Committee (terms ending October 2019) Tinamarie Feil, BMC Group, UNCITRAL Committee Director* Karen Fellowes, DLA Piper, Newsletter Director Terri Freedman, Freedman Law, Program Committee Co-Director Melissa Hager, Morrison & Foerster, US Networks Director Evelyn Meltzer, Pepper Hamilton, Member Services Director Alexandra “CC” Schnapp, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Communications Director Helen Sevenoaks, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang, Europe Networks Director Carren Shulman, NYU School of Law, UNCITRAL Committee Director* Pooja Sinha, Global Legal Solutions (GLS Law), Asia Networks Director Melaney Wagner, Goodmans, Canada Networks Director Regional Directors (terms ending October 2019) Eloise Fardon, Stephenson Harwood, Asia Regional Director Rita Gismondi, Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners, Europe Regional Director Kelly McDonald, Shearman & Sterling, U.S. Regional Director Sara-Ann Van Allen, Dentons, Canada Regional Director Directors at Large (terms ending October 2019) Jacqui Calderin, Agentis Kelly Beaudin Conlan, Connolly Gallagher Catherine D’Alton, Harney Westwood & Riegels Mary Grace Diehl, former judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rebecca Hume, Kobre & Kim Ericka Johnson, Womble Bond Dickinson Nicole Stefanelli, Cullen and Dykman Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young Directors at Large (terms ending October 2020) Monica Blacker, BAX Advisors Kristen Siracusa Eustis, Miles & Stockbridge PC Elizabeth Gunn, Virginia Office of the Attorney General Rachel Lao, SSG Capital Management Kerri Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb Leanne Williams, ThorntonGroutFinnigan Standing Committee Vice-Directors (terms ending October 2019) Valerie Banter-Peo, Buchalter Nemer, Vice Director of Regional Programming* Aisling Dwyer, Maples and Calder, Asia Regional Vice Director* Rosa Evergreen, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Vice Director of Communications and Newsletter* Justine Lau, Mourant Ozannes, Asia Regional Vice Director* Tina Lucas, Banner Bank, Vice Director of Budget* Lauren McKelvey, Odin Feldman & Pittleman, Vice Director of Spring Programs* Tara Schellhorn, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Vice Director of Fall Programs* Nellwyn Voorhies, Donlin Recano, Vice Director of Communications and Social Media* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* Rita Gismondi, Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners, Europe Regional Director Kelly McDonald, Shearman & Sterling, U.S. Regional Director Sara-Ann Van Allen, Dentons, Canada Regional Director Directors at Large (terms ending October 2019) Jacqui Calderin, Agentis Kelly Beaudin Conlan, Connolly Gallagher Catherine D’Alton, Harney Westwood & Riegels Mary Grace Diehl, former judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rebecca Hume, Kobre & Kim Ericka Johnson, Womble Bond Dickinson Nicole Stefanelli, Cullen and Dykman Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young Directors at Large (terms ending October 2020) Monica Blacker, BAX Advisors Kristen Siracusa Eustis, Miles & Stockbridge PC Elizabeth Gunn, Virginia Office of the Attorney General Rachel Lao, SSG Capital Management Kerri Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb Leanne Williams, ThorntonGroutFinnigan Standing Committee Vice-Directors (terms ending October 2019) Valerie Banter-Peo, Buchalter Nemer, Vice Director of Regional Programming* Aisling Dwyer, Maples and Calder, Asia Regional Vice Director* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* Rosa Evergreen, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Vice Director of Communications and Newsletter* Justine Lau, Mourant Ozannes, Asia Regional Vice Director* Tina Lucas, Banner Bank, Vice Director of Budget* Lauren McKelvey, Odin Feldman & Pittleman, Vice Director of Spring Programs* Tara Schellhorn, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Vice Director of Fall Programs* Nellwyn Voorhies, Donlin Recano, Vice Director of Communications and Social Media* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* To view full article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Attorney Spotlight: Sequor Law Shareholder Fernando J. Menendez Jr. shares insights on bankruptcy strategy, the impact of COVID-19 on businesses, and his approach to the legal industry. Attorney Spotlight: Fernando J. Menendez Jr. Open Attorney Spotlight Open October 7, 2021 3 minutes read Sequor Law On this month’s Attorney Spotlight, we interviewed Sequor Law Shareholder, Fernando J. Menendez Jr. , who provided his insights on the legal industry. What advice would you give to those firms facing bankruptcy due to the pandemic? However unpleasant the prospect of bankruptcy may be, it is important to get advice early. There are undoubtedly abrupt changes in circumstances that may make it necessary for an entity to seek bankruptcy relief with little or no time to prepare, but, to the extent there is even a small window of time to consider the options, make the most of it. In bankruptcy, as in most things, luck favors the prepared. The options in a potential restructuring can vary greatly depending on a variety of factors, including a firm’s capital structure; whether its secured debts have been properly perfected; the status of its executory contracts; its cash flow and pro forma; the nature and status of pending legal actions against it, to name just a few. To what extent has covid-19 affected your work and the nature of disputes you encounter? I would say that the most pronounced change hasn’t been in the nature of the disputes we’ve encountered, but—more practically—in the way we practice. In that regard, we all owe a great debt to our courts, which have responded to the tremendous challenge of this pandemic by making it possible to hold hearings on significant contested matters through Zoom and other video conferencing platforms and, thereby, kept our cases moving forward. Given your tenure as a leading bankruptcy attorney, what is the most important thing you have learned? In solving difficult problems, you have to be creative and keep going back to the drawing board until you’ve found the right answer. Edison said it best: “When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this — you haven’t.” What advice would you give to aspiring bankruptcy lawyers? In everything you do, ask yourself—how would I want someone to do this for me if I was in need of an attorney? How would I want it done for a parent or a sibling? Now, do that! How does Sequor Law distinguish itself from competitors in the market? If I had to use a single word, I would say it’s passion. A passion for what we do; for doing it right; for getting it right; for meeting our client’s objectives. What is specific to Sequor Law? The team at Sequor has a breadth of knowledge and experience that gives us unique advantages in assisting our clients. Specifically, because we routinely act as counsel in domestic and cross-border insolvency cases, and are frequently engaged in commercial litigation and international asset recovery matters, we are able to provide advice that is not only reactive, but proactive. Given our experience and day-to-day work, we have a good sense of where a case is likely to go after a judgment has been obtained, and begin working to anticipate those eventualities well before many others may have considered them. What should clients look for when selecting a bankruptcy attorney or firm? In this age of endless marketing, it’s easy to get distracted by keywords on a website. Obviously, a referral from someone who has worked with the attorney in the area is a good touchstone for assessing experience and expertise. Absent that, you want to focus on whether the attorney seems to truly understand your problem. Have they dealt with something like it before? Are they asking the right questions? Are they raising issues you had not considered? Are they challenging you or just agreeing with everything you say? This last one may take a bit longer to get to, but, in my experience, is quite possibly the best indication that you have the right lawyer. What do you enjoy most about working in bankruptcy? Without question, the fact that it moves fast—at least relative to most standard commercial litigation. Given the exigency of bankruptcy, and the surrounding statutory framework—which is geared towards getting parties to some form of resolution as quickly as possible—you don’t have to wait years before a client’s major issues/claims are resolved. For better or worse, you’ll have your answer (in an ideal world, the right one!) quickly. What is a book or article that you consider a must-read? Collier on Bankruptcy! For those in the mood for something a little more plot-driven, you can’t go wrong with All The Light We Cannot See and The Nickel Boys, both of which are heart-wrenching and amazing. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin represents the joint trustees of jailed Taiwanese-British businessman Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai in a Chapter 15 petition in Miami to track and recover US real estate assets. Miami Chapter 15 for jailed Taiwanese-British IT executive Open In the News Open November 14, 2019 4 minutes read Sequor Law The joint trustees of Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai, a “thoroughly dishonest” bankrupt Taiwanese-British businessman, have applied for Chapter 15 recognition to track his real estate assets in the US. On 11 November Tsai’s joint trustees, Begbies Traynor partners Nicholas Reed and Julie Palmer , filed two Chapter 15 petitions before the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida – one under his own name and another under the name of Changtel Solutions UK (Changtel), his former company. Leyza B. Florin , a shareholder at Sequor Law in Miami, is acting for the joint trustees. Fraud and freezing The UK’s tax authority, HMRC, sought Changtel’s winding-up in 2013 after challenging its VAT returns and alleging a shortfall of £15.5 million (US$20 million). It accused Changtel, a company which distributed computer hardware and software within the UK and ostensibly exported goods to the rest of the European Union, of carousel fraud over the shortfall. Although the English High Court initially rejected the winding-up petition, the Court of Appeal eventually found that Changtel had “misled” a tax tribunal and judge into thinking that it was solvent “when in fact it had been running down its business since mid-2013”. A tribunal later determined that a fabricated scheme for VAT evasion had been established within the company. The High Court then appointed Reed and Palmer as joint liquidators over Changtel in June 2015. Later, in May 2019, Reed was appointed as Changtel’s bank trustee along with fellow Begbies Traynor partner Joanne Wright . The liquidators’ investigations determined that Tsai committed fraud of an approximate value of £38 million (US$49 million). The English High Court found that Tsai had used “cheque fraud” to extract funds from Changtel – fabricating cheques made out to his sister from a fake Taiwanese supplier, and signed by Tsai himself, to the amount of £3.5 million (US$4.5 million). Tsai’s own bankruptcy came in 2018, after he was jailed for 18 months for contempt of court after breaching a freezing order , and failed to pay a consequential interim payment order. In a July 2017 ruling, Mrs. Justice Vivien Rose in the English High Court found Tsai guilty of 30 out of an alleged 52 breaches of the freezing order. The court found that, although Tsai’s UK passport had been confiscated under the freezing order, he kept hold of a Taiwanese passport which he used to travel to Taiwan. There he arranged for his wife to move £8.6 million (US$11 million) from a DBS bank account in Singapore to a Taipei Fubon bank account in Hong Kong. In delivering her verdict, Mrs Justice Rose described Tsai as a “thoroughly dishonest witness”, and issued with him with the interim payment order. He was adjudged bankrupt in May 2018 after failing to pay the order. Asset recovery In their Chapter 15 application the liquidators said they had discovered several real estate assets in the United States – including five in Las Vegas and one in Los Angeles – that might beneficially belong to either Tsai or Changtel through local companies. They also found evidence that funds had been misappropriated from Changtel and transferred to US bank accounts in the names of Tsai and other family members. They told the Miami court they are attempting to recover £9.95 million (US$ 12.2 million) in post-liquidation payments Changtel made to Entanet International, another Tsai company, to which all Changtel business was transferred prior to liquidation. The liquidators said Tsai’s international assets had been unearthed after a litany of contradictory disclosures of assets on his part. Although in his initial February 2017 disclosure Tsai claimed to have under £1 million (US$1.3 million) he admitted to further assets the further month after retaining counsel from London firm Brett Wilson. But in May that year, after terminating that firm in favor of Neil Davies & Partners, he retracted his previous disclosure, which he said he had admitted to on the basis of erroneous advice from Brett Wilson. “In doing so,” the liquidators said, “Tsai inadvertently waived privilege in his communications with Brett Wilson”, which showed his disclosures had not in fact been based on erroneous advice. As well as the Las Vegas and Los Angeles properties, the liquidators said the English court had found Tsai to hold misappropriated funds in Hong Kong and Singaporean accounts as well as owning three properties in the UK city of Birmingham and one in Telford, Shropshire under his sister’s name. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Miami In re Changtel Solutions UK Limited In re Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai [Case 19-25250] Foreign Representative Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza B. Florin in Miami In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Mrs Justice Vivien Rose Joint liquidators of Changtel Begbies Traynor Regional managing partner Julie Palmer in Salisbury and Nicholas Reed in Leeds Counsel to the joint liquidators Stephen Robins of counsel, South Square Chambers Instructed by: Walker Morris Counsel to Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai Andrew Young of counsel Instructed by: Neil Davies & Partners To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law Expands International Litigation and Asset Recovery Tem with Attorney Carolina M. Rosso Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Open Firm News Open June 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Miami – June 23, 2026 - Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney, further strengthening the firm's internationally recognized asset recovery , insolvency, and cross-border litigation practice. Rosso focuses her practice on complex cross-border legal matters, including international litigation , asset recovery, insolvency, and arbitration. Prior to becoming an attorney, she served as a Law Clerk at Sequor Law, where she conducted extensive legal research and drafted analytical memoranda involving international asset recovery, cross-border insolvency , international litigation, and arbitration matters spanning multiple jurisdictions. During her time at the firm, Rosso assisted in the preparation of motions, briefs, and strategic submissions in federal, state, bankruptcy, and appellate proceedings. She analyzed complex legal issues involving turnover actions, guaranty enforcement, alter ego liability, civil conspiracy, arbitration, cross-border discovery, and Chapter 15 proceedings, among other matters. Prior to joining Sequor Law, Rosso also served as a Research Fellow to Professor Jorge L. Esquirol at FIU College of Law, where she conducted research in transnational commercial law and prepared comparative analyses of U.S. and French legal systems as a framework for examining how civil law, common law, mixed, religious, and customary legal traditions influence commercial institutions, legal reform, and opportunities for economic development across developing and emerging economies. "We are thrilled to welcome Carolina to our attorney team," said Edward H. Davis, Jr., Founding Shareholder of Sequor Law. "Having worked alongside Carolina during her time as a law clerk, we have witnessed firsthand her exceptional intellect, work ethic, and dedication to excellence. Her academic achievements, international perspective, and deep understanding of complex cross-border disputes make her a tremendous asset to our clients and our firm." Rosso graduated first in her class from Florida International University College of Law, earning her Juris Doctor, summa cum laude. While at FIU Law, she received multiple CALI Excellence for the Future Awards and served as a member of the FIU Law Review. She previously earned a Bachelor of Business Administration in International Business, magna cum laude, from the Florida International University Honors College. Beyond her legal practice, Rosso is the founder and director of Unidad Para Bolivia, an international civic and humanitarian initiative through which she led pro-democracy advocacy efforts and coordinated large-scale humanitarian aid projects. Having lived and studied in Bolivia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, Rosso brings a uniquely global perspective to her practice. She is fluent in Spanish and French and conversational in Czech. "I am honored to join Sequor Law as an attorney," said Rosso. "I am excited to continue serving clients facing complex international disputes, asset recovery, and insolvency matters. Sequor's collaborative culture, global reach, and specialized cross-border expertise make it an exceptional place to build my practice." For more information, visit: www.sequorlaw.com *** Headquartered in Miami and with an office in Washington, D.C., Sequor Law is an international law firm focusing on representing victims of financial fraud, including sovereign governments and state-owned enterprises, public and non-public companies, insolvency practitioners, and all manner of clients in the areas of asset recovery, financial fraud, cross-border insolvency, and international litigation and arbitration. www.sequorlaw.com Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..