Get to know Sequor Law Shareholder Arnoldo "Arnie" Lacayo, whose immigrant experience inspired his career in international law, cross-border insolvency, and asset recovery for fraud victims. Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Arnoldo “Arnie” Lacayo Open Attorney Spotlight Open August 1, 2024 2 minutes read Sequor Law What inspired you to pursue a law career? My experience as an immigrant to this great country inspired me to pursue a legal career. More specifically, I was inspired by an experience I had in college volunteering as an interpreter at an immigration law clinic which provided free legal services to recently arrived migrants. I was also inspired by one of my great-grandfathers on my mother’s side who died at a young age but had served as a lawyer and judge of distinction in my native Nicaragua and used his legal training to argue for the independence and sovereignty of Nicaragua. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? I have always been interested in international and cross-border issues. I explored this interest in law school and in my first job as a lawyer. When I had the opportunity to join this firm (then known as Astigarraga Davis), I knew it was one of the city’s premier international firms. The chance to work on international and cross-border cases on behalf of victims of fraud was a challenge that I was thrilled to take on. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? I supervise and handle cases from and in various jurisdictions around the world. A very large percentage of them touch the Spanish-speaking, civil law, world. Over the years my legal Spanish has grown tremendously, and I now use Spanish daily in my interactions with clients and co-counsel. The ability to translate between the languages and, more importantly, between the civil and common law systems is a skill that I draw upon every day. What is the most rewarding part about your job? The most rewarding part of my job is helping victims of fraud who have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous people who think – incorrectly – that they are untouchable and above the law. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. I’ve been very fortunate to have great mentors throughout my life. In terms of mentorship in my legal career, I credit my law partner Ed Davis for being a great mentor throughout the almost 19 years we’ve been working together. Those who know Ed know that he relishes the chance to mentor because he himself had great mentors in his own career. I now try to do the same for younger lawyers. If you weren’t practicing law, what would you be doing? I have loved history throughout my life and majored in it in college, so maybe teaching history. What might people be surprised to learn about you? That my family and I arrived as asylum seekers when we came to the United States. What is a good book or article you read recently? I read a lot for pleasure. I also listen to audiobooks during my long commutes. I recently enjoyed You Dreamed of Empires by Alvaro Enrique and Far North by Marcel Theroux, both audiobooks with great narrators. I also really enjoyed The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

A look at 8 Florida cases to watch in 2019, covering remote employee jurisdiction, Ponzi scheme clawbacks, the Parkland shooting lawsuit, and EB-5 investment fraud, among other key legal battles. 8 Florida Cases to Watch in 2019 Open In the News Open January 9, 2019 4 minutes read Sequor Law At the top of 2019, which Florida cases have lawyers checking dockets with bated breath? Here’s a look at eight cases that have gripped local litigators. Where… By Raychel Lean At the top of 2019, which Florida cases have lawyers checking dockets with bated breath? Here’s a look at eight cases that have gripped local litigators. Where can a Florida-based company sue its out-of-state employees? Miami business litigator Eric Ostroff, partner at Meland Russin & Budwick, has his eye on Citrix Systems Inc. v. Matthew Ware et al . Chief Broward Circuit Judge Jack Tuter will soon hold a hearing on the case, which tackles the question of personal jurisdiction when it comes to remote employees. In 2017, Fort Lauderdale-based tech company Citrix Systems Inc. sued seven former employees who worked from North Carolina when they left to work for a competitor. The suit accused the staff of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching a contract that included a covenant not to compete. But the employees argue Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction over them. Do foreign governments take precedence over state courts? Former Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero is among a group of Miami lawyers challenging a Third DCA ruling they say could result in Florida courts having to submit to totalitarian regimes. The Ecuadorean government sued two brothers in Miami for allegedly embezzling about $662 million from Filanbanco, the bank where they were administrators. The suit — Republic of Ecuador v. Roberto Isaias Dassum and William Isaias Dassum — was initially dismissed for lack of standing and expired statute of limitations, but the appeals court reversed the move. International litigator Arnoldo B. Lacayo of Sequor Law, Miami, said the case is a crucial one for international practitioners, as it asks whether acts in another sovereign state are valid in Florida’s courts. Could this case reveal Bitcoin creator’s identity? Dave Kleiman v. Craig Wright , an $11.4 million bitcoin trial will play out in Miami federal court in September, is almost certain to raise eyebrows. Kleiman’s suit accuses his Australian former business partner of committing forgery and filing false documents to take control of bitcoin. Wright has claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, mysterious creator of the cryptocurrency, but that claim has never been verified. Complex litigator Daniel Maland at Kozyak, Tropin and Throckmorton is watching closely and says bitcoin transaction logs indicate that Nakamoto is one of the richest people in the world. According to Alan Rosenberg with Markowitz Ringel Trusty + Hartog, the vast size and scope of the case could serve as a roadmap for future cryptocurrency litigation. Will a key ADA ruling be overturned? Juan Carlos Gil v. Winn Dixie , an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, could unravel or affirm a landmark 2017 ruling that found a supermarket’s website violated blind internet users’ rights and laid the groundwork for an influx of website- accessibility lawsuits. The court will consider Winn-Dixie’s appeal that websites are not places of public accommodation and that the supermarket is in compliance with the ADA. Commercial litigators Michael Landen of Kluger Kaplan and Jason Kellogg, partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman, said many of their clients in the business world are waiting in suspense. Can school shooting victims sue rifle makers? The family of a victim of the Parkland shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine’s Day in 2017 has sued Smith and Wesson, makers of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used in the attack. Miami firm Podhurst Orseck represents the plaintiff. The court heard the defense’s motion to dismiss Jamie Guttenberg et al v. Smith and Wesson in December, and is expected to rule in a few weeks. Has a Miami church breached its lease? The Miami-Dade Property Appraiser has claimed Brickell’s First Presbyterian Church of Miami is violating its religious exemption status by leasing some of its grounds to a for-profit school and food trucks. The case could have wide implications for developers and religious institutions, according to Franklin Zemel, a partner at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, who represents dozens of churches, synagogues and mosques around the country. The Church claims it’s not leasing but merely “outsourcing” the administration of its school. “Why is the characterization so important? Because in order to qualify for the tax exemption, there must be unity between the owner of the property and the user of the property,” Zemel said. Will Florida courts embrace cannabis? According to Kathi Giddings, deputy chair of Akerman’s Litigation Practice Group, cannabis is set to be a hot topic this year. Several appeals are pending in the First District Court of Appeal concerning the 2016 general election, in which Floridians voted to broaden the use of medical marijuana. The legislature has restricted who can cultivate, process, sell and smoke medical marijuana, but the lawsuits argue otherwise. Akerman represents medical marijuana center Florigrown in one of those cases, and recently obtained an injunction against the Department of Health. Will Florida courts side with EB-5 Investors alleging fraud? A group of 78 Chinese investors sued Nicholas Mastroianni II , a high-profile EB-5 investment broker with ties to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. In a Palm Beach Court filing, the plaintiffs claimed Mastroianni cheated them out of almost $100 million in a real estate venture, but Mastroianni has rejected the suit as a “sham.” Jeffrey Schneider, managing partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman, who filed the suit, said the case could send a strong message to the EB-5 industry about promises made to investors. “This case is important at a time when developers have completed their projects and are now expected to return the EB-5 money back that they ‘borrowed’ from the EB-5 investors,” Schneider said. It’s hard to say which way the courts will rule, so observers must stay tuned for updates on these cases throughout the year. 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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Grant Thornton liquidators of three BVI companies linked to an alleged $200M fraud by a former São Paulo mayor file for Chapter 15 recognition in Miami after pooling their proceedings. Pooled BVI liquidations seek US recognition Open In the News Open December 12, 2019 3 minutes read Sequor Law The liquidators of three British Virgin Islands companies tied up in an alleged US$200 million fraud conducted by a former mayor of São Paulo have filed for US recognition, days after a local court authorised the pooling of their liquidations. Grant Thornton director Matthew Richardson , who is joint liquidator alongside partner Kevin Hellard of BVI companies Durant International, Kildare Finance, and MacDoel Investment, filed for recognition of the three companies’ liquidations before the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida on 11 December. Kildare and Durant have been in liquidation in the BVI since November 2017, and MacDoel since April of this year. The BVI High Court ordered the liquidations to be pooled on 5 December after finding the movement of monies between the three of them “would have no practical advantage”, in the first written ruling of its kind in the jurisdiction. Richardson told the Florida court that the three companies had “no legitimate purpose” and were nothing more than vehicles to launder the proceeds of “wide-scale frauds” allegedly committed against the city of São Paulo by their controller, the city’s former mayor Paulo Maluf and members of his family. Maluf, a right-wing populist and member of Brazil’s Progessives party, served as mayor from 1969 to 1971 and 1993 to 1997. He is now under house arrest after being convicted of fraud in 2017 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. It is alleged that during his latter term around US$200 million was misappropriated from public funds through “bribes, secret commissions and other fraudulent payments” in connection with the construction of the city’s Avenida Agua Espraiada, which divides the districts of Itaim Bibi and Campo Belo. The boulevard is now known as Avenida Jornalista Roberto Marinho following a 2003 renaming. Richardson says Brazilian authorities became aware of the fraud in 1999 when they received inquiries from police in Jersey after the submission of a suspicious transaction report to the island territory’s money laundering authorities. The governments of Brazil and São Paulo sought to prove the fraud in the Jersey courts by reference to a month’s sample of transactions flowing through Kildare and Durant. Based on those samples the Royal Court of Jersey found a constructive trust for US$10.5 million against the companies in 2012, and then the following year gave judgment against them for US$28.3 million in favour of the governments. Although the governments recovered US$3.44 million from Kildare and Durant’s Jersey accounts, the companies made no attempt to pay the balance, leading the governments to seek the appointment of liquidators in the BVI. Richardson said MacDoel had also played a role in the fraud as a conduit for funds, identifying just over US$4 million in Kildare’s books that it had paid to the company without consideration or evidence of repayment. The pair obtained MacDoel’s liquidation after it failed to pay a statutory demand for that amount in April. But Richardson said the money from the Jersey judgment “represents only a very small part of the total funds derived from the fraud”, because the judgment reflected only one month’s worth of transactions. He said the total amount of money derived from the frauds was “in the region of US$200 million” and claims against the three estates amount to at least US$172 million. He said he was as yet unable to determine the total value or location of the companies’ assets, but said he had learned they “may be concealed in the United States” and foreign tax havens, under the names of Maluf’s relatives. Richardson said he hopes to make recoveries by asserting proprietary claims in the US and possibly by bringing tracing claims against third parties. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (19-26542) (19-26545) (19-26547) Counsel to Grant Thornton Sequor Law Partner Gregory Grossman in Miami In the High Court of Justice of the British Virgin Islands, Commercial Division Justice Adrian Jack Joint liquidators of Durant, Kildare and MacDoel Grant Thornton Partner Kevin Hellard in London and director Matthew Richardson in the British Virgin Islands Counsel to the joint liquidators Maples and Calder Partner Alex Hall Taylor , of counsel David Welford and associate Scott Tolliss in the British Virgin Islands 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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin and Carolina Goncalves summarize UNCITRAL's Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments and its role in cross-border cases. The UN’s latest attempt to assist international insolvency practitioners Open Legal Insights Open July 13, 2020 5 minutes read Sequor Law Miami-based Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Carolina Goncalves summarise the UNCITRAL Working Group’s Model Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments. As the world’s economy becomes increasingly transnational, and debtors, their assets, and creditors are scattered across multiple jurisdictions, the need for consistency and efficiency in the cross-border administration of insolvency proceedings has become more pressing. Variations among legal systems have resulted in inconsistent, duplicative, time-consuming and costly efforts to recognise and enforce insolvency-related judgments in different jurisdictions, creating legal uncertainty and other complications in the administration of cross-border insolvency proceedings. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) attempted to foster international cooperation in the administration of cross-border insolvencies through its Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (MLCBI), but there remained an ambiguity in the recognition and enforcement of judgments related to insolvency proceedings, especially where enforcement of the foreign judgment was inconsistent with local law. The Model Law As a result, in 2014, UNCITRAL gave a mandate to its Working Group V on Insolvency Law to develop a model law that specifically provides for the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments. The Working Group collaborated with UNCITRAL’s 60 member states and the representatives of 31 observer states and 34 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations to develop the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments . On 2 July 2018, UNCITRAL adopted the Model Law, which is designed to address both the gap in international law regarding the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments that arise as a consequence of, or are materially associated with, insolvency proceedings; and the uncertainty in interpreting certain provisions of the MLCBI “in terms of providing the necessary authority for such recognition and enforcement as a form of relief available on recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding.” How the Model Law works The Model Law seeks to address these issues through its primary characteristics: harmonisation and flexibility. It offers enacting states a “simple, straightforward and harmonised procedure for recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments” while remaining flexible in its integration into each enacting state’s legal system. Importantly, the Model Law is intended to supplement the MLCBI, and in fact mirrors its provisions and definitions in many respects, as well as the existing legal frameworks of the enacting states. For example, as international insolvency practitioners, we know the terminology used in insolvency proceedings can vary by jurisdiction. Where a term or expression is likely to vary among enacting states, the Model Law offers more inclusive defined terms, such as “insolvency proceeding” (as opposed to liquidation, reorganisation or bankruptcy) and “insolvency representative” (rather than trustee, foreign representative, liquidator, judicial administrator etc). It also describes terms or expressions in brackets as placeholders for jurisdiction-specific information – like the name of the court, body, or authority designated to perform the specified function – allowing the enacting state’s legislators to use the term specific to that jurisdiction. Additionally, the Model Law offers optional provisions, such as one allowing the enacting state to refuse the recognition of an insolvency-related judgment when it originates from a state whose “insolvency proceeding” would not be subject to recognition under the MLCBI. The Model Law also contains two noteworthy exceptions to recognising and enforcing insolvency-related judgments. Enacting states may refrain from taking any action that would be “manifestly contrary” to their public policy. Further, the Model Law enumerates the following specific grounds for the refusal of recognition and enforcement: improper notice to the defendant in the proceeding that gave rise to the insolvency-related judgment; the judgment was obtained by fraud; the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment entered in the enacting state involving the same parties; the judgment is consistent with an earlier judgment entered in another state involving the same parties and subject matter; recognition and enforcement would interfere with the administration of the debtor’s insolvency proceeding; the judgment materially affects the rights of creditors generally and their interests were not adequately protected in the proceeding that led to the judgment; and the court issuing the judgment did not have jurisdiction. Defining an “insolvency-related judgment” As its name suggests, the Model Law’s distinguishing feature is that it applies to “insolvency-related judgments”, which previously had not been fully addressed by other UNCITRAL insolvency texts. The Model Law provides a broad definition of “judgment” to include any decision, such as a decree, order, or determination of costs and expenses, “issued by a court or administrative authority”. To fall within the Model Law’s scope, an insolvency-related judgment must “arise… as a consequence of or [be] materially associated with an insolvency proceeding”, and be “issued on or after the commencement of that insolvency proceeding”. Importantly, the judgment must have been rendered in a proceeding in a state other than the enacting state in which recognition and enforcement are sought; the location of the insolvency proceedings to which the judgment relates is immaterial. The Model Law’s Guide to Enactment provides a non-exhaustive list of judgments that fall within the definition of “insolvency-related judgment”, including judgments dealing with the constitution and disposal of assets in the insolvency estate; judgments determining whether a transaction involving the debtors or assets of its insolvency estate should be avoided because it was a preferential transaction or a transaction at an undervalue; judgments involving a director or representative liability for the debtor’s actions while insolvent or in the period approaching insolvency; judgments determining that sums are owed to or by the debtor or the insolvency estate; judgments confirming or varying a plan of reorganization or liquidation or approving a voluntary or out-of-court restructuring agreement; and judgments for the examination of a director of the debtor, where that director is located in a third jurisdiction. Decisions or orders commencing insolvency proceedings and interim measures of protection are explicitly excluded from the Model Law’s scope. Further, it is unclear whether insolvency-related arbitral decisions are considered “insolvency-related judgments” under the Model Law, as they may not come from an “administrative authority.” The Model Law’s impact and success While it is still too early to evaluate the Model Law’s impact and success, its design as a supplement to the MLCBI and the enacting state’s existing legal structure, rather than an overhaul of existing insolvency frameworks, suggests that it will succeed (at least partially) in making the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments more consistent and efficient. Moreover, though the Model Law intends to respect the insolvency schemes of the respective enacting states, UNCITRAL cautions against excessively modifying the Model Law and frequently invoking its exceptions. That said, enacting states are still free to make the necessary modifications to protect their own legal processes and domestic creditors, which could result in the very complications the Model Law was intended to eliminate. The Model Law’s success also depends on the number of states that enact it. By way of comparison, over 45 jurisdictions have adopted the MLCBI, including Australia, Canada, Colombia, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, the UK, BVI, Gibraltar, and the US; however, several European nations have not adopted it and are governed by the separate EU regulation (EC No. 1346/2000) on insolvency proceedings. This same EU regulation provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments that “derive directly from and are closely linked to… insolvency proceedings”. Because this EU regulation seems to address the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments, and several European nations have opted to implement its framework and rejected the MLCBI, it is unlikely that these same nations will adopt the Model Law. Finally, as mentioned above, it is unclear whether insolvency-related arbitral decisions fall within the scope of the Model Law. As the law develops and the Working Group continues to issue guidance on its enactment, practitioners should expect to see developments on this issue. The Model Law and its accompanying Guide to Enactment are available here . Click here to read the original article . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Edward H. Davis Jr. discusses cross-border financial fraud, asset tracing, and modern asset recovery challenges in his WWL Thought Leaders Global Elite Q&A. WWL Thought Leaders Global Elite - Edward H. Davis Jr. Q&A Open Awards & Recognition Open August 25, 2022 2 minutes read Sequor Law In the complex world of cross-border financial fraud and asset tracing , experience and strategic insight are essential. In his ThoughtLeaders interview (featured in the Sequor Law article PDF), Founding Shareholder Edward H. Davis Jr. shares his perspective on what drives modern asset recovery practice and the evolving challenges practitioners face as fraudsters exploit increasingly sophisticated structures and technologies. Davis’s reflections are grounded in more than three decades of international litigation and investigative work representing victims of fraud , corruption , Ponzi schemes and other misappropriations of funds around the globe . The article weaves together Ed’s professional journey with grounded commentary on the issues shaping asset recovery today. He explains why he chose this practice area — to make a measurable difference in people’s lives by unravelling the complex legal and factual webs fraudsters set up to conceal assets. He also describes the kinds of cases that regularly come across his desk, noting that while traditional investment and corporate fraud remain core concerns, crypto-asset and internet-based frauds are increasingly front and center. A recurring theme of the piece is the interplay between legal systems and global reality. Davis identifies jurisdictional hurdles — including the reluctance of some legal systems to treat information as an asset recoverable in a tracing exercise — as among the greatest obstacles in international practice. This observation underscores the fact that asset recovery is as much about navigating foreign legal cultures and procedural norms as it is about understanding the underlying wrongdoing. The interview also touches on how technological tools are reshaping the practice. Davis points out that while emerging technologies are not yet “game changers,” they are helping practitioners uncover bank relationships and other data that were previously more difficult to access — leveling the playing field in key respects. Finally, Davis offers practical career insights for young lawyers interested in the field, emphasizing that direct experience and mentorship are irreplaceable for mastering the judgment and tactical skills required in high-stakes, highly international disputes . For a frontline look at the mindset and practical considerations of one of the field’s most experienced asset recovery lawyers , we encourage you to read the full interview in the PDF below. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Robert B. Kearney Open Attorney Spotlight Open December 3, 2024 3 minutes read Sequor Law 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? My dad was a small-town doctor. It was really important to him to help people in his community to—literally—get back on their feet. His role as a healer was more than a vocation to him; it was his identity and his calling. When I was in middle school, he was wrongfully forced out of the clinic he had helped build. The excuse the clinic provided was that he could no longer provide adequate care. Although the termination itself was certainly alarming, he was completely heartbroken by the insinuation that he ever provided anything other than the highest standard of care. That insinuation tarnished his very understanding of himself, I think. It truly changed him for a long time. Eventually, he filed a lawsuit against his former clinic and, when I was in college, he won, receiving some backpay for the wrongful termination. What mattered most to him, however, was that a jury of his peers had sat down and certified, after weeks of testimony, that his termination had nothing to do with his ability to heal. It really gave him back to us, in a lot of ways. I think that was the first time I really appreciated that the ability of the law to make someone whole is something more than an arithmetic exercise in compensation. Until then, I had primarily been looking at a career in consulting or finance, but that experience really drew me to the law. 2. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? It goes without saying that the ethos of this practice area is in line with what initially drew me to the law. Beyond that, however, I thrive on complexity. I truly enjoy unraveling and solving a difficult problem with a lot of variables, and I think that’s part of what drew me to insolvency and asset recovery. For example, I chose my bankruptcy clerkship over a district court offer because I had been tracking developments in the law and was fascinated by its breadth and the tools it offered. 3. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? Several past employers have commented on my ability to work through immense amounts of information relatively quickly and synthesize it into a story. I think that’s my primary skill and the one that I’ve found most useful here. It works for legal aspects of this practice area, as well as the complex factual situations we often encounter. 4. What is the most rewarding part about your job? So far, it’s the fact that I get to go to sleep every night knowing that I’m helping people be made whole. They say the arc of the universe bends towards justice; it’s nice to imagine I’m putting my own tiny amount of force into pushing that arc in the right direction. 5. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. I had several professors in law school that encouraged me to pursue what I was interested in, beyond the standard law school path. I also had two outstanding judges, Judge Erik Atas in the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City and Judge James Tancredi in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, that pushed me to think creatively, learn to be better every day, and gave me incredible advice on so much more than my legal career. It feels like an injustice to name only one. 6. If you weren’t practicing law, what would you be doing? Probably working in consulting. That was my original path, but I’m not sure how much my heart was really in it. I prefer to imagine I’d be a history professor, but I don’t think I would have actually gone that route. 7. What might people be surprised to learn about you? I am a huge outdoorsman. I used to be a certified Wilderness First Responder and lifeguard, but I let those lapse a few years ago. It feels very surreal, I’m sure, to imagine anyone you have met in a suit standing up to their knees in a bog with a canoe on their back in the Canadian wilderness. 8. What is a good book or article you read recently? My favorite book I’ve read in the last few years is probably “The Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers” by James D. Hornfischer, which is a fantastic book for World War II history buffs. I’m currently reading “Chip War” by Chris Miller, which is a captivating narrative of the growth of semiconductors and their importance to geopolitics. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law partners Leyza B. Florin, Edward H. Davis Jr., Gregory Grossman, and Arnoldo Lacayo named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Leading US Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide. The 2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers Open Awards & Recognition Open July 24, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law 24 July 2020 Sequor Law Partners Leyza B. Florin , Edward H. Davis, Jr. , Gregory S. Grossman and Arnoldo “Arnie” Lacayo were named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Leading US Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide. Included in the Global guide are lawyers with leading cross-border practices that “bring remarkable skills in financing, structuring, litigating and creating a pathway forward” for their clients. Open the article here Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. joined ICC FraudNet leaders at the ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE International conference in Vilamoura, Portugal on May 19, 2022. Thought Leaders 4 Fire: FIRE International Vilamoura, Portugal May 19, 2022 Open Events & Speaking Open May 19, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law Incoming ICC FraudNet Co-Executive Director Rodrigo Callejas with Strategic Partner James Pomeroy and former Executive Director Edward H. Davis in Cyprus for the FraudNet Spring meeting. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

A Florida federal judge remands Turkish businessmen's attempt to block a $388M arbitral award back to state court, finding their removal to federal court was untimely. Turkish Brothers’ $388M Award Fight Sent Back To State Court Open In the News Open February 11, 2020 3 minutes read Sequor Law By Kelly Zegers Law360 (February 11, 2020, 7:37 PM EST) — A Florida federal judge has let a Turkish company go back to state court as it seeks to enforce a $338 million arbitral award, finding that two Turkish businessmen’s removal to federal court last year was untimely. U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith said brothers Mustafa and Sefa Çevik’s time-barred removal of the case was an attempt to seek a different ruling after a Florida state court confirmed the arbitral award that stemmed from a soured chromium ore mining license deal with the company, Turchrome Krom Madencili Sanay Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sirketi Turkey. In determining the Çevik brothers’ removal was untimely and granting the company’s motion to remand, the judge applied a previous court’s ruling on an international arbitral awards convention that found a party couldn’t willingly proceed with discovery and trial in state court only to remove “when the first bite of what appears to be a ripe apple turns extremely sour.” In this case, the brothers were trying to take a “second bite at the apple,” Judge Smith said. “It could not be clearer from defendants’ motions filed in the instant case that this is exactly what defendants are trying to do; after receiving an adverse ruling from the state court when the state court confirmed the arbitral award, defendants are now trying to obtain a different ruling in this court — first through removal and then through their motions to dismiss,” the judge said. The award in question had been issued to Turchrome in arbitration against Mustafa Çevik, which Turchrome initiated after yields at chromium ore sites failed to meet expectations. The arbitration took place in Paris under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce. The suit, which accuses Mustafa Çevik of fraudulently transferring certain real estate to Sefa in an effort to avoid paying the award, claims the two brothers have numerous assets in South Florida that could be used to enforce the award, including real estate, at least one business, and a Mercedes and a Range Rover. The federal judge’s ruling was in step with Turchrome’s contention that the Turkish businessmen failed to remove the case because the convention’s phrase “before the trial thereof” meant that trial begins when both sides present an argument on an issue of law or fact, according to court documents. The brothers called that interpretation “aggressive,” arguing that removal is timely as long as it happens before the state court has adjudicated on the merits of all of a plaintiff’s claims or dismissed the entire suit, the judge said. The judge acknowledged the businessmen’s reading of the existing case law on “before the trial” wasn’t unreasonable because there’s not a lot of case law on it. The Florida state court confirmed the arbitral award in May last year, according to court records. The brothers had moved to dismiss Turchrome’s motion to confirm the award. “The unfavorable ruling was not on just any claim; it was on the l[i]nchpin claim because the fraudulent transfer claims are dependent on confirmation of the arbitral award,” the judge said. Because of his finding on the timeliness issue, the federal judge said the court wouldn’t address Turchrome’s waiver argument. Turchrome had asserted the businessmen waived their rights to remove by litigating the case in state court before removal. The judge denied Turchrome’s motion for costs, according to the order. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. Turchrome Krom Madencili Sanay Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sirketi Turkey is represented in state court by Leyza B. Florin , Bruno de Camargo and Edward H. Davis Jr . of Sequor Law PA and Matthew D. McGill of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Mustafa Çevik, Sefa Çevik and Charisma Marble LLC are represented by Aliette D. Rodz and Kristin Drecktrah Paz of Shutts & Bowen LLP. The case was Turchrome Krom Madencili Sanay Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Sirketi Turkey v. Cevik et al., case number 1:19-cv-22910, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Explore how Rule 4(f) international service of process provides options for serving defendants abroad without an international agreement. Learn more about Rule 4(f) international service of process strategies. Service of Process Abroad: No International Agreement? Open Legal Insights Open May 23, 2022 2 minutes read Sequor Law Serving a defendant outside the United States can quickly become one of the most procedurally complex stages of a case—particularly when the destination country is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention or any other applicable international service treaty . But the absence of a treaty does not leave litigants without options. In their article for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Magazine (Issue 9) , Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza Blanco , Attorney Juan Mendoza , and Attorney Alejandro Rodriguez Vanzetti examine how Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides workable mechanisms for effecting service abroad even when no international agreement governs. The authors take a practical, court-centered approach to Rule 4(f) , explaining how its structure allows litigants to pursue several avenues depending on the circumstances. While treaty-based service under Rule 4(f)(1) is often the first consideration, the analysis does not end there. The article discusses how courts interpret Rule 4(f)(2) and 4(f)(3) , particularly in jurisdictions where no international agreement applies or where traditional channels are ineffective. Emphasis is placed on due process, judicial discretion, and the requirement that any proposed method be reasonably calculated to provide notice. Importantly, the article highlights how courts assess whether a proposed method is affirmatively prohibited by foreign law, how alternative service has evolved in response to modern realities, and what evidentiary support judges expect when litigants seek court-directed service. Rather than treating service abroad as a rigid procedural obstacle, the authors frame it as a strategic issue—one that requires careful analysis of the rule, the foreign jurisdiction, and the factual record before the court. For practitioners confronting cross-border defendants in commercial litigation , fraud matters , or enforcement proceedings, this piece offers a grounded examination of the available procedural tools and the considerations that can influence a court’s decision. To explore the full discussion and case analysis, we invite you to read the complete article in the T4 Fire magazine PDF (pages 48–50). Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

University of Miami names Sequor Law's Of Counsel Andrew Dawson as the first holder of the Judge A. Jay Cristol Endowed Chair in Bankruptcy, honoring his leadership in cross-border insolvency. University of Miami names Sequor of counsel as first bankruptcy chair Open Awards & Recognition Open March 6, 2020 3 minutes read Sequor Law A lawyer at Sequor Law will be the first to hold a new bankruptcy chair donated to the University of Miami by the Southern District of Florida bankruptcy court’s Chief Judge Emeritus Jay Cristol . Of counsel Andrew Dawson will be awarded the Judge A Cristol Endowed Chair in Bankruptcy at a ceremony on 6 March, which will take place at the university where he is already a professor and a vice dean. Judge Cristol, a University of Miami School of Law alumni himself, created the bankruptcy chair in 2016 to recognise faculty members for achievements in bankruptcy law. In a statement, Sequor Law called Dawson a “leader” and highlighted his research focus in cross-border insolvency and labour law. “Drew is truly deserving of this award and we are honoured to count his expertise among our ranks at Sequor Law. He is an outstanding example of our firm’s unsurpassed leadership in the practice, and demonstrates a relentless pursuit of success through his many invaluable contributions on behalf of our clients,” founding shareholder Ed Davis said in the statement. Dawson has worked at the University of Miami as a professor of law for the past nine years and currently also holds the title of vice dean of academic affairs. He regularly appears as a presenter and a panellist at conferences held by the Southeastern Association of Law Schools, the Hispanic National Bar Association and the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI), taking part in the latter’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 between 2012 and 2014. Dawson has also contributed to the study of cross-border insolvency under the UNCITRAL Model Law. He lays claim to producing the first empirical study of Chapter 15 following its adoption in 2005. The study, entitled “Offshore Bankruptcies”, was published in in 2009. His most recent publication in the Chicago-Kent Law Review hones in on the topic of modularity in understanding how to apply the UNCITRAL Model Law, according to his resume. The concept – which suggests the Model Law should be understood as a “modular” system that divides complex cases into a hierarchy of components – was intended to resolve questions over the cross-border recognition of judgments following the UK Supreme Court’s 2012 decision, where it refused to enforce a US bankruptcy court’s ruling against a person who had not submitted to UK courts. Dawson received his BA from Massachusetts-based Williams College and completed his JD at Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, he received an ABI Medal of Excellence, awarded to the student with the highest grade on a participating law school bankruptcy course. Early in his career, Dawson clerked for Judge Jane Roth at the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and for Judge Peter Walsh at the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. His first role in academia was at Harvard as a Kauffman Legal Fellow, awarded for research on the public sector, during which he researched bankruptcy law and corporate reoganisations. During the fellowship he had the opportunity to edit Chapter 11-related research by former Harvard bankruptcy professor turned-senator and US Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren. The bankruptcy chair is Judge Cristol’s second major donation to the University of Miami. In 2012, he named the school’s pro bono bankruptcy clinic after his late wife Eleanor. 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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...