Search this site

This article examines the Isaías Brothers case as a modern prisoner exchange between Ecuador and the United States, exploring press freedom, Edward Snowden asylum politics, and campaign finance. A Twenty-First Century Prisoner Exchange: The Case of the Isaías Brothers Open Legal Insights Open September 3, 2014 1 minute read Sequor Law Two brothers from Latin America are pitting the United States and Ecuador against each other in a battle over the freedom of the press, Edward Snowden, and campaign finance rules. Open 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..

Representing Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, and sovereigns in cross-border commercial disputes. Section 1782 discovery and global coordination International Commercial Litigation Sequor Law represents Fortune 50 companies, global financial institutions, multinational corporations, and sovereign entities in complex commercial disputes across multiple jurisdictions. With deep experience and a global network of trusted advisors, the firm is uniquely positioned to design and execute litigation strategies that operate seamlessly across borders. Litigating Cross-Border Disputes Across Federal and State Courts In the United States, Sequor Law appears regularly in federal, state, and appellate courts nationwide. The firm has extensive experience with doctrines central to international litigation, including forum non conveniens, personal jurisdiction, conflicts of law, sovereign immunity, and international treaties. Its attorneys have handled disputes involving breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, investment disputes, distributorship disputes, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and other complex commercial claims arising under U.S. and foreign law. Sequor Law is also highly experienced in assisting foreign counsel and international clients in obtaining evidence in the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and other similar procedural mechanisms. These tools are often critical in building cases pending in foreign jurisdictions and form a core component of the firm’s cross-border litigation strategy. Where disputes span multiple jurisdictions, Sequor Law frequently assumes a leadership role in structuring and coordinating global litigation efforts. The firm works closely with local counsel in each jurisdiction to ensure consistency, protect the client’s position, and drive outcomes aligned with a unified strategic objective. Our attorneys regularly operate with trusted partners in foreign jurisdictions and are familiar with the procedural tools, remedies, and litigation dynamics specific to each legal system. This experience allows Sequor Law to advise clients not only on legal strategy, but also on the broader considerations that often shape international disputes, including reputational risk, political sensitivities, and local business practices. Unified Strategy Across Multiple Jurisdictions and Local Counsel Representative Representative Cases Alter Ego Findings Lead to Multi-Million-Dollar Recovery in PPE Fraud Case Sequor Law represents a healthcare company in litigation against a purported PPE supplier involving breach of contract, money had and received, and alter ego liability. The supplier’s false representations and failure to deliver one million boxes of nitrile gloves or return a multi-million-dollar deposit led to summary Judgment in California for US$2,580,000 in damages, plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. US$19.5 Million Jury Verdict for Defrauded Shareholder Sequor Law represents a minority shareholder in litigation involving conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent transfer against the majority shareholder of a Colombia-based family construction materials business and other co-conspirators. After a multi-week jury trial, Sequor obtained an amended final judgment of US$19.5 million plus prejudgment interest against co-conspirator purchasers and a separate final judgment of US$19.5 million plus prejudgment interest against the majority shareholder and offshore co-conspirators. Open Gregory S. Grossman Founding Shareholder ggrossman@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 235 Open Edward H. Davis, Jr. Founding Shareholder edavis@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 228 Open Leyza B. Florin Shareholder lflorin@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 300 Open Open Key contacts Key Contacts

Sequor Law obtains a U.S. court order compelling Citibank to comply with financial discovery under the FSIA to enforce a judgment against the Republic of Kazakhstan, a key asset recovery win. U.S. Court Orders Citibank to Comply with Financial Discovery in Kazakhstan Judgment Enforcement Open Case Results Open February 21, 2025 1 minute read Sequor Law In a recent ruling that is of particular interest to parties seeking financial discovery relating to foreign sovereigns, Sequor Law, acting as part of a global enforcement team along with Astraea Group Ltd and Hillmont Partners, sought and obtained an Opinion and Order in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York compelling Citibank N.A. and various affiliated entities (together, “Citi”) to respond to financial discovery in furtherance of Petitioners’ efforts to enforce their judgment against the Republic of Kazakhstan. A copy of the Court’s Opinion and Order, which reaffirmed various core principles governing the rights of creditors to obtain discovery under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”), can be accessed below. 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 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 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 Edward H. Davis Jr. wins a $22 million civil theft judgment for Venezuelan finance company All Factoring after Miami businessman Luis Wolkowiez wrongfully misappropriated $8.6 million. Miami Lawyer Wins $22M Judgment for Venezuelan Company Over Civil Theft Open In the News Open January 23, 2019 3 minutes read Sequor Law Edward H. Davis Jr. of Sequor Law argued that Miami businessman Luis Wolkowiez stole $8.6 million from Venezuelan finance company All Factoring, and the court agreed. By Raychel Lean Edward H. Davis Jr. of Sequor Law in Miami landed a $22 million judgment for a South American finance company after the court found that Venezuelan businessman Luis Wolkowiez had wrongly taken money from it — allegedly to settle a debt a Miami resident owed him. But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Pedro P. Echarte didn’t buy that explanation, branding Wolkowiez’s actions civil theft. The international fraud case arrived in Miami-Dade Circuit Court in April 2013, with All Factoring de Venezuela, a finance company that helps businesses with cash flow problems, reporting a monetary predicament of its own. The company lawyered up after losing 130 million Venezuelan bolivars to Wolkowiez and his company, Inversiones 01590 C.A. in December 2012. According to Davis, that loss equaled about $8.6 million at the time, but as of Jan. 7, it was worth only $2.30 because of skyrocketing inflation in Venezuela. The case involved a short-term loan agreement between All Factoring and Miami resident Jorge Reyes, a broker for Atmosphere Fund. All Factoring sells invoices from manufacturing companies and other businesses to outside parties, helping clients get quick cash to pay bills and profiting from the difference. Under its deal with Reyes, All Factoring sent more than 234 million bolivars to a bank account for which Wolkowiez was custodian. The money was supposed to have remained in that account for less than 30 days, before it was returned in the currency of All Factoring’s choosing — dollars — to the tune of $15.5 million. Both parties canceled the contract, realizing that it would take longer than 30 days to repay, and agreed to a refund. ‘That’s Insane’ Wolkowiez, as custodian, gave back about $6.9 million but kept the remaining $8.6 million because Reyes, a broker, allegedly owed him money from another deal. It was an argument that Davis found hard to grasp. “Just because some other guy owes you money, you can’t take some total stranger’s money and pay yourself back,” Davis said. “That’s insane.” Davis wasn’t alone in his confusion, as the court found that Wolkowiez’s testimony was “not at all credible,” meaning Reyes may never have even owed him any money. Reyes was not to blame, according to the judgment, having only repeated what Wolkowiez had told him — not knowing it was a false promise. Reyes, who appeared pro se, and Wolkowiez’s lawyer, Coral Gables attorney Robert M. Miller , did not respond to requests for comment before deadline. The loss hit All Factoring hard, according to the judgment — causing it to lose credibility, lay off employees and fail to pay certain clients, one of whom committed suicide after losing money. The original complaint alleged unjust enrichment, conversion, civil theft and fraudulent misrepresentation, and made claims against several more defendants that were eventually dismissed or sent into bankruptcy court. The case landed in Miami because it involved several Miami residents, including Reyes and Wolkowiez, who handled all the negotiations from Miami. There was one defendant who got away, according to Davis — Colombian broker Ricardo Ripepi. “We sued him but we couldn’t find him,” Davis said. Tracking down defendants was the toughest part of the litigation for Davis, who said it took two years of trying before serving one defendant at an airport in Spain. Gathering evidence from Latin American countries also meant extra time and money spent translating videos, phone calls and documents. Davis has asked for more than $1.4 million in attorney fees and costs, and the defense has until Friday to oppose before the court will rule. 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..

Latinvex's Latin America's Top 100 Lawyers ranking features Sequor Law among the leading international law firms engaged in Latin American legal matters across 12 practice categories. Latin America’s Top 100 Lawyers Open Awards & Recognition Open June 23, 2021 2 minutes read Sequor Law Latinvex singles out the top foreign lawyers in Latin America. BY LATINVEX STAFF The editorial and research staff of Latinvex has selected the leading attorneys from international law firms that are involved in the legal business in Latin America. The ninth annual ranking includes 100 attorneys from 58 law firms — major firms as well as boutique firms — and spans 12 categories, including arbitration & litigation, banking & finance, capital markets, corporate/M&A, energy, FCPA & fraud and project finance. The criteria used was a combination of factors, including recent track record on major deals and business, prominence of firm in Latin America and rankings by third parties such as Chambers and Partners, Legal 500 and Refinitiv. Latinvex used data from our annual survey of international firms as well as publicly-available information. This year, 14 attorneyswere new compared with last year’s list. Keywords: Allen & Overy, Arent Fox, Arnold & Porter, Baker Botts, Beveridge & Diamond, Brown & Rudnick, Cassels Brock, Chaffetz Lindsey, Cleary Gottlieb, Conyers, Covington & Burling, Crowell & Moring, Davis Polk, Debevoise & Plimpton, Diaz Reus, Foley Hoag, Freshfields, Fridman Fels & Soto, Gowling WLG, Haynes and Boone, Herbert Smith Freehills, Hogan Lovells, Holland & Knight, Hughes Hubbard, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Jenner & Block, Jones Day, K&L Gates, Latham & Watkins, Littler Mendelson, Mayer Brown, McDermott Will & Emery, Milbank, Miller & Chevalier, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Morrisson & Foerster, Nelson Mullins, Paul Hastings, Proskauer Rose, Quinn Emanuel, Reed Smith, Ropes & Gray, Sequor Law , Shearman & Sterling, Sheppard Mullin, Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher, Skadden, Squire Patton Boggs, Sullivan & Cromwell, Thompson & Knight, Vinson & Elkins, Wasserman West, White & Case, Willkie, Wilson Sonsini, Winston & Strawn and Winston Legal Group. To see 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's Leyza B. Florin is named among Latinvex's top 100 female lawyers for her leadership in litigation and arbitration in the Latin American legal market. Shareholder Leyza Florin Blanco has been selected by LatinVex among Latin America’s Top 100 Female Lawyers Open Awards & Recognition Open November 9, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law November 9, 2021 The editorial and research staff of Latinvex has selected the 100 leading female attorneys from international law firms that are involved in the legal business in Latin America. Congratulations to Shareholder Leyza B. Florin for being selected among the top 100 Female Lawyers ranking in Litigation and Arbitration. Click here to read the article. 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 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..

Investor-state and commercial arbitration before ICC, ICDR, LCIA, ICSID, FINRA, and under UNCITRAL Rules. Most board-certified arbitration attorneys in Florida International Arbitration Sequor Law is deeply experienced as arbitration counsel in both investor-state and commercial arbitrations across a wide range of arbitral fora. Combined with its expertise in arbitral award collection, the firm is able not only to pursue favorable outcomes in arbitration, but also to position clients to collect on their awards. Sophisticated Dispute Resolution Across Jurisdictions, Languages, and Forums Sequor Law’s reputation is built on inventive strategic vision, meticulous preparation, and compelling advocacy, combined with comprehensive post-award evidence-gathering and recovery tools designed to secure enforcement. The firm’s International Arbitration experience includes investor-state and commercial disputes, particularly those connected to Latin America. Many of the substantive claims in these matters have little connection to the United States and are governed predominantly by foreign law. The team handles proceedings in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Sequor Law has handled disputes in fora including the ICC, AAA-ICDR, LCIA, ICSID, FINRA, and ad hoc arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules. Having navigated disputes caused by poorly drafted arbitration clauses, Sequor Law also advises clients on drafting effective arbitration provisions for business transactions. The firm’s attorneys regularly lecture on arbitral clause drafting and strategy. Arbitration often gives rise to parallel litigation, whether to compel arbitration, resist efforts to circumvent arbitration agreements, or confirm or vacate awards. Sequor Law has litigated each of these issues and coordinates with trusted foreign counsel to craft a global strategy. Coordinated Global Strategy Across Arbitration and Parallel Proceedings The Benchmark for Board-Certified International Arbitration Excellence Sequor Law’s lawyers are recognized leaders in the field. Giovanni Angles serves on the Board of Directors of the Miami International Arbitration Society and is a past President of AIJA’s International Arbitration Commission. Alain Acanda serves on the leadership team of Young MIAS and chairs a committee within The Florida Bar’s International Law Section. Founding Shareholder Edward H. Davis, Jr. chaired The Florida Bar’s International Litigation and Arbitration Committee. Davis, together with Gregory S. Grossman, Arnoldo B. Lacayo, and Leyza B. Florin, are board certified in International Litigation and Arbitration by The Florida Bar, the highest number of certified attorneys in this practice area among Florida firms. Representative Representative Cases Shareholder Dispute Over Debt Enforcement, Share Valuation, and Post-Award Remedies Sequor Law served as counsel to the 50% owner of a Guatemalan telecom company in a multimillion-dollar shareholder dispute involving debt enforcement and share valuation. The matter proceeded before a single arbitrator under ICDR rules and also involved a court-issued injunction against arbitrating with non-signatories and judicial post-award remedies for non-monetary relief. Multimillion-Dollar Dispute Involving Cruise Ship Lease and Tortious Interference Sequor Law served as counsel for a casino cruise ship operator in a dispute against the vessel owner-lessor involving breach of lease, frustration of purpose, and tortious interference with contract. The matter proceeded before a three-member ad hoc arbitration panel and also included court litigation over the designated arbitral forum. Open Giovanni Angles Counsel gangles@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 213 Open Joseph B. Rome Partner jrome@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 210 Open Edward H. Davis, Jr. Founding Shareholder edavis@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 228 Open Open Key contacts Key Contacts

Rolling Stone’s 2018 feature on the ‘kill list’ case put Tara J. Plochocki’s fight for a citizen’s due process rights before a national audience. How to Survive America’s Kill List Open In the News Open July 19, 2018 2 minutes read Sequor Law When *Rolling Stone* gave a single federal lawsuit the full weight of a long-form investigative feature, it made a quiet argument: the question of whether a citizen can be killed without a hearing belongs to the public, not only to lawyers and judges working behind closed doors. The 2018 piece followed Bilal Abdul Kareem, an American journalist who came to believe his work in Syria had landed him on a secret government targeting list after he survived a series of airstrikes. What might have read as a personal survival story instead opened onto a constitutional question most Americans never face: whether a citizen can even find out that his government has marked him for a drone strike, and whether a court is allowed to review that decision at all. For the press, these are not abstract concerns. Kareem was reporting from a war zone, and the case raised the prospect that journalists doing dangerous, unpopular work could be swept into a lethal designation with no way to contest it. Press freedom and due process rights, usually treated as separate concerns, met in a single file. A magazine known for cultural reporting recognized that and gave it the length the subject demanded, reaching readers who would never open a national security law journal. Carrying that litigation was attorney Tara J. Plochocki , who represented Kareem alongside the human rights organization Reprieve. The matter produced a notable result: a federal judge allowed his due process claim to move forward, refusing to treat the government's targeted killing authority as entirely beyond judicial review. For a citizen who wanted nothing more than a chance to be heard before the use of lethal force, that ruling mattered. The feature is worth reading in full for how it turns a dense legal fight into human terms. Sequor Law points readers to the original reporting: "How to Survive America's Kill List." The case also says something about the kind of work that defines Plochocki's record. She took it on earlier in her career; today she is a Partner at Sequor Law, where she leads the firm's Washington, D.C. office. An ICC FraudNet member admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. and Second Circuits, she built a practice around cross-border asset recovery, financial fraud, and international commercial litigation, and she still litigates at the intersection of constitutional rights, international law, and national security, including amicus briefs on the laws of war. Beyond one man's ordeal, the feature kept a single premise in view: that government power, however secret, still answers to the Constitution — a kill list included. Testing that in court, and a national publication taking the time to explain why it counts, kept a hard question from slipping out of public view. 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..

1. Introduction Sequor Law ("Sequor Law," "we," "us," or "our") is committed to protecting your privacy and the security of your personal information. This Privacy Policy explains how we collect, use, disclose, retain, and safeguard information when you visit our website located at https://www.sequorlaw.com (the "Website"), subscribe to our newsletter, or otherwise interact with us online. This Privacy Policy applies to information collected through our Website and does not apply to information collected offline or through any other means, except as expressly stated herein. By accessing or using our Website, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by this Privacy Policy. If you do not agree with the practices described in this Privacy Policy, please do not use our Website. Sequor Law is a law firm with its principal office located at 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1250, Miami, Florida 33131, United States. 2. Information We Collect 2.1 Information You Provide Voluntarily We may collect personal information that you voluntarily provide to us when you interact with our Website. This may include: Newsletter Subscriptions: When you subscribe to our newsletter, we collect your name and email address. Our newsletters are distributed through HubSpot, a third-party email marketing platform. When you subscribe, your information is stored and processed in HubSpot’s systems in addition to our own. HubSpot may collect additional technical data in connection with the delivery of our newsletters, including email open rates, click-through data, IP addresses, browser type, and device information through the use of tracking pixels and similar technologies embedded in our emails. Email Communications: If you contact us via email, we collect your email address, name, and any information you include in your correspondence. 2.2 Information Collected Automatically When you visit our Website, certain information is collected automatically through cookies and similar tracking technologies. This includes: Device and Browser Information: IP address, browser type and version, operating system, device type, and screen resolution. Usage Data: Pages visited, time spent on pages, referring URLs, click patterns, and navigation paths. Google Analytics (GA4) Data: We use Google Analytics 4 ("GA4") to analyze visitor behavior and improve our Website. GA4 collects data through first-party cookies (see our Cookie Policy for specific cookie details). GA4 does not store your full IP address. Data collected includes session information, engagement metrics, traffic sources, and anonymized demographic data. 2.3 Information We Do Not Collect We do not operate a contact form on our Website. We do not knowingly collect sensitive personal information such as financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, health information, or biometric data through our Website. 3. How We Use Your Information We use the information we collect for the following purposes: To send periodic newsletters containing firm news, legal updates, industry insights, and related information to subscribers who have opted in to receive such communications. To analyze Website traffic and visitor behavior in order to improve the functionality, content, and user experience of our Website. To monitor and maintain the security and integrity of our Website. To respond to inquiries and communications you send to us. To comply with applicable legal obligations, enforce our Terms and Conditions, and protect our rights, privacy, safety, or property, or that of our clients or others. 4. Legal Bases for Processing (For EEA, UK, and Swiss Visitors) If you are located in the European Economic Area ("EEA"), the United Kingdom ("UK"), or Switzerland, we process your personal data only when we have a valid legal basis to do so. The legal bases we rely upon include: Consent: Where you have given us clear, affirmative consent to process your personal data for specific purposes, such as subscribing to our newsletter or accepting analytics cookies. You may withdraw your consent at any time without affecting the lawfulness of processing carried out prior to withdrawal. Legitimate Interests: Where processing is necessary for our legitimate business interests, such as analyzing Website usage to improve our services, provided that such interests are not overridden by your data protection rights. Our legitimate interests include operating and improving our Website, understanding how visitors interact with our content, and ensuring the security of our online presence. Legal Obligation: Where processing is necessary for us to comply with a legal obligation to which we are subject. 5. Cookies and Tracking Technologies Our Website uses cookies and similar tracking technologies to collect and store certain information about your visit. We use cookies primarily for website analytics purposes through Google Analytics 4 (GA4). When you first visit our Website, you will be presented with a cookie consent banner that allows you to accept, decline, or manage your cookie preferences. Analytics cookies will not be placed on your device unless you have provided your consent. For detailed information about the specific cookies we use, their purposes, and durations, please refer to our separate Cookie Policy, which is available on our Website and should be read in conjunction with this Privacy Policy. 6. Disclosure of Your Information We do not sell, trade, rent, or otherwise transfer your personally identifiable information to outside parties for their own marketing purposes. We may share your information in the following circumstances: Service Providers: We share information with trusted third-party service providers who assist us in operating our Website, conducting our business, and servicing you. These include HubSpot (email marketing and newsletter distribution) and Google (website analytics via GA4). These service providers are contractually obligated to keep your information confidential and to use it only for the purposes for which we disclose it to them. Legal Requirements: We may disclose your information when we believe in good faith that disclosure is necessary to comply with applicable law, regulation, legal process, or governmental request; to enforce our Terms and Conditions or other agreements; or to protect our rights, property, or safety, or the rights, property, or safety of our clients or others. Aggregate or De-identified Data: We may share aggregated or de-identified information that cannot reasonably be used to identify you with third parties for marketing, analytics, or other purposes. 7. Data Retention We retain personal information for as long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected, unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law. Newsletter Subscribers: We retain the personal information of newsletter subscribers (name and email address) for as long as the subscription remains active. If you unsubscribe, we will delete your personal information within ninety (90) days of your unsubscribe request, unless we are required to retain it for legal or regulatory purposes. We periodically review our subscriber list and may remove contacts who have had no engagement (e.g., no email opens or clicks) for an extended period, in accordance with data minimization principles and applicable email deliverability best practices. The criteria used to determine the applicable review period include the length of inactivity, the nature of the subscriber’s prior engagement with the firm, and evolving regulatory and technical requirements. Website Analytics Data: Analytics data collected through Google Analytics 4 is retained in accordance with our GA4 configuration settings. GA4 data retention is set to fourteen (14) months, after which user-level and event-level data associated with cookies is automatically deleted. Aggregated reports that do not contain personally identifiable information may be retained indefinitely. Email Correspondence: If you correspond with us via email, we retain your communications for as long as necessary to address the matter at hand and for a reasonable period thereafter for record-keeping purposes. 8. Your Rights and Choices 8.1 All Users Regardless of your location, you have the following choices with respect to your personal information: Newsletter Opt-Out: You may unsubscribe from our newsletter at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link included at the bottom of each newsletter email, or by contacting us at the address provided below. Cookie Preferences: You may manage your cookie preferences through the cookie consent banner on our Website or by adjusting your browser settings. Please note that disabling certain cookies may affect the functionality of our Website. 8.2 Rights for EEA, UK, and Swiss Residents If you are located in the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, or Switzerland, you have additional rights under the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") and equivalent local laws, including: Right of Access: You have the right to request confirmation as to whether we process your personal data and, if so, to request a copy of that personal data. Right to Rectification: You have the right to request that we correct any inaccurate personal data or complete any incomplete personal data concerning you. Right to Erasure: You have the right to request that we delete your personal data, subject to certain legal exceptions. Right to Restriction of Processing: You have the right to request that we restrict the processing of your personal data in certain circumstances. Right to Data Portability: You have the right to receive your personal data in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format and to transmit that data to another controller. Right to Object: You have the right to object to the processing of your personal data where we rely on legitimate interests as our legal basis. Right to Withdraw Consent: Where we rely on consent as the legal basis for processing, you have the right to withdraw your consent at any time. Right to Lodge a Complaint: You have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority in the EU or UK member state of your habitual residence, place of work, or place of the alleged infringement. To exercise any of these rights, please contact us using the information provided in the "Contact Us" section below. We will respond to your request within one (1) month, as required by applicable law. In certain circumstances, we may extend this period by an additional two (2) months, in which case we will inform you of the extension and the reasons for the delay. 8.3 Rights for California Residents If you are a California resident, you may have additional rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act ("CCPA/CPRA"). Please note that the CCPA/CPRA applies to businesses that meet certain revenue and data processing thresholds. While Sequor Law may not meet all applicable thresholds, we provide the following information as a matter of transparency and good practice: Right to Know: You have the right to request that we disclose the categories and specific pieces of personal information we have collected about you, the categories of sources from which the information is collected, the business or commercial purpose for collecting the information, and the categories of third parties with whom we share the information. Right to Delete: You have the right to request deletion of personal information we have collected from you, subject to certain legal exceptions. Right to Correct: You have the right to request correction of inaccurate personal information. Right to Opt-Out of Sale or Sharing: We do not sell your personal information, nor do we share it for cross-context behavioral advertising purposes. Right to Non-Discrimination: We will not discriminate against you for exercising any of your rights under the CCPA/CPRA. 8.4 Rights Under Other U.S. State Privacy Laws Residents of other U.S. states with comprehensive consumer privacy laws (including but not limited to Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Oregon, Texas, Montana, and others) may have similar rights to access, correct, delete, and opt out of certain processing of their personal information. If you are a resident of a state with an applicable consumer privacy law, please contact us to exercise your rights. 9. Third-Party Service Providers We engage the following third-party service providers in connection with our Website and communications: 9.1 Google Analytics 4 (GA4) We use Google Analytics 4, a web analytics service provided by Google LLC ("Google"), to analyze visitor behavior on our Website. GA4 uses first-party cookies to distinguish unique users and sessions. GA4 does not store full IP addresses. Data collected by GA4 is processed in accordance with Google’s Privacy Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy). We have configured GA4 to retain user-level and event-level data for fourteen (14) months. Google may transfer data to servers located outside the EEA; Google relies on Standard Contractual Clauses and other approved transfer mechanisms for such transfers. 9.2 HubSpot We use HubSpot, Inc. ("HubSpot") as our email marketing platform for distributing newsletters. Newsletters are sent from an email address using the sequorlaw.com domain, but the distribution infrastructure is provided by HubSpot. When you receive a newsletter from us, HubSpot may collect the following data through tracking pixels and links embedded in the email: whether you opened the email, which links you clicked, your IP address at the time of opening, and your email client and device information. This data is used to measure the effectiveness of our communications and to improve our content. HubSpot’s privacy practices are governed by its own Privacy Policy (https://legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy). HubSpot maintains a Data Processing Agreement and a list of its sub-processors, both available on its legal page (https://legal.hubspot.com ). HubSpot stores data on servers in the United States and relies on Standard Contractual Clauses for international data transfers. 10. Data Security We implement reasonable administrative, technical, and physical security measures designed to protect the personal information we collect against unauthorized access, alteration, disclosure, or destruction. These measures include, but are not limited to, encryption of data in transit (SSL/TLS), access controls, and regular security assessments. However, no method of transmission over the Internet or method of electronic storage is completely secure, and we cannot guarantee absolute security. If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, please notify us immediately using the contact information provided below. 11. International Data Transfers Sequor Law is based in the United States. If you access our Website from outside the United States, please be aware that your information may be transferred to, stored in, and processed in the United States, where data protection laws may differ from those in your country of residence. Where we transfer personal data from the EEA, UK, or Switzerland to countries that have not been deemed to provide an adequate level of data protection, we rely on appropriate safeguards, including Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission, to ensure the protection of your personal data. By using our Website or providing us with your personal information, you acknowledge and consent to the transfer, storage, and processing of your information in the United States and other jurisdictions as described in this Privacy Policy. 12. Third-Party Links Our Website may contain links to third-party websites, applications, or services that are not owned or controlled by Sequor Law. This Privacy Policy does not apply to third-party websites or services. We encourage you to review the privacy policies of any third-party websites you visit. Sequor Law is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of third-party websites. 13. Children’s Privacy Our Website is not directed to individuals under the age of sixteen (16), and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under sixteen (16). If we become aware that we have inadvertently collected personal information from a child under sixteen (16), we will take steps to delete such information as soon as practicable. If you believe that we may have collected information from a child under sixteen (16), please contact us using the information provided below. 14. Do Not Track Signals Some web browsers may transmit "Do Not Track" (DNT) signals to websites. Because there is no universally accepted standard for how to respond to DNT signals, our Website does not currently respond to DNT signals. However, you can manage your cookie preferences through the cookie consent banner on our Website. 15. Changes to This Privacy Policy We may update this Privacy Policy from time to time to reflect changes in our practices, technologies, legal requirements, or other factors. When we make material changes to this Privacy Policy, we will update the "Last Modified" date at the top of this page and, where appropriate, provide additional notice (such as a notice on our Website). We encourage you to review this Privacy Policy periodically to stay informed about how we are protecting your information. Your continued use of our Website after the posting of changes constitutes your acceptance of such changes. 16. Contact Us If you have any questions, concerns, or requests regarding this Privacy Policy, our data practices, or if you wish to exercise any of your rights described herein, please contact us at: Sequor Law 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1250 Miami, Florida 33131 United States Phone: (+1) 305-372-8282 Fax: (+1) 305-372-8202 Email: info@sequorlaw.com For privacy-specific inquiries, we endeavor to respond to all requests within thirty (30) days. For requests made under the GDPR, we will respond within one (1) month as required by applicable law. Privacy Policy Latest Update: April 10, 2026