Sequor Law adds former GrayRobinson shareholders Leyza Florin and Fernando Menendez to its Miami-based bankruptcy litigation practice, enhancing cross-border insolvency expertise. Sequor Law Picks Up Two Bankruptcy Attorneys From GrayRobinson Open Firm News Open June 11, 2018 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Rick Archer Miami, Florida - June 4, 2018 Sequor Law has added two former GrayRobinson PA shareholders, including one of the founding members of that firm’s Miami office, to its own Miami-based bankruptcy litigation practice, the firm has announced. In a statement released June 4, Sequor Law said new partners Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez Jr. have experience dealing with complex and cross-border bankruptcy cases, which would be a particular asset to the firm. “The firm not only gains two outstanding lawyers with years of experience in insolvency, restructuring, and commercial litigation, but their bilingual and multicultural heritage will add to the growth of our market leadership in international asset recovery and cross-border insolvency,” Sequor Law founding shareholder Ed Davis said in the statement. Seven years ago Florin, a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law, was one of the founding shareholders of GrayRobinson’s Miami office. The statement said Florin has a wide range of litigation experience with a special emphasis on complex business bankruptcy and commercial litigation matters. She has extensive international bankruptcy experience, including with the Chapter 15 proceedings for Barbados-based British American Insurance Co., where she served as U.S. counsel for the court-appointed representatives from 11 different jurisdictions. She is also a Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil Mediator. Menendez, a New York University School of Law graduate, also spent seven years with GrayRobinson after starting his career at White & Case LLP. Menendez has worked on a broad range of business reorganization and restructuring matters as well as complex and contested bankruptcy issues, the statement said. According to his biography on the firm’s website, one major case Menendez has handled was representing the holders of more than $30 million in secured debt in the contested Chapter 11 of the owner of a large Miami real estate parcel. Both attorneys credited what they called Sequor’s focus on international business as their reason for joining the firm. “I think we were both concerned about widening the breadth of our international practice,” Menendez said in a phone interview Monday. “They’re already in these markets. I think we have the opportunity to expand our relationships overseas.” In the statement, Florin said they had both worked with a number of Sequor’s attorneys for years and had “long admired” the firm. “They have significant depth in the cross-border area,” Florin said in the phone interview. “They have a really deep bench.” Miami-based Sequor represents financial institutions, governments, and public and non-public companies in commercial litigation, financial fraud cases, and bankruptcies in the U.S. and internationally, according to the statement. Click to view full article. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

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 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin represents joint liquidators of Gibraltar-registered Privilege Wealth One seeking Chapter 15 recognition in Miami amid fraud and mismanagement allegations. Gibraltarian payday loans business files Chapter 15 in Miami Open In the News Open August 15, 2018 4 minutes read Sequor Law Two weeks after its UK sister company filed for Chapter 15 protection in New Jersey, the joint liquidators of a Gibraltar-registered payday loans business embroiled in fraud and mismanagement allegations, have sought recognition of their appointment in Miami. With counsel from Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin , Grant Thornton partners David Ingram and Frederick White filed the Chapter 15 petition in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida on 14 August. Ingram and White were appointed joint liquidators of Privilege Wealth One by the Supreme Court of Gibraltar in June, five months after administrators were appointed over its sister company, UK-registered holding company Privilege Wealth, in England. Soon after the UK administrators were appointed, the group caught the attention of the UK’s Mail on Sunday , which quoted a letter to investors from Privilege Wealth One blaming the group’s problems on a series of bad decisions, including the UK company;s investment in a payday loans business in South Dakota run by a Native American Sioux Tribe, and serviced – at least initially – from a call centre in Panama. The head of that call centre, according to the Mail, was a UK national and “well known scam operator” who was reportedly shot in an assassination attempt in Panama last year. He was later arrested at the request of Spanish police, which accused him of running a scam oil venture from a call centre in Marbella targeting British investors. In a declaration filed at the Miami court, Ingram said Privilege Wealth One was plunged into compulsory liquidation after Chilean creditor Richard Leclerc filed a statutory demand in Gibraltar in March. Leclerc requested payment owed to him by Privilege Wealth One and its general partner Privilege Wealth Management (PWM) under a loan note agreement. After the companies failed to satisfy the demand they were presumed insolvent under Gibraltarian law and Leclerc made an application to appoint the joint liquidators, supported by three additional investors. Those four creditors have combined unsatisfied debts of US$600,000 in US loan notes and £800,000 (US$1.02 million) in European loan notes. Ingram told the US court that he has taken steps to gather information on the affairs of Privilege Wealth One and PWM, and to notify all creditors and interested persons of his appointment. But he said that the information available to the joint liquidators so far has not allowed them determine “the precise details of the funds received from creditors” for investment in the Privilege companies, or how the proceeds were used. The Chapter 15 application “is of critical importance to addressing these issues”, Ingram’s declaration said. “[R]ecogonition under Chapter 15 is essential to the joint liquidators’ worldwide pursuit of assets with which to recover the funds received from creditors”. Under Gibraltarian insolvency law, no distinction is applied between the assets of an insolvent entity located within Gibraltar and those outside the territory. “The joint liquidators are empowered to seek recovery of all assets and rights, wherever located,” Ingram said, adding they are duty bound to pursue assets and claims of the debtor in the United States. Other actions GRR has already reported that the UK administrators Privilege Wealth, filed Chapter 15 recognition proceedings in New Jersey on 2 August. David Rubin & Partners’ Stephen Katz and John Kelmanson of Kelmanson Insolvency Solutions were appointed by the England and Wales High Court back in January, after the company defaulted on funds owed to the Gibraltarian entity. In a declaration filed in New Jersey, Katz said he had become aware that Privilege Wealth had possible rights and causes of action arising out of a 25,000 strong portfolio of payday loans. He said any outstanding loans and the proceeds from the portfolio may now lie with US company Oliphant Financial, which was allegedly engaged to service the loans after the UK company’s own Panamanian subsidiary stopped servicing them. Katz and Kelmanson intend to file lawsuits in the US to obtain what funds they can for creditors, and have also asked the New Jersey bankruptcy court’s permission to repatriate any proceeds recovered to the UK. Privilege Wealth One and Luxemburgish fund Helix Investment Management are described as the UK company’s two primary lenders in its Chapter 15 application. They appear on a list of entities against whom Katz and Kelmanson may seek provisional relief in the US, along with Florida foreign limited partnership Privilege Direct, and numerous Oliphant entities, which are being pursued by Helix in the District Court of the Middle District of Florida. Helix, which may be owed US$7 million by Privilege Wealth according to the UK’s Mail on Sunday , is seeking damages of US$75,000 plus interest and injunctive relief in those proceedings for the breach of various security arrangements relating to loans it issued to the company. In Ingram and White’s Chapter 15 petition in Miami, they also list the Oliphant groups and Helix as entities against whom the Gibraltarian company may seek interim relief, as well as the UK company Privilege Wealth. A hearing to decide Privilege Wealth One’s recognition application will take place before Judge Laurel Isicoff in Florida on 9 September. Meanwhile, a recognition hearing for Privilege Wealth’s action in New Jersey has been listed for 6 September, with Judge John Sherwood assigned to the case. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida In re: Privilege Wealth One Limited Partnership Judge Laurel Isicoff Joint Liquidators of Privilege Wealth One Grant Thornton Partners David Ingram in London and Frederick White in Gibraltar Counsel to the joint liquidators of Privilege Wealth One Sequor Law Partners Leyza B. Florin and Edward Davis in Miami 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 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law remains committed to pursuing results for clients during the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring the safety of staff and attorneys during these unprecedented times. We Remain Relentless in Our Commitment to You Open Firm News Open March 19, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law Dear Clients and Friends: As COVID-19 sweeps the globe, Sequor Law continues to relentlessly pursue results for our clients during these unprecedented times. In addition, we have taken proactive steps to ensure the safety and well-being of our staff and lawyers in line with the guidance provided by the relevant authorities. Sequor Law has a proven track record in helping our clients navigate through troubled waters to secure the best possible outcomes for them. If you find yourself in need of professional guidance in our core practice areas of asset recovery, domestic and cross-border insolvency, financial fraud, creditors' rights and financial services litigation, we are here for you. We thank you for the trust and confidence you have placed in us and extend our best wishes to you and your loved ones for continued good health. Sincerely, The Sequor Law team Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Edward H. Davis Jr. and Andres H. Sandoval assess the Panama Papers leak’s impact on transparency and why asset recovery lags due to evidentiary challenges and litigation hurdles. Panama Papers update: progress and impediments Open Legal Insights Open November 10, 2017 7 minutes read Sequor Law Scandalous revelations of suspicious financial activity exposed by the Panama Papers have toppled political leaders, induced regulatory reforms and prompted greater cooperation from Panama itself towards international efforts to combat tax evasion. But Edward H Davis Jr and Andres H Sandoval would like to see more headway in the area of asset recovery. In April 2016 the Suddeutsche Zeitung released the ground-breaking publication covering the ‘Panama Papers’ – a massive leak of 11.5 million documents from the Panamanian Mossack Fonseca firm and its affiliates, formerly the world’s fourth-largest provider of offshore incorporation services. Shortly thereafter, due largely to the efforts of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), limited information extracted from the Panama Papers was digitised and disseminated to the public in the searchable Offshore Leaks Database maintained on the ICIJ’s website. [1] The impact of the Panama Papers leak in the political, journalistic, investigative and financial arenas is plain to see. However, well over a year later, the Panama Papers fervour is only now creeping into the asset recovery arena. That it has taken this long to arrive is frustrating, but perhaps predictable in light of evidentiary concerns and the inherent difficulty in commencing litigation. Regardless, this signals the next step in combating tax evasion, corruption, fraud and money laundering in the wake of the historic leak. Facts and figures The global effect and pervasiveness of the Panama Papers leak is unrivalled. The 11.5 million leaked documents, dating back nearly 40 years, contain information on more than 214,000 offshore entities, in more than 200 jurisdictions, created by Mossack Fonseca. Major financial institutions alone drove the creation of nearly 15,600 offshore entities. Of these financial institutions, HSBC and its affiliates were responsible for the creation of more than 2,300 offshore corporate vehicles. Others, such as Banque J Safra, UBS AG and Societe Generale, were not far behind. The Panama Papers also exposed 140 politicians from over 50 countries to charges of bribery and corruption for allegedly improper ties to offshore corporate vehicles in no fewer than 21 financial havens. As a result, 14 current and former heads of state as well as over 30 current and former politicians or public figures have come under scrutiny by governmental bodies. Several top government and corporate officials have cracked under the pressure, including, notably, the former Prime Minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davia Gunnlaugsson, who resigned just days after the initial media coverage of the Panama Papers leak. Other political figures have been faced with high- profile investigations, including Argentina’s Mauricio Macri, Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko and Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. These investigations are bearing fruit. In late July 2017, Pakistan’s Supreme Court deemed Sharif unfit to be a member of parliament for reasons of dishonesty and corruption. The Supreme Court’s decision is the culmination of months of proceedings sparked by the Panama Papers leak, which linked Sharif’s family members to purchases of luxury real estate in London through offshore corporate vehicles. Further, on 31 July 2017, the National Accountability Bureau, Pakistan’s top anti-corruption unit, announced it would file formal corruption charges against Sharif, his children, son-in-law and the former Pakistani Finance Minister, Ishaq Dar. Beneficial effects Among the seemingly more positive effects, the Panama Papers leak has fuelled a global push towards transparency and accessibility of information regarding the ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) of opaque offshore entities and accounts. Just weeks after the leak, the United States executive administration under former President Barack Obama announced it would implement regulatory reform to increase financial transparency and combat tax evasion, corruption and money laundering. Among the various measures, in May 2016, the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) promulgated new rules on customer due diligence requirements, which require financial institutions to identify any natural person beneficially owning more than 25% of, or otherwise controlling, the institution’s legal entity customers. Similar initiatives are being pushed in the United Kingdom, Germany and others in the G20 group. Only time will tell if these initiatives prove to be effective or are just window dressing. Cleaning the backyard The Panama Papers leak has also exerted pressure on countries previously resistant to increased financial transparency – namely, Panama. In 2016, Panama’s Vice President Isabel de Saint Malo pledged Panama’s willingness to sign the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters – an agreement developed jointly by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe to combat tax evasion through the automatic sharing of residents’ financial information. Holding fast to that pledge, on 3 March 2017, Panama deposited with the OECD its instrument of ratification of the Convention, which came into force in Panama on 1 July 2017. Panama has also signed an information-sharing treaty with Mexico and continues its negotiation of similar agreements with Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK and Switzerland. As of 12 June 2017, the OECD reports 112 jurisdictions currently participating in the Convention. Delayed Recovery Where the Panama Papers have had much less impact than was originally hoped for is in the asset recovery arena. Following the leak, early commentators predicated litigation in the financial havens themselves, such as the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Hong Kong and Panama, as well as financial centres that may house assets or UBOs, such as Switzerland, the UK and the US. However, now over one year later, this litigation has largely yet to be seen. This is disappointing in light of estimates that as much as 8% of the world’s financial wealth (approximately US$7.6 trillion) is held in financial havens. Further, according to Gabriel Zucman, economist, professor and author of The Hidden Wealth of Nations, as much as 80% of that hidden wealth is not reported to the tax authorities of any country. Equally astounding, the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative – a partnership between the World Bank Group and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to promote international efforts to end financial havens for corrupt funds and prevent the laundering of the proceedings of corruption – estimates that up to US$40 billion per year is stolen by corrupt public officials around the world. Those most affected by this hidden wealth are the citizens of the governments susceptible to tax evasion, corruption and the illicit diversion of funds, as well as the victims of fraud where the opaque corporate structures are used to hide the proceeds of these crimes. As a result, these jurisdictions often suffer from undeveloped infrastructure, failing health facilities and inadequate educational institutions. While it may be no less important to investigate and expose the corrupt actors that prey on these governments, there must also be a focus on and concerted effort to recover the value that has been secreted in financial havens and often elsewhere. A Start There may be signs of change, however. On 14 July 2017, the US Department of Justice commenced a civil forfeiture proceeding against approximately US$144 million in assets – primarily, a luxury yacht and Manhattan real estate-allegedly representing the proceeds of corruption, bribery and money laundering. The allegations concern prominent businessmen Kolawole Akanni Aluko and Olajide Omokore, and Nigeria’s former Minister for Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke. The US alleges in part that Aluko and Omokore purchased, luxury real estate in London and high-end furniture for Alison-Madueke’s benefit and, in return, Alison-Madueke used her influence to steer lucrative state oil contracts to companies ultimately owned or controlled by Aluko and Omokore. The ICIJ’s Will Fitzgibbon first reported in July 2016 on the links between Aluko, Omokore and Alison-Madueke as detailed in the Panama Papers. This led to investigations in Nigeria, the UK and elsewhere. Evidence and privilege concerns So, what is the reason for the tardy arrival of the Panama Papers’ impact in the asset recovery arena? Firstly, a lack of competent evidence. The ICIJ’s Offshore Leaks Database largely, if not entirely, lacks source documentation. The same is true of the ICIJ’s database for the ‘Swiss Leaks’ and the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ in previous years (other than documents expressly approved by Luxembourg authorities). Similarly, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the Panamanian authorities have disseminated to the public or shared with authorities of other countries the documents seized from Mossack Fonseca’s offices following the initial leak. While there may be legitimate reasons for restricting the disclosure of source documentation, the availability of only extracted and secondary information poses hearsay, trustworthiness and other evidentiary problems for authorities, asset recovery professionals and victims in constructing asset recovery cases. More must be done to allow access to this critical information. Secondly, it is an open issue as to whether information taken from the Panama Papers is privileged or protected. Additionally, the issue is complicated by the possible application of foreign law, making it difficult to know which privilege rules apply. Though exceptions to privilege may exist, such as the crime-fraud exception under US law or the iniquity exception under English law, this issue must be weighed carefully. Rather, a best practice would be to treat the Offshore Leaks Database as an important tool in the investigative toolbox and a springboard to pursue additional disclosure in the appropriate jurisdiction. In this respect, emerging asset tracing techniques in recent years can assist greatly in closing the fence around intricate offshore structures. With respect to the US, these techniques include pursuing disclosure proceedings in aid of foreign litigation under 28 USC § 1782, the subpoenaing of information from banks in order to trace the flow of monies through different jurisdictions, and seeking recognition of foreign bankruptcy proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. By using the Model Law, foreign bankruptcy trustees can gain access to US-style discovery and broad turnover powers of assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Whatever the reason for the delay, the fervour to see positive change prompted by the Panama Papers must now enter the next phase: concerted efforts to pursue – on behalf of the victims of tax evasion, corruption, fraud and money laundering – the vast hidden wealth that has been secreted through the use of opaque offshore corporate vehicles. Such efforts are long overdue. Click to view the full article. Notes: Panama Papers Website Edward H. Davis Jr (+1 305 372 8282, Ext. 228, edavis@ sequorlaw.com) is a founding shareholder of Sequor Law. Davis was recognised as the Asset Recovery Lawyer of the Year by Who’s Who Legal in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. With nearly 30 years of experience, he focuses his practice on asset recovery, financial fraud and the pursuit of misappropriated assets throughout the world on behalf of the victims of fraud. Davis is also a leading member of the ICC Commercial Crimes Services FraudNet Network. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law's October 2020 quarterly newsletter featuring the latest news and updates from the firm's associate attorneys. October 2020 – Latest News from Our Associates Open Firm News Open October 1, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law Click below to view the latest news from Sequor Law’s associates, and make sure you join our email list to receive future newsletters. News: Latest from our Associates Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Who's Who Legal recognizes Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. as one of the foremost asset recovery lawyers, praised for identifying key issues and strategic thinking in complex financial disputes. Thought Leaders Global Elite – Asset Recovery (GIR 2019) Open Awards & Recognition Open September 5, 2019 1 minute read Sequor Law Who’s Who Legal says: Edward Davis Jr is one of the foremost lawyers in our research this year. Sources note, “He is particularly strong at identifying key issues and strategizing in ways that take those key issues into consideration.” Read the full article below or click here Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law highlights recovered artworks from Banco Santos president Edemar Cid Ferreira’s collection—including 95 pieces seized by U.S. authorities in a $10 million money-laundering case that may be auctioned. Trove of Missing Art Heads to Auction Open In the News Open October 28, 2017 3 minutes read Sequor Law A Henry Moore sculpture and a Rufino Tamayo painting are among recovered art works that may be auctioned at Sotheby’s By Kelly Crow Former Banco Santos president Edemar Cid Ferreira once covered the walls of his São Paulo home with Man Ray photographs, Louise Bourgeois prints and paintings by Jean-Michel Basquiat, Francis Picabia and others. But when Brazilian authorities arrested Mr. Ferreira in 2006 for an alleged $1 billion money-laundering scheme, the walls were bare. The vanished collection set off a global scavenger hunt, with investigators and creditors chasing leads long after Mr. Ferreira was convicted of money – laundering and sentenced in federal criminal court in Brazil to 21 years in prison. Mr. Ferreira has appealed the case and declined, through his lawyer, to comment. Mr. Ferreira, the president of Banco Santos, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2004. More art once owned by him has been recovered. Photo: Daniel Ackern/Bloomberg News. This month, U.S. authorities announced a breakthrough, saying they had rounded up 95 works Mr. Ferreira once owned that together are worth at least $10 million. The art was in warehouses across France, Panama, England and the Netherlands, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Two paintings in the group were in galleries in New York. Joon Kim, the Acting U.S. Attorney, who said Mr. Ferreira’s art had been “used to mask an audacious criminal scheme,” signed documents turning the trove over to a Brazilian judicial administrator handling the estate of Banco Santos, which failed in 2005. The bank’s estate, which is seeking to compensate creditors, plans to enlist Sotheby’s to auction some of the works, said Arnoldo Lacayo, a lawyer with Sequor Law, a Miami firm helping the bank’s estate track down Mr. Ferreira’s assets. A Sotheby’s spokeswoman confirmed that the auction house has been asked to review the works for potential sale. Major pieces include Henry Moore’s “Woman,” a life-size bronze figure that had been stored in France, as well as Rufino Tamayo’s abstract view of a couple, “Casal de Marcianos 1975 (Two Figures),” which was stored in Florida. There also is a Lucite cube sculpture by Anish Kapoor and works by Brazilian mainstays Adriana Varejão, Vik Muniz and Jac Leirner. Among the older works is an etching by Eugène Delacroix. The fate of Helen Frankenthaler’s 1965 blue-and-gold abstract, “Sea Strip,” offers a glimpse into the circuitous path of some of the art. Mr. Ferreira paid Christie’s $197,900 for “Sea Strip” in late 2004 —a year before his bank failed and a time when authorities said he was starting to ship crates of art to warehouses in Europe for safekeeping. Later, a friend of his wife sold “Sea Strip” to Edward Tyler Nahem Fine Art in New York for an undisclosed sum. John Cahill, a lawyer for the gallery, said Mr. Nahem had been told that the painting was from a corporate collection. Once alerted to its true origins, Mr. Nahem got into a title dispute with the bank’s estate, Mr. Cahill and Mr. Lacayo said, because the dealer had bought the work in good faith. Both sides said they have since reached a settlement to sell the work jointly. Right now, the Frankenthaler is the only recovered work that isn’t immediately headed to Sotheby’s, Mr. Cahill said. Before this month, only a handful of works from Mr. Ferreira’s collection had been found and returned—including a Roman statue and Basquiat’s 1982 “Hannibal,” a skull portrait on an orange background. The work, with its dark slashes, spiky lines and splotches of bright color, is considered a signature piece by Basquiat, who started out as a graffiti artist. Mr. Ferreira bought the painting in 2003 and had it shipped from the Netherlands to a New York warehouse in 2007 after his conviction, authorities said. U.S. Customs took a closer look when the work arrived because its declared value was $100. Jean-Michel Basquiat, ‘Hannibal,’ 1982 Photo: Interpol Washington Last fall, Sotheby’s helped the bank’s estate sell “Hannibal” to Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa for $13 million. “Hiding illicit proceeds in art happens all the time,” said Mr. Lacayo of the asset-recovery firm helping the bank’s estate. “At least in this case we’re unraveling it.” Click to view full article. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Gregory Grossman spoke at IBRA – Instituto Brasileiro de Rastreamento de Ativos, addressing asset tracing and recovery professionals. Gregory Grossman Spoke at Ibra- Instituto Brasileiro de Rastreamento de Ativos Open Events & Speaking Open November 30, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Gregory Grossman spoke at IBRA-Instituto Brasilerio de Rastreamento de Ativos on Friday, November 26th. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law's Ed Davis, Leyza Florin, and Juan Mendoza examine the challenges of seeking US recognition of individual debtors' foreign insolvency proceedings and COMI determination under Chapter 15. Asset recovery column: Recognition of an individual debtor’s insolvency proceeding – beware the perils Open Legal Insights Open March 27, 2019 5 minutes read Sequor Law Ed Davis, Leyza B. Florin and Juan Mendoza Shareholders Edward Davis Jr and Leyza B. Florin , and attorney Juan Mendoza from Sequor Law in Miami discuss the things to watch out for when seeking recognition of an individual debtor’s foreign insolvency proceedings in the US. Recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding in the United States allows the use of an arsenal of asset recovery weapons for a cross-border practitioner, including the opportunity to obtain discovery relating to the financial condition of the debtor, and to commence actions to collect property and liquidate claims. This arsenal may be particularly effective in situations where an individual debtor flees the jurisdiction of his or her pending bankruptcy case to the United States. Such a change of circumstances may disturb the debtor’s ties with the jurisdiction of the pending insolvency, however, and alter the foreign trustee’s ability to obtain recognition of the foreign insolvency in the United States. This column discusses the nuances a practitioner must consider when pursuing recognition of an individual debtor’s foreign insolvency under Chapter 15. To obtain recognition of a “foreign main proceeding” under Chapter 15 – the United States’ analogue to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency – a foreign representative of the foreign insolvency proceeding must show, among other things, that the foreign proceeding is pending in the country where the debtor has his or her centre of main interests (COMI). An individual debtor’s COMI is defined as the debtor’s “habitual residence”. The foreign representative may also obtain recognition of the foreign proceeding as a foreign non-main proceeding if the debtor has an “establishment” in the country where the foreign proceeding is pending. “Establishment” is defined as a place of operations where a debtor carries out non-transitory economic activity. As the determination of an individual debtor’s COMI or establishment is a fact-intensive inquiry, the operative date for the determination of COMI or establishment could be pivotal in obtaining recognition. US courts are split on the operative date for the determination of the COMI. Some courts have noted that the operative date to determine the COMI is the date on which the Chapter 15 petition was filed. However, several US courts have held that the operative date for determining a debtor’s COMI or establishment is the date on which the foreign insolvency commenced. Though this split of authority is yet to be specifically addressed in the text of Chapter 15, UNCITRAL’s revision to the Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency in 2013 clarified that the date of the commencement of the foreign proceeding is the operative date to determine the COMI. It would be up to the US Congress to pass an amendment to Chapter 15 to conform it to this development, which to date remains an open issue for US courts. In a situation where an individual debtor moves to the United States after the commencement of the initial insolvency proceeding and establishes residence and financial ties in the US, the determination of the COMI or establishment – and possibility of recognising the foreign insolvency proceeding – is a function of whether the operative date for the determination of COMI or establishment is the date of the filing of the initial proceeding or the Chapter 15 proceeding. If the operative date were the commencement of the foreign proceeding, as clarified by the Guide to the Model Law, the individual debtor’s habitual residence would likely be located in the foreign jurisdiction. This would likely result in the finding that the debtor’s COMI or establishment was the jurisdiction of the foreign proceeding. The opposite is true if the operative date is the date of the Chapter 15 filing, as the individual debtor may have developed close ties to the United States, such as changing address, opening new bank accounts and establishing other signs of permanency. Once the operative date is established, the court must analyse the debtor’s circumstances to determine the debtor’s COMI or establishment. As habitual residence is not defined by the bankruptcy statute, it raises yet another level of uncertainty. Though there is no definition for the term habitual residence, courts seem to equate habitual residence with domicile, a concept typically used in the bankruptcy context in the analysis of venue and exemptions to discharge. Like domicile, habitual residence refers to both an individual debtor’s physical presence, or residency, and the debtor’s intent to remain at that residence. The former consideration may seem like a straightforward one since it is hard to dispute a debtor’s physical presence. Yet situations arise where a debtor travels between two separate countries, which makes the analysis of physical presence more difficult. The latter consideration of intent requires an inquiry relating to the debtor’s state of mind, which involves both objective and subjective considerations. To assist with the analysis of the debtor’s state of mind, courts consider the location of a debtor’s family, the debtor’s reasons for moving, the length and continuity of the debtor’s residence, the stability and continuity of the debtor’s employment, and apparent intentions to remain at his or her residence. Courts also consider documents filed with governmental agencies, such as immigration documents, to discern whether a debtor intended to remain in a certain place. As every individual has different circumstances, the factual scenarios regarding the debtor’s habitual residence are endless. Consider the following examples: a businessperson who travels between offices in different countries with family in both countries; a couple that move to the United States on an investor visa but leave their children in their home country; and a person with no family who moves to the United States as a permanent resident but is incarcerated for a significant period. Each scenario would entail a unique analysis regarding the debtor’s state of mind. A Florida decision displays the factual complexity that may complicate an individual debtor’s Chapter 15 COMI analysis. In Richardson, the court analysed the habitual residence of an individual debtor who was in the process of moving to Florida from the UK under an investor visa, shortly after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding against him in the UK. Analysing the debtor’s COMI as of the commencement of the UK insolvency proceeding, the bankruptcy court noted that as of that date, the debtor no longer owned a home in the UK or operated a business in the UK, but retained his UK passport, UK pension account, UK email address, and immediate and extended family in the UK. Importantly, the court emphasised the debtor’s investor visa documentation, which contained a sworn statement that he fully intended to return to Great Britain upon the expiration of his visa term. Accordingly, the court held that the UK was the debtor’s habitual residence and COMI, and granted recognition of the debtor’s UK insolvency proceeding. Practitioners must be aware of the uncertainty in the case law with respect to the operative date for the determination of an individual debtor’s COMI or establishment, and the lack of uniformity presently employed by US courts in assessing an individual debtor’s habitual residence. Most importantly, practitioners must be prepared to make factual assessments of the debtor’s circumstances and face challenges presented by such factors required to prove an individual debtor’s habitual residence. References Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (2013 revision), section 141. In re Richardson, Case No. 9:14-bk-04875-FMD, DE 120 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1 June 2016). In re Loy, 380 B.R. 154 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007). In re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir. 2010). In re Kemsley, 489 B.R. 346 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012). United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 10, U.N. Gen. Assembly, UNCITRAL 30th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (1997), is available at their website . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that private and investor-state arbitration tribunals are not "foreign tribunals" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, limiting its use in international arbitration discovery. US Supreme Court Rules on Use of Section 1782 in Support of Arbitration Proceedings Open Legal Insights Open July 8, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that two arbitration tribunals—one private and one investor-state—did not constitute “foreign or international tribunal[s]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The statute is widely used by litigants to obtain discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” The decision came after years with a split among the Courts of Appeals on the issue, particularly in the area of international private arbitration. In its 17-page decision, the Court analyzed the language of the statute and its history noting that § 1782’s purpose is comity. The Court reasoned that a broad reading of §1782 “would open district court doors to any interested person seeking assistance for proceedings before any private adjudicative body—a category broad enough to include everything from a commercial arbitration panel to a university’s student disciplinary tribunal.” Opting for a narrower construction, the Court held that “only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies constitute a ‘foreign or international tribunal’ under § 1782”, adding that, “[s]uch bodies are those that exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations.” More on the decision can be found here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.

Sequor Law's Cristina Vicens examines US emergency measures in insolvency and restructuring legislation enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the CARES Act and bankruptcy reforms. Emergency Measures in Insolvency Legislation in Response to the COVID-19 Crisis Open Legal Insights Open December 15, 2020 3 minutes read Sequor Law by Cristina Vicens , Sequor Law, P.A., Miami, Florida What emergency measures in insolvency or restructuring legislation has the United States adopted to help businesses cope with the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? In March 2020, the U.S. Congress swiftly passed a series of stimulus packages to help stabilise the economy after COVID-19 forced many businesses to shut down and caused millions of Americans to become unemployed. The third (and latest) of these stimulus packages, the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), was a US$2 trillion stimulus packages passed on 25 March 2020. The CARES Act directs financial assistance to individual tax payers, expands unemployment benefits to persons that normally would not have qualified for unemployment benefits, provides for federal grants, loans, and other assistance for small businesses and other businesses disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and establishes a US$150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to make payments to states, tribal governments, and local governments as they respond to the public health emergency. Specifically, with regard to insolvency or restructuring legislation adopted to help businesses cope with the economic crisis, the CARES Act provides for several amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. First, it increases the debt ceiling for businesses to be eligible to file under the small business provisions of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code from US$2,725,625 to US$ 7,500,000. The Small Business Reorganisation Act (“SBRA”), which took effect on 19 February 2020, just a few weeks before the national shutdown, provides a streamlined path through Chapter 11 for small business debtors. This increased threshold will potentially allow more businesses with access to the SBRA to survive. After one year, however, the debt ceiling increase reverts to US$2,725,625. Second, for a period of one year, the CARES Act amends the definition of “income” under Chapters 7 and 13 to exclude COVID-19 related payments from the federal government. Third, applicable to individuals rather than businesses, it clarifies that the calculation of disposable income under Chapter 13 does not include COVID-19 related payments; and, lastly, permits individuals and families in Chapter 13 proceedings to seek payment plan modifications in response to COVID-19 related financial hardship, including extending payments for up to seven years after their initial payment was due. In addition, the CARES Act provides the authority to the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to make loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) through the commercial banking market. The PPP is designed to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their employees on the payroll and allows loans to be forgiven if all employees of a business are kept on the payroll for eight weeks and the loan proceeds are used for payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities. While the CARES Act does not prohibit PPP loans or grants to be provided to Chapter 11 debtors, the SBA has taken the position that it does, creating uncertainty for companies operating under Chapter 11 protection and leading to litigation. [See Perspectives on COVID-19 Relief Funding and the Reopening of America, ABI Journal, July 2020, at 8.] Further, small business owners are able to apply for Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) and receive an advance of up to US$10,000, designed to provide economic relief to businesses that are experiencing a temporary loss of revenue. Relevantly, the loan advance does not have to be repaid and recipients do not have to be approved for the loan in order to receive the Emergency Measures in Insolvency Legislation in Response to the COVID-19 Crisis AIJA Insolvency Commission 2020 68 advance. Contrary to the PPP loans, the SBA administers the EIDL program directly and not through the commercial banking market. Click here to read the full summary (page 67). Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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 Jan 29, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as.