Search this site

After a 2018 due process win, the government invoked the state secrets privilege to dismiss Tara J. Plochocki’s client’s targeted-killing challenge in 2019. U.S. Invokes State Secrets Privilege to Block American Journalist’s Challenge to Alleged Spot on Drone ‘Kill List’ Open In the News Open September 24, 2019 2 minutes read Sequor Law A U.S. citizen asked a simple question: was his own government trying to kill him? In September 2019, a federal court decided he was not entitled to an answer. The plaintiff was Bilal Abdul Kareem, an American journalist who said five near-miss airstrikes in Syria suggested he had been placed on a U.S. targeted-killing list. His case had already cleared a hurdle that few claims of its kind survive. In 2018, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer had ruled that Kareem, as a citizen, could press a due-process challenge to his alleged inclusion on that list. That opening did not last. After settlement talks between Kareem's lawyers and the government collapsed, the government invoked the state secrets privilege, arguing that even confirming or denying his presence on any list would expose intelligence sources and methods and might help a target evade capture. Collyer agreed the government's authority to withhold that information was "absolute," and she dismissed the suit in a 14-page opinion. She named the tension directly, asking what constitutional right could be more essential than due process before the government takes a life, then concluding that federal courts hold only limited authority to resolve such questions, even when they touch constitutional rights. Tara J. Plochocki , today a partner at Sequor Law, represented Kareem and pushed the matter as far as the doctrine allowed. Her reaction drew the line plainly: "For the first time ever, a United States federal court ruled that the government may kill one of its citizens without providing him the information necessary to prove that he is being wrongly targeted." An early win recognized the right to be heard. The state-secrets dismissal then left that right unenforceable. Secrecy, in other words, can decide a case before a court ever reaches its merits. That collision between a citizen's claim and the executive's classification powers is the kind of problem Plochocki has built a career around, litigating where constitutional rights, international law, and national security meet. Her work at Sequor Law runs on the same instinct: securing evidence that adversaries would rather keep hidden, and pressing claims through federal courts and on appeal. Cross-border asset recovery and financial fraud both turn on prying loose concealed information. The Kareem case is a stark reminder of what is at stake when a court cannot compel its disclosure. The full account appeared in The Washington Post . 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..

Daniel Coyle of Sequor Law analyzes Florida's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (UCRERA) — receiver powers, procedures, key differences from the Model Act Florida’s New Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act Open Legal Insights Open September 30, 2020 1 minute read Daniel M. Coyle Florida’s New Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act By Daniel Coyle In July, Florida became the ninth state to adopt the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”). 1 The timing could not be better, given the near-universal prediction that defaults on commercial loans will skyrocket due to the COVID-19 pandemic once foreclosure moratoriums end and the growing suspicion that many borrowers will not reflexively file for bankruptcy. Those with experience as federal equity receivers and Chapter 7 trustees will find they are well suited to creatively and effectively use the greater powers receivers enjoy under UCRERA to achieve better and more fruitful outcomes. Drafted in 2019 by the Uniform Law Commission, UCRERA significantly broadens the powers of state receivers of commercial real property while also establishing a standard set of rules governing the reasons authorizing appointment and the procedures for seeking appointment. 2 UCRERA’s passage is a welcome event for receivers, trustees, fiduciaries, lenders and other parties involved with commercial real estate along with their counsel. This article will analyze Florida’s UCRERA as well as to point out some key differences between Florida’s version and the Model Act. I. Florida’s Receivership Scheme Prior to UCRERA In Florida, prior to UCRERA’s enactment, receivers were generally appointed as an equitable remedy to preserve the status quo of the real estate and to collect the rents and profits. 3 Appointment was difficult to obtain because: (1) it was in derogation of the common law, and; (2) it divested the property owner of the owner’s right to manage and control the property. 4 Consistently with this, the applicant also had to meet a high burden by demonstrating a serious and significant ongoing loss, usually, but not always, in the form of waste, even if the applicant had a right to appointment in a mortgage. 5 The waste could take the form of ongoing damage or disrepair of the real property, failing to pay property taxes, or failure to turn over rents. 6 Once appointed, the ultimate rights, duties and liabilities of the receiver were solely determined from the language of the order of appointment. In other words, they were left completely up to the court. One might think this discretion could result in robust powers but case law curtailed these powers significantly. For instance, it was improbable, if not impossible, to obtain an appointment order empowering the receiver to sell the real property 7 because appointment does not affect the title to property or deprive the owner of rights to the property. 8 Instead, receivers were limited to managing the property in the ordinary course of business. II. UCRERA’s Scheme A. The Receiver’s Powers under UCRERA UCRERA broadens the powers of a receiver significantly, to the degree that the receiver obtains many of the same powers as a Chapter 7 trustee in bankruptcy. The receiver is given the status of lien creditor under Florida’s recording statute chapter (Ch. 695 Fla . Stat .) and Florida’s enactment of the UCC pertaining to secured transactions (Ch. 679 Fla. Stat. ), similarly to 11 U.S.C. §544 as to receivership property or fixtures. 9 Thus, the receiver may now pursue avoidance/clawback actions regarding the property as a Chapter 7 Trustee or Debtor-in-Possession would. 10 Similarly to 11 U.S.C. §542, the receiver is entitled to turnover of receivership property. Persons owing debts that constitute receivership property must pay those debts to the receiver. 11 One of the most significant improvements is that the receiver is authorized to sell the property before or after judgment. The receiver is now authorized to sell the receivership assets outside of the ordinary course of business before judgment and with the approval of the owners, 12 or after judgment and with court approval 13 , much like the bankruptcy process under 11 U.S.C. §365. As in a bankruptcy “363 sale,” this is a sale of the asset “free and clear” of liens on the property, with the liens attaching to the proceeds. 14 Good faith purchasers are protected from reversal or modification on appeal of an order approving the sale. 15 The receiver also has the power to accept or reject executory contracts relating to the property with court approval. 16 This power may be used even if the appointment of the receiver constitutes a breach under the contract. 17 Also, the receiver's performance of an executory contract before court approval of its adoption or rejection does not preclude the receiver from later seeking approval to reject the contract. 18 Similarly to a section 362 stay in bankruptcy, the court may enter an order providing for a stay of acts relating to the property to protect against misappropriate or waste. 19 This order must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained. 20 With court approval, the receiver may incur debt outside of the ordinary course of business, make improvements to the receivership property, make a distribution of receivership property, and take the other actions described above regarding selling the property, adopting or rejecting executory contracts. 21 In addition to those innovative provisions, the receiver also has the more typical powers to collect, control, manage and perfect the property, operate the business, incur unsecured debt and pay expenses in the ordinary course of business, assert rights, claims and defenses relating to the property, and engage professionals. 22 Regarding its duties, the receiver must prepare and retain appropriate records, including a record of each receipt, disbursement and disposition of the property, account for the proceeds of all dispositions, file a copy of the order of appointment and disclose any fact arising which would disqualify the receiver. 23 The receiver’s powers and duties may be expanded, modified or limitedby court order. 24 To further the goal of standardization of appointments and broaden the receiver’s powers, UCRERA contains two provisions that seek to homogenize processes across state lines . The court may appoint a receiver already appointed in another state or even the nominee of that receiver as an ancillary receiver of property located within the state, so long as the person would be eligible for appointment under the standards of UCRERA. 25 The ancillary receiver has the same rights, powers, and duties as a receiver appointed under the statute. 26 Additionally, the Court may domesticate an order entered in another state appointing or directing a receiver. 27 The Act also provides that decisions of other states interpreting UCRERA’s provisions are persuasive authority. 28 A court may award a receiver the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of performing its duties and exercising the receiver's powers from the revenue generated by the property. 29 Or, the court may order either the person who requested the appointment or the person whose conduct justified the appointment to pay the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of the receivership. 30 B. Sufficient Cause for Appointment UCRERA provides grounds for authorizing an appointment prior to a judgment and grounds for authorizing an appointment after entry of a judgment. 31 A court may appoint a receiver before judgment if the property or its revenue-producing potential: (1) is subjected to waste, loss, substantial diminution in value, dissipation, or impairment or (2) has been, or is about to be, the subject of a voidable transaction. 32 After judgment, a court may appoint a receiver:(a) to the judgment or (b) to preserve the property pending appeal or when an execution has been returned unsatisfied and the owner refuses to apply the property in satisfaction of the judgment. 33 UCRERA also provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in ruling on a request for appointment based upon a mortgage, which include many of the same themes discussed previously (e.g., protection from waste, loss, diminution in value, etc.). C. Procedure for Appointment The Florida provision governing appointments 34 was significantly augmented from the Model Act because the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure governing appointments provides significant due process protections with which Florida's version of UCRERA had to harmonize. An appointment requires notice and opportunity for hearing, except that the court may issue an order without notice if immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant or that waste, dissipation, impairment, or substantial diminution in value will result before any adverse party can be heard. 35 The person seeking appointment without prior notice or hearing must provide security for the payment of damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs incurred or suffered by any person if the court later concludes that the appointment was not justified. 36 ENDNOTES 1 Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Tennessee, Michigan, Arizona, Maryland, and North Carolina are the others. Connecticut has introduced a bill to enact the law. 2 According to section 714.04(1), UCRERA applies to a receivership initiated in a court of Florida for an interest in real property and any incidental personal property related to or used in operating the real property. The insertion of the term “incidental” was to make clear that the Act does not apply to personal property broadly, but instead only to personal property connected with or associated with commercial real property (e.g., fixtures). Property is defined broadly and expansively in section 714.02(13) to include all “right, title, and interest, legal and equitable … and includes proceeds, products, offspring, rents, and profits.” 3 U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Cramer , 113 So. 3d 1020, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 4 Twinjay Chambers P'ship v. Suarez , 556 So. 2d 781, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). 5 Boyd v. Banc One Mortg. Corp., 509 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). 6 Smith v. State Life Insurance Company , 153 So. 842 (1934); Smith v. DuPuis , 157 So. 491 (1934); ( Carr v. Marion Mortg. Co ., 128 So. 12 (1930). 7 See, e.g., Shubh Hotels Boca, LLC v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. , 46 So. 3d 163, 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 8 Eppes v. Dade Developers Inc. , 170 So. 875 (1936). 9 Fla. Stat. §714.09. III. Conclusion UCRERA is a significant and welcome step in both standardizing the rights, powers, duties, and procedures related to state receivers of commercial real property. With the moratoriums on foreclosures in multiple states ending or coming to an end and the expected increase in commercial loan defaults, Florida’s enactment of UCRERA is timely, and more states should consider passing their own versions of the Act. END About the Author : Daniel Coyle is an attorney with Sequor Law in Miami. His practice focuses on bankruptcy , creditors’ rights , secured transactions, collections , executions, asset recovery and cross-border insolvency . dcoyle@sequorlaw.com 10 One limitation to this is that under Fla. Stat. §714.10, appointment does not affect the validity of a pre-receivership perfected security interest or property acquired post-receivership under a perfected floating lien. 11 Fla. Stat. §714.11. 12 Fla. Stat. §714.16(2). 13 Fla. Stat. §714.16(3). 14 Fla. Stat. §714.16(4). 15 Fla. Stat. §714.16(6). 16 Fla. Stat. §714.17. 17 Fla. Stat. § 714.16(4). 18 Fla. Stat. §714.17(3). Also, under Fla. Stat. §714.17(5), if the executory contract is rejected, it is treated as if it were breached as of the day before the date the receiver was appointed so that the aggrieved party may assert rejection damages against the receivership estate. 19 Fla. Stat. §714.14. 20 Fla. Stat. §714.14(3). The permissive nature of this stay and the description requirements in the order are different than the Model Act, which provides that the appointment automatically provides for a such a stay. A person affected may apply for relief from the stay and the court must hear the motion within five (5) days or at such time as the court determines is reasonable and appropriate. Fla. Stat. §714.14(4). 21 Fla. Stat. §714.12(2). 22 Fla. Stat. §714.12(1). 23 Fla. Stat. §714.12(3). 24 Fla. Stat. §714.12(4). 25 Fla. Stat. §714.24(1)(a). 26 Fla. Stat. §714.24(3). 27 Fla. Stat. §714.24(2). 28 Fla. Stat. §714.26. 6 | P a g e 29 Fla. Stat. §714.21(1). 30 Fla. Stat. §714.21(2). 31 Fla. Stat. §714.06. 32 Fla. Sta. §714.06(1)(a). 33 Fla. Sta. §714.06(1)(b). 34 Fla. Stat. §714.03. 35 Fla. Stat. §714.03(2). 36 Fla. Stat. §714.06. Subsection 714.06(3) also provides that, if and when the Court determines the appointment was justified, and the order of appointment becomes final and no longer subject to appeal, the court will release the bond or other security. 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 Christopher Noel analyze the Second Circuit's evolving Section 1782 standard in the Euromepa and Gorsoan cases and its implications for global discovery. Asset recovery column: Euromepa and Gorsoan, oh my Open Legal Insights Open January 5, 2021 7 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Christopher Noel discuss the evolving standard to obtain Section 1782 assistance in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and beyond. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont within its jurisdiction, is currently tasked with addressing and deciding how far to extend an ever-narrowing standard applied to proceedings brought pursuant to Section 1782 of the United States Code. In out of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Second Circuit has been asked to decide whether an application for judicial assistance to obtain discovery for use in aid of a foreign judgment meets the statutory requirements for relief to be granted pursuant to Section 1782. The ramifications of the Second Circuit’s decision are certain to resonate globally, as New York remains a hotbed for seeking US judicial assistance for foreign tribunals, both because of its geographic proximity to Europe and because of the myriad of global businesses that identify New York as their principal places of business. As many global restructuring and insolvency practitioners are aware, Section 1782 is the product of more than 150 years of effort from the US Congress to provide federal-level court assistance in gathering evidence in the US for use in a foreign tribunal. Generally, whether to grant this assistance is determined by a two-part inquiry: (1) whether a US District Court is to grant relief pursuant to Section 1782; and (2) whether a US District Court grant relief in its broad discretion. At issue before the Second Circuit is one of the statutory prongs examined when a US District Court is deciding whether it is authorised to grant relief –to wit, that the evidence sought must be “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” The case began with an alleged US$25 million fraud, which caused a Cypriot court to issue a worldwide freezing injunction and asset disclosure order against dozens of defendants, including the Belarusian born, Florida-based socialite Janna Bullock. After Bullock refused to comply with the Cypriot court’s order, Gorsoan, a Cyprus company and fraud victim, sought assistance in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to Section 1782. Upon challenge in the Second Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the order granting judicial assistance and Bullock was required to produce the requested discovery. Much to the dismay of Gorsoan, and fellow fraud victim Gazprombank, Bullock failed to produce substantive discovery in response to Gorsoan’s requests. As a result, Gorsoan obtainedleave of court and a court order to take a second deposition of Bullock. At this second, court-supervised deposition, Bullock refused to answer questions by invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Thereafter, Gorsoan led its second application for judicial assistance pursuant to Section 1782, seeking authorisation to subpoena Bullock’s children, mother, and other related persons. The District Court granted that application and Gorsoan’s subsequent motion to compel, which led to Bullock’s intervention and a motion to quash the subpoenas. In January of this year, the Southern District of New York denied Bullock’s defensive motions and granted Gorsoan’s motion to compel related to its subpoenas. Atpresent, the Southern District of New York’s decision remains on appeal at the Second Circuit. However, based upon its own prior precedent in , which broadly held that enforcement of a foreign judgment does not meet the “for use” prong required for Section 1782 relief, the Second Circuit may well further limit Section 1782’s use for obtaining discovery in the United States for use in foreign tribunals. In , the dispute stemmed from an insurance claim for approximately US$20 million in lost or stolen diamonds and other precious jewelry owned by jeweler Esmerian, Inc. and insured by Euromepa. Underlying the Section 1782 proceedings in the United States was a French action wherein the French trial court issued a judgment of approximately US$10 million in favor of Esmerian, which resulted from a finding of equal fault between Esmerian and Euromepa in the loss of the jewelry. Following the French trial court’s ruling, and after perfecting an appeal, Euromepa filed its Section 1782 petition in the Southern District of New York, seeking discovery of Esmerian regarding, among other items, proof of the jewelry’s ownership, proof of the jewelry’s insurance, and proof of the jewelry lost. Ultimately, Euromepa sought this discovery for use in its appeal of the French trial court’s ruling of equal fault among the parties. Upon review, the Southern District of New York denied Euromepa’s application, resulting in an appeal to the Second Circuit. In between appellate argument and the Second Circuit’s decision, the French appellate court favorably amended the French trial court’s judgment in Esmerian’s favor, holding Euromepa wholly liable for the US$20 million loss. As a result, Euromepa immediately sought protection in the French bankruptcy court. The Second Circuit, without addressing the decision of the French appellate court, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Contemporaneously, Euromepa sought review of the French appellate court’s decision with the French Supreme Court, which resulted in an affirmance of the lower appellate court’s opinion. Immediately following the French Supreme Court’s decision, the Southern District of New York dismissed Euromepa’s Section 1782 petition as moot because that decision effectively eliminated all pending proceedings in which Euromepa could use the discovery sought in the United States. Thereafter, Euromepa’s second appeal followed, arguing that the Southern District of New York failed to consider the pending French bankruptcy proceeding and a potential motion to reopen the judgment of the French appellate court, as bases to avoid the Court’s finding of mootness. Upon examination, the Second Circuit found that the French bankruptcy proceeding is not adjudicative within the meaning of Section 1782 because the merits of the dispute between Esmerian and Euromepa have already been adjudicated and would not be considered in the French bankruptcy proceeding, based upon French law. Further, the Second Circuit held that Euromepa’s argument concerning the potential motion to reopen the judgment of the French appellate court was meritless, because its conceded that such a petition was unlikely to be made absent newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that the Southern District of New York did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Euromepa’s Section 1782 petition as moot. Applying this precedent to the appeal, it is entirely possible that theSecond Circuit will again hold that, because the adjudicative function of the foreign tribunal is complete, there is no basis under Statute 1782 to grant relief, thereby foreclosing Gorsoan’s ability to obtain discovery in the United States. All hope is not lost for obtaining discovery in the US, however. While the Second Circuit appears to be gradually narrowing the door for discovery pursuant to Section 1782, the Southern District of New York specifically recognised that “[n]one of the decisions [cited by Bullock in ] established a broad rule that asset discovery can never be adjudicative and is thus always impermissible under § 1782.” (435 F.Supp.3d at 598). Ultimately, the nuance lies in whether the discovery sought pursuant to Section 1782 could have an effect on the merits of the dispute being decided in the foreign tribunal. Moreover, District Courts around the US have sought to further clarify the holding in . For example, in , the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that “the court did not universally bar discovery in all bankruptcy proceedings, particularly where issues are being adjudicated.” Further, in , the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held that “had not held that ‘all post-judgment proceedings are not adjudicative’.” Finally, even within theSouthern District of New York, there remains some dispute regarding how far the decision extends: in , the court cited for the limited proposition that Section 1782 discovery “is inappropriate where the merits of a controversy have already been decided by the foreign tribunal.” Ultimately, according to the Southern District of New York in , “adopting the proposed far-reaching rule against asset discovery would be incongruent with § 1782’s ‘underlying policy’ that, ‘[a]bsent specific directions to the contrary from a foreign forum, . . . district courts [should] provide some form of discovery assistance’.” (435 F.Supp.3d 589, 599). At some point later this year, the Second Circuit will likely decide whether Gorsoan will be permitted to obtain the discovery it seeks related to Bullock’s alleged involvement in the US$25 million fraud. At present, proceedings in the Southern District of New York have been stayed by court order, pending resolution of the appeal. Until resolution, and further clarity from the Second Circuit, practitioners should not wait to file their respective applications for judicial assistance pursuant to Section 1782. Instead, non-US practitioners should carefully consider the various jurisdictions where an application for Section 1782 assistance could be filed in the US (any district where the person from whom discovery is sought resides or is found), especially if that location is outside of the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction. Further, there are other litigation tools that counsel in the US may use to otherwise obtain the discovery needed for use in a foreign tribunal when there is already a judgment – one example is domestication of a foreign judgment pursuant to a variety of state laws allowing the enforcement of foreign judgments in the US. Although differing somewhat from state to state, most states have already adopted the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA) and have common law decisions that reinforce a foreign party’s ability to both domesticate and enforce foreign judgments within the US. Case references (2d Cir. Case No. 20-680, Filed 21 February 2020) , 154 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1998) , No. 15-mc-91509, 2018 WL 474999, at *4 (D. Mass. 2018) , No. 17-mc-5, 2018 WL 3872197, at *12 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15,2019) , 190mc-287 (LIS), 2019 WL 2743205, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1,2019) 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..

An original UNCITRAL Model Law draftsman responds to proposals regarding the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) framework in cross-border insolvency proceedings. Model Law draftsman responds to COMI proposals Open Legal Insights Open September 15, 2023 1 minute read Sequor Law An original UNCITRAL Model Law draftsman responds to proposals regarding the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) framework in cross-border insolvency proceedings. 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 welcomes Jennifer Mosquera as Associate Attorney. A bilingual attorney and former judicial law clerk, she strengthens the firm's growing Miami-based legal team. Sequor Law adds Attorney Jennifer Mosquera to Team Open Firm News Open February 14, 2022 2 minutes read Sequor Law Miami, Florida- Sequor Law is pleased to announce the addition of Ms. Jennifer Mosquera to the firm as an Associate Attorney effective February 14, 2022. Jennifer joins an already impressive roster of talented, hard-working award-winning attorneys. The addition of Jennifer confirms the firm’s ongoing dedication to growth and its commitment to the development of new attorneys. “We are eager to have Jennifer, a talented bi-lingual attorney who will strengthen our firm by adding to the high caliber of skill and integrity we have at Sequor Law. She brings with her the expertise, knowledge and commitment that our clients expect,” said founding shareholder Gregory S. Grossman. “Jennifer is the second attorney added to our roster in the last six months. Our ongoing growth is directly tied to our strategic plan.” Prior to joining Sequor Law, Jennifer served as a law clerk to the Hon. Judge Mark W. Klingensmith at the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. She worked on a variety of complex issues within foreclosures, breach of contract claims, and fraud-based disputes among other civil cases. Jennifer received her J.D. graduating magna cum laude in 2019 from Florida State University College of Law. An award-winning student, Jennifer was on the Dean’s List, was a merit scholarship recipient and was on the board of both the Florida State Law Review and the Florida State University College of Law Moot Court Team. During her time in law school, Jennifer interned for multiple judges, clerked for the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Florida Attorney General, and held a summer associate position with an Am Law 200 firm. She obtained her B.A. in Political Science and her B.A. in Philosophy from Florida International University in 2016. Jennifer Mosquera’s practice is focused on asset recovery, bankruptcy and insolvency, financial fraud, international commercial litigation and judgement, and arbitral award collection as well as corruption and proceeds of crime recovery. She is fluent in English and Spanish and is admitted to practice in Florida. “The addition of Jennifer adds strength and depth to our capabilities, and I look forward to working with her to continue to deliver comprehensive, top-tier service to our clients.” said Shareholder Leyza B. Florin. ****** Sequor Law is a Miami-based international law firm representing financial institutions, sovereign governments and state-owned enterprises, public and non-public companies, insolvency practitioners and individual clients in the areas of asset recovery, financial fraud, insolvency, and financial services litigation. More information is available at www.SequorLaw.com . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. co-hosts the C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Miami conference (Jan 24-25, 2022), with Daniel Coyle presenting on crypto asset fraud. C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Open Events & Speaking Open November 22, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery January 24-25, Miami Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Miami | American Conference Institute 🔗 Sequor Law’s Edward H. Davis, Jr. will once again be co-hosting this much anticipated event together with Tameka Davis, Martin Kenney, and Keith Oliver. Don’t miss Sequor Law’s Daniel Coyle , as he discusses Crypto Asset fraud as an Existential Threat. Portrait of Edward H. Davis Jr. Portrait of Daniel Coyle from Sequor Law 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 promoted Juan J. Mendoza, Christopher A. Noel, and Joseph B. Rome to partner, highlighting the firm’s growth and strength in international litigation, asset recovery, and cross-border insolvency. Sequor Law Promotes Juan J. Mendoza, Christopher A. Noel, and Joseph B. Rome to Partner Open Firm News Open September 30, 2025 3 minutes read Sequor Law Miami – October 1, 2025– Sequor Law is proud to announce the promotion of attorneys Juan J. Mendoza, Christopher A. Noel, and Joseph B. Rome to partners of the firm. “These promotions carry special meaning for us,” said founding shareholder Edward H. Davis, Jr. “Chris, Juan, and Joe have grown their careers at Sequor Law. Their talent, drive, and commitment to our clients reflect the values of our firm. We are excited to see them take on this next chapter of leadership. This is a watershed moment for Sequor Law as we have never before made three new partners at the same time.” About the New Partners Juan J. Mendoza focuses his practice on international litigation, asset recovery, cross-border insolvency, and creditors’ rights. He represents foreign fiduciaries, non-U.S. judgment creditors, domestic trustees, and other parties in complex commercial matters, including fraud disputes and cross-border recovery actions. He regularly handles Chapter 15 cases under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, enforcement of foreign judgments, and proceedings to obtain evidence for use abroad under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, and has presented on these topics at national and international conferences. Juan serves as co-president of the Litigation Commission of AIJA (International Association of Young Lawyers), is a member of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (NCBJ) NextGen Class of 2022, and was a Fellow of the Florida Bar Business Law Section from 2020 to 2022. Juan is fluent in Spanish and admitted to practice in Florida, Georgia, and Texas, as well as in various federal bankruptcy, district and appellate courts. Juan J. Mendoza Vcard Christopher A. Noel focuses his practice on international litigation, asset recovery, arbitration, and appeals. His experience spans from fraud investigations and pre-suit negotiations to the prosecution of jury trials and appeals, with a particular focus on the recovery of non-monetary assets such as fine art and other unique property in addition to monetary damages. He has represented a variety of international clients including foreign sovereigns, ultra-high-net-worth individuals, and corporate and institutional victims of fraud and financial misconduct. Christopher is regularly invited to speak at global conferences concerning asset recovery, fraud, and corruption, which are organized by, among others, the Florida Bar, ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE (Fraud, Insolvency Restructuring, and Enforcement), OffshoreAlert, the United States-Mexico Bar Association, and C5/The American Conference Institute. He is also active in philanthropic and non-profit activities throughout South Florida, serving as a past chairperson of the Legal Services of Greater Miami’s Young Professionals Council and now on its Leaders’ Council. Christopher is admitted to practice law in a Florida state courts as well as a number of federal district and appellate courts throughout the United States. Christopher Noel Vcard Joseph B. Rome handles international arbitration, complex international litigation, judgment and arbitral award collection, asset recovery, corruption and proceeds of crime recovery, and financial fraud matters in U.S. federal and state courts. His cases often involve hidden assets, multi-jurisdictional fraud schemes, and cross-border enforcement of judgments. Joe is frequently invited to speak at conferences, most recently in Shanghai at an ICC FraudNet Seminar on Cross-Border Asset Recovery in Commercial Disputes and Financial Crimes on the topic of court orders and tools for investigations and freezing of assets in cross-border asset recovery, as well as in Bangkok at OffshoreAlert, where Joe discussed enforcement, cross-border investigations, and judgment collection in Asia and beyond. Joe speaks Spanish, Mandarin, and Japanese and is admitted to practice in New York and Florida, as well as in various federal district and appellate courts. Joseph B. Rome Vcard “These are lawyers who have earned the trust of their colleagues, clients, and peers through consistent excellence,” added shareholder Gregory S. Grossman. “Their promotion reflects not only their achievements but also Sequor Law’s growth, including the opening of our new Washington, D.C., office, and solidifies our position as a leader in our targeted practice areas of international disputes, cross-border insolvency, and asset recovery.” Shareholder Leyza B. Florin emphasized the significance of this moment, noting: “This milestone reflects Juan, Chris and Joe’s dedication and significant contributions to our firm. We look forward to their continued impact and leadership as they help shape the future of Sequor Law.” For more information, visit: www.sequorlaw.com *** Headquartered in Miami and with an office in Washington, D.C., Sequor Law is an international law firm focusing on representing victims of financial fraud, including sovereign governments and state-owned enterprises, public and non-public companies, insolvency practitioners, and all manner of clients in the areas of asset recovery, financial fraud, cross-border insolvency, and international litigation and arbitration. www.sequorlaw.com . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

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..

Hong Kong liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited obtain pre-recognition emergency discovery relief in Miami's Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 15 regarding a disputed Miami property. Dingway case in GRR Open In the News Open February 8, 2022 6 minutes read Sequor Law Hong Kong liquidators obtain pre-recognition discovery relief in Miami A Hong Kong headquartered, British Virgin Islands-incorporated company’s provisional liquidators have obtained emergency relief in the US to conduct discovery on a property it used to own in Miami, which they allege has been wrongfully transferred at least three times in the last three years. On 3 February, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laurel M Isicoff in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, granted an emergency motion allowing the liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited, Teneo’s Russel Crumpler in the BVI and KPMG’s Fergal Power in Hong Kong, to conduct proposed discovery under federal and local bankruptcy rules in the US, before they are formally recognised under Chapter 15. The pair submitted a recognition petition before the Miami court on 27 January, just three days after a Hong Kong court opened a winding-up petition against Dingway at the request of its majority shareholder, Hong Kong-based China City Construction International (China City). China City itself has also been in a creditor’s voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong since January 2019, and is currently being managed by KPMG’s global head of restructuring services Patrick Cowley and partner Lui Yee Man as liquidators. Cowley, Lui and KPMG director Christopher Ball are also currently sitting as three of Dingway’s five directors. In a declaration supporting Dingway’s Chapter 15 application, Crumpler explains that Dingway was incorporated in 2014 to indirectly purchase a “substantial” vacant land site in Miami’s Brickell Financial District through three intermediate Delaware companies. At the time of the purchase, an entity called China City Construction & Development Co (CCCDHK) funded the US$86.7 million purchase price for the property, in return for an equivalent reduction to a US$204 million debt it owned to China City. The latter then passed the funds down the structure to the titleholder of the Miami property by way of a series of shareholder loans. In October 2015, an entity called Champ Prestige took a 45% interest in Dingway for just over US$40 million, leaving China City with the remaining 55%. Three years later, CCDHK brought an unsuccessful claim against China City in the Hong Kong High Court, arguing that China City had always held its shares in Dingway and the US$40 million that Champ Prestige had paid for its interest, on trust for CCCDHK. It sought an order for China City to transfer the legal ownership of its shares and the money to CCDHK, but the court declined to grant the relief and CCCDHK discontinued the proceedings in December 2019. Crumpler notes in his declaration that investigations by China City’s liquidators, Cowley and Lui, suggest CCCDHK and China City are ultimately controlled by the same people associated with a mainland Chinese company called China City Development Academy (CCDA). CCDA indirectly held an interest in China City until April 2016 and obtained an indirect interest in CCCDHK in July of the same year. Despite one ownership interest ceasing before the other commenced, the same people seemed to exert a measure of control over both entities at all material times, China City’s liquidators claimed. In particular, City City’s liquidators told Crumpler that an individual named Zeng Yuqi seemed to be a common director of China City and CCCDHK between February and September 2018, while another director of CCCDHK, Sze Wai Suen, was an authorised signatory for certain China City accounts as late as September 2016, among other things. Crumpler claims that Zeng, acting as a “rogue director” and without authorisation from Dingway’s board or shareholders, signed an agreement in October 2019 to transfer its interests in the Delaware ownership structure and the Miami property to CCCDHK, for no consideration. He says Sze signed the agreement on CCCDHK’s behalf. The provisional liquidator claims CCCDHK then sold the Delaware structure and Miami property to a Californian entity in November 2019 for US$70 million, with Sze as signatory again. Crumpler says Champ Prestige, as Dingway’s minority shareholder, was initially prepared to cooperate with China City’s liquidators to try to retrieve its interest in the Miami property. But in March 2020, Cowley and Lui learned that Champ Prestige itself had been sold to CCCDHK for US$44 million. Finally, on 30 December last year, Crumpler notes Cowley and Lui found out through an online news article that the Miami property had been sold again – this time for US$103 million to an entity belonging to Miami real estate investment firm Mast Capital and Boston private equity group Rockpoint. The news article in the South Florida Business Journal reported that the property had been “seized” following “a legal battle with the previous owner”. Submitted at the same time as their Chapter 15 application, Crumpler and Power asked the Miami district court for emergency provisional relief so they could investigate the latest transaction with Mast Capital and Rockpoint. Specifically, they asked permission to issue and serve pre-recognition subpoenas for the production of documents on the two new acquirors and three Delaware entities they used to effectuate the sales, as well as two other Mast Capital companies that may have been involved in the sale. Crumpler and Power argued that the proposed discovery was limited and targeted to obtaining information regarding the location of the closing proceeds for the sale. They said they needed relief on an emergency basis to preserve the status quo of Dingway’s estate and prevent “further dissipation” of the Miami property’s proceeds of sale. Granting the provisional relief, Judge Isicoff noted it was “narrowly tailored in scope and duration” and reflected that there were no parties in opposition. The judge also said the “threatened injury” to Dingway’s estate outweighed “whatever damage the requested relief may cause an opposing party”. Champ Prestige proceedings Crumpler explains in his declaration that Champ Prestige originally brought an action in a Miami-Dade County court against China City and the Delaware entity that was the Miami property’s direct owner in June 2019, claiming the majority shareholder had breached its obligations under the sale and purchase agreement through which Champ Prestige had acquired its 45% interest in Dingway. Among other things, Champ Prestige sought to impose and foreclose on an equitable lien on the property, and in December 2019 it secured a temporary injunction from the Miami-Dade court enjoining the land’s disposition. The injunction was expanded in February 2020 to also prevent any indirect dispositions or the sale of any interests in the three Delaware holding companies. But after CCCDHK acquired Champ Prestige it voluntarily dismissed the Miami-Dade action and removed the lis pendens over the property. Crumpler has also recorded that Champ Prestige filed a winding-up petition against Dingway and China City in Hong Kong back in February 2018, but no steps had been taken in the petition since March 2020, when Mr Justice Harris dismissed an application from China City to strike it out on jurisdictional grounds. Crumpler explains in his declaration that Cowley and Lui, as China City’s liquidators, had wanted to try to recover its interest in Dingway and its ultimate 55% interest in the Miami property, but had been unable to take action due to lack of funding, and because of CCCDHK’s action in Hong Kong and the Miami-Dade proceedings. When the Hong Kong court placed Dingway in liquidation, it issued a proprietary injunction against CCCDHK in respect of the US$70 million for the November 2019 sale of the property. It also issued a mareva injunction restraining CCCDHK, Zeng and Sze from dealing with assets of up to US$103 million. The court was due to hold an inter partes hearing in Hong Kong to address Crumpler and Power’s continuing appointment as joint provisional liquidators and the injunctions on 4 February. GRR was unable to ascertain the outcome of that hearing by press time. After they have obtained evidence in aid of their asset recovery efforts, Crumpler and Power intend to file actions and proprietary claims in the US, including claims against third parties in the US that may have damaged Dingway or owe it money. The provisional liquidators have retained Sequor Law partners Fernando Menendez and Gregory Grossman as US counsel. The Chapter 15 bankruptcy court has scheduled a full recognition hearing on 23 February. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laurel M Isicoff Counsel to joint provisional liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited Sequor Law Partners Fernando Menendez and Gregory Grossman in Miami In the Hong Kong Court of First Instance In the matter of Dingway Investment Limited Mr Justice Peter Ng Joint provisional liquidators of Dingway Teneo Senior managing director Russel Crumpler in the British Virgin Islands KPMG Partner Fergal Power in Hong Kong Counsel to petitioner China City (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and then to joint provisional liquidators Tanner De Witt Senior associate Veronica Chan in Hong Kong 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 has become Miami's go-to firm for Brazilian Chapter 15 cases, handling cross-border insolvency, asset recovery, and fraud investigations for Brazilian companies and institutions. Miami’s Specialist in Brazilian Chapter 15 Cases Open Legal Insights Open January 6, 2020 3 minutes read Sequor Law By Kirk O’Neil When the foreign representative of defunct Brazilian limestone mining company Brasagro Fertilizantes Minerais Ltda. in October sought to investigate and recover alleged improper transfers of the company’s assets to the U.S., its advisers made a popular choice for the firm to handle the needed Chapter 15 petition: Miami-based Sequor Law PA. Sequor also in October handled a Chapter 15 petition for Brazilian media company Minuano Comunicações e Produções Editorias Ltda., which sought recognition of its involuntary insolvency case in Brazil as it worked to recover assets that might have been diverted to banks in Miami and New York. The fledgling law firm, which former shareholders of Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman PA formed in April 2017 after that firm split in two, has quickly grown into the favored counsel of many Brazilian companies, financial institutions, sovereign entities and state-owned enterprises seeking representation for insolvency, financial services litigation, financial fraud and asset recovery. Sequor, which on its website says its name in Latin means “to pursue, to chase, to attain,” has been involved in 13 Brazilian insolvency cases since 2017, according to shareholder Leyza B. Florin . About 60% of Sequor’s total business focuses on Chapter 15 cases, and 80% of those filings are for Brazilian insolvency cases, said Blanco, who joined the firm in June 2018 from Orlando, Fla.-based GrayRobinson PA. In addition to Minuano and Brasagro, the firm has represented sugar and ethanol producer São Fernando Açúcar e Álcool Ltda. (Aug. 22), construction company Knijnik Participações SA (July 24), securities holder Schahin Holdings SA (July 26), process control equipment maker Smar Equipamentos Industrias Ltda. (Feb. 28) and rubber tire product maker Marangoni Tread Latino America Indústria e Comércio de Artefatos de Borracha Ltda. (Feb. 15) in Chapter 15 cases in 2019. The “Southern District of Miami is a popular court for Brazilian filings because of their many connections to Miami,” Blanco said. “It’s the gateway to the Americas and home to a great deal of Brazilian offshore business. It is a natural conclusion that in looking to track offshore transactions from Brazil that Miami would be a likely first place to look.” Sequor’s Chapter 15 roots also go deep, with founding shareholder Gregory S. Grossman filing the first Chapter 15 case in Florida, for a Barbadian financial institution while he was at Astigarraga Davis. The predecessor firm handled a fair amount of Brazilian Chapter 15 proceedings, and there have been more to go around lately. Blanco pointed to an apparent rise in fraud-related cases that require investigation as the root of an increase in Chapter 15 filings. In addition, she said more Brazilian insolvency advisers are familiar with Chapter 15 as a tool to assist that country’s bankruptcy courts in investigating and obtaining assets that may have been transferred outside the country to defraud creditors. The Operação Lava Jato, or Operation Car Wash, criminal investigation that began in 2014 ultimately embroiled state-controlled Petróleo Brasileiro SA and construction company Odebrecht SA and led to indictments and convictions of politicians and professionals as it probed alleged money laundering, corruption, embezzlement and bribery. Among the politicians indicted and jailed were former Brazilian presidents Fernando Collor de Mello, Michel Temer and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Odebrecht CEO Marcelo Odebrecht also was sentenced to prison. Bribes and improper conduct by defendants caused a domino effect with insolvencies and liquidations of companies, Blanco said. Companies or individuals moving company assets offshore and outside Brazil led to many Chapter 15 filings, Blanco asserted. Brazil’s recession and severe economic crisis, which began in 2014, also contributed to the financial distress that has led to more filings, she added. “Sequor was formed to offer clients the relentless global pursuit to recover assets lost to bad actors,” said Blanco, who has been working on bankruptcy, restructuring, insolvency and Chapter 15 cases since 1997. “That pursuit often occurs through the use of Chapter 15 cross-border insolvency cases and other asset recovery tools.” The law firm employs 15 full-time attorneys and one of counsel. All of the multilingual firm’s attorneys focus on asset recovery, and seven attorneys have substantial bankruptcy experience, Blanco said. 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..

Michael Hanlon of Sequor Law on cross-border asset recovery and financial fraud — and why curiosity is the most essential skill for unraveling complex cases. Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon Open Attorney Spotlight Open May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more to the kind of work it allows you to do — untangling complicated situations where the facts aren't obvious and the stakes are real. 2. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? Asset recovery and financial fraud work felt like a natural fit because it's part legal analysis and part investigation. It takes problem solving to a new level: you're reconstructing stories from incomplete information, often against the odds. Beyond that, the work is inherently cross-border, which blends my passions for languages and the law into one. 3. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? At the forefront of the skills I draw on for asset recovery and financial fraud matters is curiosity, along with being comfortable with the unknown. Navigating the unknown in a way that is calculated and driven by a desire to unravel what really happened is essential to crafting a plan — and to deviating from that plan when the situation calls for it. 4. What is the most rewarding part about your job? The most rewarding part of my job is getting clarity — or rather, fighting to uncover clarity where there initially wasn't any. It's the moment when something that looked opaque starts to make sense, and you can actually do something with that understanding. 5. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. One of my many mentors taught me, through action and inaction, that in order to grow, you have to be willing to be wrong and even more willing to be corrected. 6. If you weren't practicing law, what would you be doing? Given my love of languages, I would probably be an interpreter and/or translator. 7. What might people be surprised to learn about you? I have lived in Spain, Brazil, and Italy, and I speak Spanish and Portuguese fluently. 8. What is a good book or article you read recently? O beijo do rio by Stefano Volp. 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..

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