Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin represents the joint trustees of jailed Taiwanese-British businessman Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai in a Chapter 15 petition in Miami to track and recover US real estate assets. Miami Chapter 15 for jailed Taiwanese-British IT executive Open In the News Open November 14, 2019 4 minutes read Sequor Law The joint trustees of Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai, a “thoroughly dishonest” bankrupt Taiwanese-British businessman, have applied for Chapter 15 recognition to track his real estate assets in the US. On 11 November Tsai’s joint trustees, Begbies Traynor partners Nicholas Reed and Julie Palmer , filed two Chapter 15 petitions before the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida – one under his own name and another under the name of Changtel Solutions UK (Changtel), his former company. Leyza B. Florin , a shareholder at Sequor Law in Miami, is acting for the joint trustees. Fraud and freezing The UK’s tax authority, HMRC, sought Changtel’s winding-up in 2013 after challenging its VAT returns and alleging a shortfall of £15.5 million (US$20 million). It accused Changtel, a company which distributed computer hardware and software within the UK and ostensibly exported goods to the rest of the European Union, of carousel fraud over the shortfall. Although the English High Court initially rejected the winding-up petition, the Court of Appeal eventually found that Changtel had “misled” a tax tribunal and judge into thinking that it was solvent “when in fact it had been running down its business since mid-2013”. A tribunal later determined that a fabricated scheme for VAT evasion had been established within the company. The High Court then appointed Reed and Palmer as joint liquidators over Changtel in June 2015. Later, in May 2019, Reed was appointed as Changtel’s bank trustee along with fellow Begbies Traynor partner Joanne Wright . The liquidators’ investigations determined that Tsai committed fraud of an approximate value of £38 million (US$49 million). The English High Court found that Tsai had used “cheque fraud” to extract funds from Changtel – fabricating cheques made out to his sister from a fake Taiwanese supplier, and signed by Tsai himself, to the amount of £3.5 million (US$4.5 million). Tsai’s own bankruptcy came in 2018, after he was jailed for 18 months for contempt of court after breaching a freezing order , and failed to pay a consequential interim payment order. In a July 2017 ruling, Mrs. Justice Vivien Rose in the English High Court found Tsai guilty of 30 out of an alleged 52 breaches of the freezing order. The court found that, although Tsai’s UK passport had been confiscated under the freezing order, he kept hold of a Taiwanese passport which he used to travel to Taiwan. There he arranged for his wife to move £8.6 million (US$11 million) from a DBS bank account in Singapore to a Taipei Fubon bank account in Hong Kong. In delivering her verdict, Mrs Justice Rose described Tsai as a “thoroughly dishonest witness”, and issued with him with the interim payment order. He was adjudged bankrupt in May 2018 after failing to pay the order. Asset recovery In their Chapter 15 application the liquidators said they had discovered several real estate assets in the United States – including five in Las Vegas and one in Los Angeles – that might beneficially belong to either Tsai or Changtel through local companies. They also found evidence that funds had been misappropriated from Changtel and transferred to US bank accounts in the names of Tsai and other family members. They told the Miami court they are attempting to recover £9.95 million (US$ 12.2 million) in post-liquidation payments Changtel made to Entanet International, another Tsai company, to which all Changtel business was transferred prior to liquidation. The liquidators said Tsai’s international assets had been unearthed after a litany of contradictory disclosures of assets on his part. Although in his initial February 2017 disclosure Tsai claimed to have under £1 million (US$1.3 million) he admitted to further assets the further month after retaining counsel from London firm Brett Wilson. But in May that year, after terminating that firm in favor of Neil Davies & Partners, he retracted his previous disclosure, which he said he had admitted to on the basis of erroneous advice from Brett Wilson. “In doing so,” the liquidators said, “Tsai inadvertently waived privilege in his communications with Brett Wilson”, which showed his disclosures had not in fact been based on erroneous advice. As well as the Las Vegas and Los Angeles properties, the liquidators said the English court had found Tsai to hold misappropriated funds in Hong Kong and Singaporean accounts as well as owning three properties in the UK city of Birmingham and one in Telford, Shropshire under his sister’s name. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Miami In re Changtel Solutions UK Limited In re Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai [Case 19-25250] Foreign Representative Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza B. Florin in Miami In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Mrs Justice Vivien Rose Joint liquidators of Changtel Begbies Traynor Regional managing partner Julie Palmer in Salisbury and Nicholas Reed in Leeds Counsel to the joint liquidators Stephen Robins of counsel, South Square Chambers Instructed by: Walker Morris Counsel to Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai Andrew Young of counsel Instructed by: Neil Davies & Partners To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

IWIRC announces its 2018–2019 board of directors, with Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin named Secretary of the Executive Board of this global women's insolvency and restructuring organization. IWIRC announces new board of directors Open In the News Open September 24, 2018 4 minutes read Sequor Law By Mohamed Dabo The International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC) has announced its newly elected and appointed incoming board of directors for 2018 – 2019. The international networking and professional growth organization, aimed at women in the restructuring and insolvency industries, announced the names of its five-member executive board and its ten-member management committee on 17 September. IWIRC also published the names of its new regional directors, directors at large, as well as its standing committee and vice directors. Carrianne Basler , a managing director at AlixPartners in Chicago who was vice chair, succeeds outgoing chair Jennifer McLemore . Michelle Pickett , a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Toronto, Canada, becomes the new vice chair. McLemore will remain on the board as immediate past chair. The executive board also includes Leyza B. Florin of Sequor Law in Miami as secretary, Jennifer Kimble of New York restructuring firm Prime Clerk as treasurer, and Marjorie Kaufman of Getzler Henrich in Boston as Vice Finance Director. Appointees to the group’s management committee include Tinamarie Feil , president of the California-based BMC Group, who becomes the group’s UNCITRAL committee director. Alexandra Schnapp , a law clerk at the US Bankruptcy Court in Atlanta, is the communications director. Eloise Fardon , a senior associate at Stephenson Harwood in Hong Kong, is now the Asia regional director. Rita Gismondi , an associate at Gianni Origoni Grippo Cappelli & Partners in Rome, is the new Europe regional director. Kelly McDonald , of Shearman & Sterling in New York, is US regional director and Toronto-based Dentons counsel Sara-Ann Van Allen is Canada regional director. Outgoing chair McLemore says, “The composition of the Board speaks to the depth and expertise of our membership base and we look forward to working with these talented women.” In a phone interview, she told GRR the organisation’s focus right now is to bring the international experience to the local level—so that members who are unable to attend international conferences can still have access to those international resources. IWIRC’s newsletter is one resource the organisation is aiming to make more accessible; for example, by using social media to give it a stronger international presence on the internet. Founded in 1993, IWIRC is a not-for-profit organisation currently located in Asia, Europe, and North America and continues to grow. McLemore says IWIRC welcomes the development of new networks in these or new regions. Executive Board (terms ending October 2019) Carrianne Basler, AlixPartners, Chair Michelle Pickett, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Vice Chair Leyza B. Florin , Sequor Law, Secretary Jennifer Kimble, Prime Clerk, Treasurer Marjorie Kaufman, Getzler Henrich & Associates, Vice Finance Director Jennifer McLemore, Christian & Barton, Immediate Past Chair Management Committee (terms ending October 2019) Tinamarie Feil, BMC Group, UNCITRAL Committee Director* Karen Fellowes, DLA Piper, Newsletter Director Terri Freedman, Freedman Law, Program Committee Co-Director Melissa Hager, Morrison & Foerster, US Networks Director Evelyn Meltzer, Pepper Hamilton, Member Services Director Alexandra “CC” Schnapp, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Communications Director Helen Sevenoaks, CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang, Europe Networks Director Carren Shulman, NYU School of Law, UNCITRAL Committee Director* Pooja Sinha, Global Legal Solutions (GLS Law), Asia Networks Director Melaney Wagner, Goodmans, Canada Networks Director Regional Directors (terms ending October 2019) Eloise Fardon, Stephenson Harwood, Asia Regional Director Rita Gismondi, Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners, Europe Regional Director Kelly McDonald, Shearman & Sterling, U.S. Regional Director Sara-Ann Van Allen, Dentons, Canada Regional Director Directors at Large (terms ending October 2019) Jacqui Calderin, Agentis Kelly Beaudin Conlan, Connolly Gallagher Catherine D’Alton, Harney Westwood & Riegels Mary Grace Diehl, former judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rebecca Hume, Kobre & Kim Ericka Johnson, Womble Bond Dickinson Nicole Stefanelli, Cullen and Dykman Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young Directors at Large (terms ending October 2020) Monica Blacker, BAX Advisors Kristen Siracusa Eustis, Miles & Stockbridge PC Elizabeth Gunn, Virginia Office of the Attorney General Rachel Lao, SSG Capital Management Kerri Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb Leanne Williams, ThorntonGroutFinnigan Standing Committee Vice-Directors (terms ending October 2019) Valerie Banter-Peo, Buchalter Nemer, Vice Director of Regional Programming* Aisling Dwyer, Maples and Calder, Asia Regional Vice Director* Rosa Evergreen, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Vice Director of Communications and Newsletter* Justine Lau, Mourant Ozannes, Asia Regional Vice Director* Tina Lucas, Banner Bank, Vice Director of Budget* Lauren McKelvey, Odin Feldman & Pittleman, Vice Director of Spring Programs* Tara Schellhorn, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Vice Director of Fall Programs* Nellwyn Voorhies, Donlin Recano, Vice Director of Communications and Social Media* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* Rita Gismondi, Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners, Europe Regional Director Kelly McDonald, Shearman & Sterling, U.S. Regional Director Sara-Ann Van Allen, Dentons, Canada Regional Director Directors at Large (terms ending October 2019) Jacqui Calderin, Agentis Kelly Beaudin Conlan, Connolly Gallagher Catherine D’Alton, Harney Westwood & Riegels Mary Grace Diehl, former judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rebecca Hume, Kobre & Kim Ericka Johnson, Womble Bond Dickinson Nicole Stefanelli, Cullen and Dykman Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young Directors at Large (terms ending October 2020) Monica Blacker, BAX Advisors Kristen Siracusa Eustis, Miles & Stockbridge PC Elizabeth Gunn, Virginia Office of the Attorney General Rachel Lao, SSG Capital Management Kerri Mumford, Landis Rath & Cobb Leanne Williams, ThorntonGroutFinnigan Standing Committee Vice-Directors (terms ending October 2019) Valerie Banter-Peo, Buchalter Nemer, Vice Director of Regional Programming* Aisling Dwyer, Maples and Calder, Asia Regional Vice Director* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* Rosa Evergreen, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Vice Director of Communications and Newsletter* Justine Lau, Mourant Ozannes, Asia Regional Vice Director* Tina Lucas, Banner Bank, Vice Director of Budget* Lauren McKelvey, Odin Feldman & Pittleman, Vice Director of Spring Programs* Tara Schellhorn, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Vice Director of Fall Programs* Nellwyn Voorhies, Donlin Recano, Vice Director of Communications and Social Media* Blanche Zelmanovich, Ernst & Young, Vice Director of Member Services* To view full article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Get to know Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Gregory S. Grossman, Chambers Band 2-ranked expert in international insolvency, cross-border asset recovery, and creditors' rights. Attorney Spotlight: Get to Know Shareholder Gregory S. Grossman Open Attorney Spotlight Open September 20, 2022 2 minutes read Sequor Law You’ve been ranked Band 2 by Chambers & Partners multiple years; what did it take to get there? An individual acknowledgment of me is really a reflection of being surrounded by a consistently great team, long term. It may seem cliché to say so, but I have been fortunate to, first, have had hard-working professional colleagues in my early days, and later, to have had a hand in building up a team of first-rate attorneys, paraprofessionals, and staffers to do high-level work. As a subject-matter expert, you routinely deliver presentations on international insolvency matters, creditors’ rights, enforcement of judgments (both domestic and foreign), assorted bankruptcy topics, workouts and secured transactions. How do you prepare for these presentations? I am admittedly a legal information junkie, so I am constantly consuming articles, advance sheets, webinars, and the like. If you stay on top of new developments it is far easier to prepare for a presentation. As far as the actual delivery of the information, I try to find a way to explain the material in a conversational way and give examples that are likely to occur. Why do you think it is important for attorneys like yourself to get involved in public speaking related to their subject-matter expertise? There are two benefits about speaking on topics you know well. Firstly, it is an opportunity to practice the methods of conveying that information to a captive audience. Today, you may present to a room of conference attendees, and tomorrow it might be the judge in your most important case. Secondly, for litigators, this kind of public speaking creates credibility both in the market for clients, as well as interactions with the other participants in the case. When did you know you wanted to practice law? Was it something you always aspired to do? I thought about law school and practicing law while in my undergraduate studies. I was working toward my finance degree, took a class in business law and it just made complete sense. I had no lawyers in my family, so the joke was that my struggles with calculus led me to the law. Who has had the biggest influence on your law career? In both my legal career and my life, I have been most influenced by my wife. She is a brilliant health care lawyer and she is the best sounding board for me. What advice would you give to young lawyers who are deciding what type of law they want to practice? My first piece of advice is to be brutally honest with yourself. I mean your real self, not the person you want to be or the person your friends or family think you are or want you to be. For instance, if you detest confrontation, it will be a hard lift to be a successful trial lawyer. A process of elimination can also come in handy, such as litigation versus transactional. Even within litigation, can you project yourself working in an area dominated by statutes and regulations (think tax, health care, bankruptcy, environmental), or would you be better suited for a more fact-intensive litigation area (think negligence, injury, and other torts)? Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Attorney Spotlight: Sequor Law's Amanda E. Finley shares her journey into law, her focus on fraud victim representation and asset recovery, and her insights on the evolving legal industry. Attorney Spotlight: Amanda E. Finley Open Attorney Spotlight Open November 30, 2021 2 minutes read Sequor Law On this month’s Attorney Spotlight, we interviewed Sequor Law Attorney, Amanda E. Finley , who’s providing her insights on the legal industry. What inspired you to study law? I always knew it was the right path for me. In high school, I really enjoyed taking part in debates, and based on my skill set, law increasingly seemed like a natural choice. So, I majored in Political Science at UF, went on to law school, and never looked back. I am proud to say that I am the first lawyer in my family. What practice areas do you focus on? Litigation representing primarily victims of fraud and fiduciaries in asset recovery, commercial litigation, Chapter 15 cases, and proceedings under section 1782, as well as bankruptcy litigation representing creditors. What is most exciting to you about being a lawyer in this day and age? How technology has changed the way we practice law, making it more efficient and streamlined, is very exciting to me. While the pandemic has had many negative consequences, one silver lining is the way it necessitated the introduction of remote hearings, motions, and the like. Lawyers and clients no longer have to battle traffic, find a place to park, and wait around–sometimes an hour or more–for a five-minute motion. We have done many days of full-blown evidentiary hearings via Zoom, and using screen share is very effective. What advice would you give to young attorneys? Be organized, diligent, and honest. Check your daily calendars and alarms at least twice–more is better. Overprepare and you’ll do well. How does Sequor Law distinguish itself from competitors in the market? Sequor is distinctive in that it is a boutique firm that specializes in niche areas of the law, such as asset recovery, fraud-based litigation, Chapter 15 cases, and 1782 cases. Focusing on these areas we devote all our energy, experience, and passion to securing exceptional results. How important are marketing efforts for Sequor Law? I believe that in today’s world, at least a minimal level of marketing is essential for law firms. After all, websites are a resource where attorneys and their firms can be verified, while newsletters keep you top of mind. What do you like most about Sequor Law? Sequor allows me the opportunity to engage in the kind of higher-level work that bigger firms typically would not give an associate. For example, I have argued significant motions and even presented oral arguments before a Court of Appeals. Opportunities like those are fast-tracking my professional growth, making me a stronger, more effective attorney early on in my career. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

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 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Sequor Law represents the estate of late German filmmaker Gideon Bachmann in a Chapter 15 petition in Florida, seeking to recover $495,000 in US bank accounts to settle debts owed to creditors. German filmmaker’s estate files Florida Chapter 15 Open In the News Open March 22, 2019 2 minutes read Sequor Law Funds in a Florida bank account belonging to the late German filmmaker and Federico Fellini collaborator Gideon Bachmann are at the centre of a new Chapter 15 application, two years after he died seemingly bankrupt in Germany. Peter Jost, a partner at Jost Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart, applied to the Tampa division of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida for recognition as foreign representative of Bachmann’s estate on 13 March. Represented by Sequor Law, Jost is seeking US$495,000 held in two Bank of America accounts in Bachmann’s name to pay off debts Bachmann owed to eight creditors at his death. In the Chapter 15 application, under which Bachmann is referred to by his birth name of Hans Werner Bachmann, Jost says the filmmaker’s creditors have US$12,617 in claims against him, an amount easily exceeded by the amount in the Bank of America account. Bachmann, who died in Karlsruhe, a city in the south west German region of Baden-Württemberg, on 24 November 2016 at the age of 89, was born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1927 before emigrating to Tel Aviv in 1936 after the rise of the Nazi party. He initially worked as a journalist for Haaretz , returning to Germany in 1947 to document concentration camps left by the Nazi regime. The following year he began to study under the celebrated Dadaist film director Hans Richter in New York, moving in the 1960s to Italy, where he was a close friend of Federico Fellini, even creating a documentary film about the Italian director, Ciao, Federico! , in 1970. He also performed in a number of Fellini’s films. His film output also included Underground New York , a 1967 portrait of the underground film movement in which he was a player, which featured rare films of Andy Warhol, Shirley Clarke and Allen Ginsberg. That moved him to direct A Camera Is Not a Molotov Cocktail in 1977, in which he explained his belief that film’s purpose was not to “convince the unconvinced” but to provide solidarity for people of shared views. He also performed in films, including for Fellini and his own 1983 film Peppermint Peace . He returned to Germany in 1996, and in his latter years worked as a film critic for a US radio programme, also establishing and editing periodical magazine Cinemages . The District Court of Karlsruhe appointed Jost as liquidator over Bachmann’s estate in November 2018, two years after his death. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida Chief Judge Michael Williamson Counsel to Jost Sequor Law Partner Gregory Grossman and attorney Amanda Finley in Miami Open Article here Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Sequor Law announces partners Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez joining the firm, marking significant growth for the firm founded just a year ago. Meet Our Newest Partners Open Firm News Open June 4, 2018 1 minute read Sequor Law Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez have joined the Sequor Law team as partners, representing a significant expansion for the firm, founded just one year ago.  “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.” -- Ed Davis , Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Leyza B. Florin Leyza will focus her practice on a wide range of litigation and insolvency matters, including debt restructuring and representation of creditors, with special emphasis on complex business bankruptcy and commercial litigation matters. She is also a Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil Mediator. Fernando Menendez Fernando will focus his practice on a broad range of insolvency-related matters, including complex workouts, bankruptcy litigation involving preferences, fraudulent transfers, and complex contested matters, creditors’ rights and remedies, as well as the representation of foreign and domestic court-appointed trustees. Leyza remarked, “We are so pleased to be able to bring our practice to Sequor Law, a highly acclaimed international firm. We have known several of the lawyers at Sequor Law professionally for years and have long admired their practice. We have shared values and a common vision to render world-class legal services from a highly specialized and client-focused platform.” Greg Grossman , a Sequor Law founding Shareholder added: “Leyza and Fernando’s work ethic, tenacity and thought leadership epitomize the motto of Sequor Law: Relentless. Global. Pursuit.” We invite you to learn more about our two newest additions, as well as our entire Sequor Law team, at SequorLaw.com . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin and Christopher Noel analyze how US courts are adopting the Judicial Insolvency Network's framework for cross-border coordination in international insolvency matters. Asset recovery column: Globalisation catches up with the US insolvency courts Open Legal Insights Open September 17, 2019 5 minutes read Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Christopher Noel from Sequor Law in Miami discuss recent developments in coordination and communication between courts handling cross-border insolvencies. In today’s ever-globalized world, courts are progressively recognizing the need for cross-border coordination and cooperation when dealing with insolvency matters. Earlier this summer, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adopted the Judicial Insolvency Network’s (JIN) Modalities of Court-to-Court Communication (the Modalities ). The Delaware court’s adoption of the Modalities followed its February 2017 promulgation of Part X: Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (the Guidelines ). The Guidelines and Modalities represent an unprecedented attempt at creating a unified framework for coordination and cooperation, and in some cases, joint hearings. In the past, coordination and cooperation among US bankruptcy judges and courts abroad was based on section 1525 of the US Bankruptcy Code (Cooperation and direct communication between the court and foreign courts or foreign representatives), and it was accomplished on an basis, which was ultimately left up to the specific judges handling the cross-border insolvency matter. This article examines the lead-up to the District of Delaware’s adoption of the Modalities, the Modalities’ goals in facilitating cross-border communication in insolvency matters, and forecasts the implications of the Modalities upon – and assuming – their addition to the District of Delaware Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure. The beginnings of global cooperation The District of Delaware and the Supreme Court of Singapore announced the formal implementation of the Guidelines on 1 February 2017. The Guidelines are the result of work by judges around the world – judges in Australia, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, England and Wales, Singapore, and the United States all contributed to their development beginning at the 2016 JIN meeting in Singapore. To date, they have been adopted by some of the busiest bankruptcy and insolvency tribunals around the world (see list at foot of article). The goal of adopting the Guidelines was “to improve in the interests of all stakeholders the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border proceedings relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt opened in more than one jurisdiction by enhancing coordination and cooperation amongst courts”. Ultimately, the Guidelines are meant to benefit all stakeholders in cross-border insolvencies, by improving efficiency in the insolvency process and reducing litigation costs. The Guidelines comprise an introduction setting forth objectives, 14 enumerated guidelines providing guidance on protocols, and an appendix addressing joint hearings. Delaware moves the ball On 25 July 2019, the JIN announced its adoption of the Modalities. On the same day, Judge Christopher Sontchi , chief judge of the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, entered an order adopting the Modalities on an interim basis, pending the District Court’s annual review of its Local Rules. This means the District of Delaware will now follow the Modalities when dealing with cross-border insolvency matters, even before they are formally adopted into the Local Rules. The Modalities include guidance concerning the designation of a so-called facilitator, the initiation of communications between judges, arrangements for those communications, and the actual communications between judges. Each of these areas of guidance will be discussed below. Laying the groundwork The Modalities apply to all direct communications between courts in cross-border insolvency proceedings. They also govern the mechanics of communication between courts in parallel proceedings, such as a Chapter 15 proceeding in the US where there is a simultaneous foreign main proceeding abroad. In general, the Modalities anticipate that a judge in a matter with cross-border elements (the initiating judge) will attempt to communicate with other judges and courts considering the same insolvency matter (the receiving judge). To accomplish this objective, courts are now requested to publish information regarding facilitators so that there is a clear line of communication. Among the information in the facilitator, publication will be the facilitator’s identity (the District of Delaware has identified its clerk of court to act in this role) and the language for the initial communication, as well as what technology is available to facilitate communication. This basic information was not necessarily easily obtained in the past, and a clear designation of with whom to communicate and how those communications should be made, will alone facilitate greater coordination and cooperation among those involved in cross-border insolvencies. Saying hello Once the groundwork for communication is established, and there is a clear line of communication with a court’s facilitator, the judges involved in parallel cross-border insolvency proceedings should exchange relevant information to keep the line of communication open. The initiating judge should provide basic information to the receiving judge, such as the facilitator’s contact information, the initiating judge’s contact information, information concerning the matter before the initiating judge, the nature of the matter, whether the parties before the initiating judge have consented to the communication, and the specific issues upon which communication is sought. Once this initial communication is accomplished, then the facilitator should step in and assist with coordinating between the initiating and the receiving judges. Setting a date After a line of communication is open, the initiating and receiving judges’ facilitators are free to communicate and arrange for the two judges to speak, with or without the presence of counsel or the parties. The initiating and receiving judges have great leeway in how communication is made, and the Modalities provide only that the two judges should be satisfied with the arrangements, including appropriate translation services and protocols to communicate confidential information via a secure method. The first meeting and ongoing discussions. After the necessary protocols are in place, the Modalities suggest that the initiating and receiving judges communicate in accordance with the Guidelines. Additionally, the Modalities provide that, should the two judges so wish, they may discontinue the use of their respective facilitators to allow for an efficient line of direct communication. This may also be done without the presence of counsel or the parties. Ultimately, the Modalities’ goal is to allow easy, efficient, and productive communication between the initiating and receiving judges so as to improve efficiency. A globalized world Now that the District of Delaware has, at least initially, adopted the Modalities, it is foreseeable that other US Bankruptcy courts will follow suit. The number of cross-border insolvency proceedings that could (and will) benefit from increased coordination and cooperation across borders is ever growing. All parties – creditors, debtors, bankruptcy estates, and insolvency tribunals – stand to benefit from the Modalities when handling cross-border insolvencies. Moving forward, the potential impact on cross-border insolvency practice is great. Both insolvency courts and practitioners alike will need to work together to implement the Modalities and Guidelines so that all involved are familiar and comfortable working with this new framework. Additionally, through ongoing efforts, cross-border insolvency matters should become more streamlined and efficient. The free flow of information will take much of the uncertainty out of cross-border situations where multiple parallel proceedings are involved. In sum, the Modalities and Guidelines now facilitate the insolvency practice’s ongoing evolution in an ever-more-globalised world. Courts Adopting the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware The Supreme Court of Singapore The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York The Supreme Court of Bermuda The Chancery Division of England & Wales The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court The Supreme Court of New South Wales The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida The Seoul Bankruptcy Court The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands The Commercial List Users’ Committee of the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario (Commercial List) The District Court Midden-Nederland, in the Netherlands 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 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Sequor Law's Nyana Abreu Miller and Raul Torrao analyze Brazil's landmark bankruptcy reform implementing UNCITRAL's Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and its impact on distressed companies. Cross-Border Insolvency In Brazil: The UNCITRAL Model Law Dances to A Samba Beat Open Legal Insights Open June 15, 2021 13 minutes read Sequor Law By Nyana Abreu Miller and Raul Torrao After years of debate, Brazil recently enacted legislation amending its bankruptcy statute and modernizing the Brazilian insolvency system. The new legislation provides new domestic tools to rescue distressed companies from disaster, including rules that enable DIP financing and allow creditors to propose a plan when the debtor’s proposal is unsatisfactory. In the cross-border insolvency area, the new law implements the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency . The basic framework of the UNCITRAL Model Law familiar to insolvency practitioners has been road-tested in 48 countries prior to Brazil’s recent legislative change. The Model Law seeks to identify the jurisdiction where the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI) is located, and deems the insolvency proceeding filed in that jurisdiction the “foreign main proceeding.” Under Brazil’s version of the Model Law, an insolvency proceeding filed in a jurisdiction other than the debtor’s COMI and where the debtor engages in non-transitory economic activities or holds property is a “foreign non-main proceeding.” The Model Law’s vision is that a troubled multi-national business will be able to break through the disparate and sometimes contradictory insolvency regimes in different nations. The Model Law promotes cooperation across borders in order to accomplish laudable objectives, such as the rescue of financially troubled businesses. Where Brazil is the debtor’s COMI, the new law is, in many ways, simply a codification of the existing practice. For many years, in cases where Brazil is the debtor’s COMI, Brazilian insolvencies have sought recognition and cooperation through ancillary proceedings abroad. A prominent example is the liquidation of the Brazilian bank Banco Santos, where the Brazilian trustee was able to recover and sell over 90 pieces of valuable artwork with the cooperation of foreign courts and use the repatriated proceeds to pay creditors. However, until now, Brazilian courts could not give reciprocal treatment to foreign main proceedings when the debtor’s COMI was outside of Brazil. Indeed, prior requests to enforce foreign bankruptcy decisions in Brazil through exequatur proceedings were rebuffed. See , e.g. , Gutmen Investiment Corp v. Manacá S A Armazens Gerais e Administração , Case No. SEC 11277 / VG, rapporteur Min. Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, Decision on request for granting exequatur to foreign judgment (Superior Tribunal of Justice Jul. 1, 2016). See also , Antônio Moraes Sarmento Patrício v. Vera Maria Brak Lamy P. Raposo Patkoczy Fonseca , Case No. SEC 1.734/PT, rapporteur Min. Fernando Gonçalves, Decision on request for granting exequatur to foreign judgment (Superior Tribunal of Justice Feb. 16, 2011). Under the new law, Brazil embraces the Model Law’s modified universalism and provides its courts with the basis to recognize and provide assistance to both main and non-main foreign proceedings. In some respects, the new Brazilian legislation deviates from the suggested wording in the Model Law in order to emphasize the broad cooperation available. Opening the Gate: The Request for Recognition To access comity and cooperation from a Brazilian court, the representative of the foreign insolvency proceeding (foreign representative) must pass through the gateway referred to as “recognition” in the Model Law. The foreign representative must file a request for recognition with the court of the place where the debtor has its principal “establishment” in Brazil under the Model Law definition, meaning the place of operations where the debtor carries out a non-transitory economic activity with human means and goods or services. If a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceeding of the debtor was previously filed in Brazil, the foreign representative must file the request for recognition with the same court where that plenary proceeding had been filed. The new law sets out the requirements for obtaining recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding. The request is a straightforward document attaching evidence of the existence of the foreign proceeding, the appointment of the foreign representative, and, in practice, information sufficient to provide the context necessary to grant the relief sought. “One of the key objectives of the Model Law is to establish simplified procedures for recognition of qualifying foreign proceedings that would avoid time-consuming legalization or other processes and provide certainty with respect to the decision to recognize.” Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency , ¶29 (the Guide). In practice, this means that filing an application for recognition should not be an onerous process. For a proceeding to qualify for recognition under the Model Law (and Brazil’s enactment thereof), it must be a collective proceeding. A collective proceeding is one in which “substantially all of the assets and liabilities of the debtor are dealt with in the proceeding, subject to local priorities and statutory exceptions, and to local exclusions relating to the rights of secured creditors.” See,Id. at ¶70. This requirement sheds light on the Model Law’s intent “to provide a tool for achieving a coordinated, global solution for all stakeholders of an insolvency proceeding,” and not merely to be used by a single creditor pursuing collection or by a debtor winding up its affairs in a proceeding that does not address claims of creditors. See , Id . at ¶69. As part of the recognition process, the court must determine the debtor’s COMI, and that will directly affect what relief is available to the foreign representative. The court will recognize the foreign proceeding as a “foreign main proceeding” if it was filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor’s COMI is located or alternatively as a “foreign non-main proceeding” if it was filed in any other jurisdiction. Although the concept of COMI is new to Brazilian law and neither the new law nor the Model Law defines it, that concept has been long present in cross-border insolvency practice and discussed by the international insolvency community for many years. (The Model Law’s concept of COMI must not be confused with the concept of the debtor’s “principal establishment,” which is used in the Brazilian bankruptcy statute to determine the appropriate venue for a domestic bankruptcy case. The Brazilian bankruptcy statute does not define “principal establishment,” and at least three different approaches have emerged in the case law. The approach that seems to be gaining favor is the so-called economic approach — that is, the “vital center of the debtor’s main activities” and “where the debtor has the highest business volume” — as the majoritarian theory. However, to identify a debtor’s COMI, Brazilian practitioners should look not to domestic decisions about the debtor’s “principal establishment” but to the text of the new law, to the Guide and to other jurisdictions where the Model Law has been implemented.) As the Guide explains, the concept of COMI originates from the European Union Convention on Insolvency Proceedings, and it should be interpreted homogeneously in furtherance of harmonization of the notion of a “main proceeding.” See , Id . at ¶¶81-82. Determining the debtor’s COMI is one of the most important steps in cross-border insolvency proceedings, and a consistent interpretation of such concept throughout all jurisdictions that adopted the Model Law is key to promote the uniformity prescribed by Article 8 of the Model Law. In short, the definition of debtor’s center of main interests is “the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties.” See,Id . at ¶83. Both the new law and the Model law provide for a rebuttable presumption that the debtor’s COMI is the debtor’s registered office or habitual residence. That legal presumption may be set aside if objective circumstances recognized by third parties indicate that the debtor has its administrative seat in another jurisdiction. The analysis of the objective circumstances may consider different facts, from the location of the debtor’s headquarters or factory where the debtor manufactures its products to the country code of the debtor’s website or phone number. Such interpretation of the COMI enables parties to better calculate legal risks when entering into transactions. When considering potential insolvency as a risk factor, the party may assume that international jurisdiction will be based on a place known to the debtor’s potential creditors. See , Id . at ¶84. Interestingly, the new Brazilian law includes a provision to avoid forum shopping that has no equivalent in the Model Law. In Brazil, the foreign proceeding will be recognized as a “foreign non-main proceeding” if the debtor’s COMI was transferred or manipulated with the intent to transfer the debtor’s “foreign main” jurisdiction to another country. While such a provision is intended to increase legal certainty and reduce forum shopping, it could trigger additional litigation about the debtor’s intent and about the appropriate lookback period, which is not specified in the new law. Types of Relief Available While recognition turns on the strict application of objective criteria, the consequences of recognition (referred to as the “relief” in the Model Law or as “medidas” in the new Brazilian law) are largely discretionary. This arrangement reflects a need for efficiency and predictability in obtaining recognition, but equips the courts with the flexibility to fashion the relief that should result from recognition. The new law makes available to the foreign representative broad discretionary relief both before and after recognition of the foreign proceeding. From the filing of the application for recognition to the court’s ruling on such request, the foreign representative may request any injunctive relief necessary to protect the estate, the efficiency of the administration, or the enforcement of Brazilian bankruptcy law. Upon recognition of the foreign proceeding, either as a “main” or “non-main” proceeding, the foreign representative may request any relief necessary for the protection of the assets of the estate and in the creditor’s interest. The drafter’s intent to provide Brazilian courts with the flexibility to fashion meaningful relief is evident in two provisions in the Brazilian law that differ slightly from those in the Model Law. First, in the list of discretionary relief available after recognition, the Model Law includes a catchall provision allowing the court to grant “additional relief that may be available to [the trustee] under the laws of this State.” See , Model Law, Art. 21 (g). The Brazilian law would allow the court to “grant any additional relief that may be necessary” and is not limited by reference to the powers of a Brazilian trustee. See , Art. 167-N, V – Law 11.101/2005. Second, the new Brazilian law includes a provision with no parallel in the Model Law by clarifying that the relief available under the cross-border insolvency chapter of the new law are “merely exemplary” and that relief available under “other laws” may be sought. See , Art. 167-A §2 – Law 11.101/2005. It is unclear whether this phrase would allow lawsuits, such as claw backs, under non-Brazilian laws, or whether it is limited to “other [Brazilian] laws.” In addition to the permissive relief, the new law provides for automatic relief if the foreign proceeding is recognized as a “foreign main proceeding”: i) the stay of specific lawsuits against the debtor; ii) the toll of the statute of limitations for the enforcement actions against the debtor; and iii) the avoidance of transfers and encumbrances of the debtor’s non-current assets without previous court authorization. It is important to note that under Brazil’s bankruptcy laws the stay of proceedings against the debtor is narrower compared to some other jurisdictions. Brazilian insolvency law provides numerous legal exceptions to the stay or suspension of lawsuits. In broad terms, Brazil’s insolvency laws impose a stay only to non-tax judgment enforcement proceedings and other actions directly related to the debtor’s assets . Ordinary lawsuits and arbitration proceedings at a pre-judgment phase are not stayed either by operation of Brazil’s general insolvency law. Accordingly, obtaining automatic or discretionary stays under Brazil’s adoption of the Model Law imposes a less robust set of prohibitions. Granting Recognition to Foreign Insolvency Proceedings vs. Granting Exequatur to Foreign Judgments Brazilian commentators have expressed some concern that the new law’s recognition of foreign proceedings could be confused with the previously existing mechanisms for international judicial assistance in Brazil, namely exequatur of foreign judgments and letters rogatory. In fact, granting recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings has little or nothing to do with granting exequatur . The Model Law was created as a necessary alternative to the legal systems’ traditional approach to judicial cooperation under the comity doctrine and exequatur . See , Guide, ¶8. While the new law sets forth a streamlined process by which the bankruptcy courts (courts of first instance) shall recognize foreign proceedings, the Brazilian constitution grants to the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) — a centralized court superior to the state and federal courts of appeals — jurisdiction over exequatur of foreign judgments and letters rogatory. Those who understand the purpose and effect of the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings , including those who drafted Brazil’s new law, do not see a conflict with the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction. Acknowledging that recognition under the new law does not encroach upon the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction, the new law expressly submits to the STJ’s constitutional jurisdiction over exequatur “whenever applicable.” See , Art. 167-A§6 – Law 11.101/2005. While this reference to the STJ’s exequatur proceedings has been the source of some debate leading up to the law’s implementation, most Brazilian commentators take the position that such provision does not impede the local bankruptcy courts from recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings. Indeed, recognizing a foreign insolvency proceeding is not tantamount to enforcing an order issued by the judicial authority of a sovereign state. For example, a foreign administrative proceeding in which no court orders whatsoever have been made is eligible for recognition under Brazil’s new law. In addition, the Brazilian legislature implemented a system to recognize foreign insolvency proceedings and expressly granted jurisdiction to the trial court of the place where the debtor has its principal “establishment” to hear such cases. It would be illogical to interpret that, in writing rules with specific provisions on the jurisdiction to process requests for recognition, the legislature, in fact, intended the Superior Tribunal of Justice to have jurisdiction to rule on such petitions. Another context in which the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction may become relevant is where the Brazilian bankruptcy court is asked to cooperate with a court order entered in the foreign proceeding. The new law requires the bankruptcy court to cooperate “to the maximum possible extent with the foreign authority or with the foreign representative[.]” See, Art. 167-P – Law 11.101/2005. This provision implies that certain deference may be given to orders made in the foreign main proceeding, such as orders confirming a plan of reorganization, orders made in a claim dispute between debtor and creditor, and discovery orders. The cooperation called for in the new law does not require that such orders be enforced directly in Brazil. Cooperation can be achieved by giving deferential treatment to such orders in light of the law’s international origin and objectives. Giving deferential treatment means recognizing the foreign court’s better position to rule on the matter as the court with the main interest and most information on the issue, and to refrain from reviewing the matter de novo . It also means recognizing that when acting as the ancillary court, the Brazilian court cannot impose its own domestic priority scheme or claims process on the debtor. The ancillary court must remain focused on the goals expressly noted in the new law: promotion of international cooperation with foreign courts and representatives, greater legal certainty, and fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies. By giving deferential treatment to an order in the foreign main proceeding, the ancillary court may avoid a conflict and a duplication of efforts that could weigh down efforts to rescue a struggling enterprise. A Plenary Bankruptcy Proceeding A debtor whose foreign main or non-main proceedings have been recognized in Brazil may commence a full liquidation or reorganization case if the relief available in the ancillary case is insufficient to accomplish its purposes. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the distinction between the ancillary proceedings contemplated under the Model Law and the plenary proceedings that may be commenced to reorganize or liquidate a company under Brazilian law. The gateway for ancillary proceedings is through the Model Law’s streamlined recognition process and simple eligibility criteria, embodied in Articles 167-H and 167-J of the new Brazilian law. The reward for entering through this gate is the relief described in Articles 167-L, 167-M, and 167-N of the new law. Ancillary proceedings are an act of comity between nations and thus they are simple proceedings that attempt to avoid duplication of effort. In this vein, the Model Law and Brazil’s enactment of it do not establish a separate claims process or reorganization plan in the ancillary proceeding. Indeed, the Model Law envisions that these should be handled in the foreign main proceeding. A plenary proceeding, on the other hand, is a full liquidation or reorganization case, which in Brazil is governed by the other chapters of Law 11.101/2005. A debtor whose foreign main or non-main proceedings have been recognized in Brazil may commence a liquidation or reorganization case only if the debtor has assets or an establishment in Brazil, and that Brazilian plenary case will apply only to the Brazilian assets or establishment. The new law sets forth measures for cooperation and coordination between the Brazilian plenary case and the foreign main proceeding. It should be noted that even in the absence of a petition for a plenary proceeding, Brazil’s new law allows the court to grant broad discretionary relief to the recognized foreign proceeding. Thus, there may be few instances in which foreign representatives might be interested in filing a plenary proceeding petition with the Brazilian court. This may change if Brazilian courts limit in practice the relief available to ancillary proceedings under their ample discretion. In any event, creditors also may initiate an involuntary plenary proceeding, especially if they are interested in establishing a claims process in Brazil, which is unavailable in the ancillary proceeding. Generally, the party filing for a voluntary or involuntary plenary proceeding must show the petition meets the bankruptcy requirements under Brazilian law. Specifically, the foreign representative will have to show in the reorganization petition that the debtor is in regular business activity for more than two years and meets other requirements of the statute, such as not having been through reorganization in the last five years. See , Art. 48 – Law 11.101/2005. To initiate a liquidation proceeding in Brazil, the requesting party must show the so-called “legal insolvency” of the debtor by meeting one of the three statutory requirements: 1) unjustified default of an obligation over 40 minimum wages; 2) nonpayment of any amount under a judgment enforcement action; or 3) performance of any of the seven acts of bankruptcy listed in the statute ( e.g. , fraudulent transfer of property to avoid creditors or default on an obligation provided for in a reorganization plan). See, Art 94 – Law 11.101/2015. Relevantly, the new law provides that the insolvency of the debtor is presumed if the foreign proceeding was recognized in Brazil as a “foreign main proceeding.” However, it is not clear if such presumption of the debtor’s insolvency is sufficient to show the “legal insolvency” requirement in liquidation petitions. Outbound Cross-Border Insolvency and Communication With Foreign Representative and Courts The new law does not limit its rules to inbound cross-border insolvency proceedings. It also includes rules related to outbound proceedings, which empower the representative of the Brazilian insolvency proceeding and the Brazilian court to seek recognition abroad and to act in that proceeding. Under the new law, the trustee in the Brazilian liquidation and the debtor in the Brazilian reorganization are automatically authorized to act as representatives of the Brazilian proceeding in foreign jurisdictions. The Brazilian court may appoint a different representative for the Brazilian liquidation when necessary. Moreover, the new law abrogates the long-established requirements of formal communication with foreign courts through letters rogatory. It expressly grants broad communication powers to the Brazilian bankruptcy court and trustee with foreign courts, representatives, and authorities. Overall, the new law adheres closely to the Model Law and provides Brazilian bankruptcy courts with the tools to effectively cooperate in cross-border insolvencies. After many years of receiving international assistance for Brazilian insolvency proceedings, Brazilian courts are now ready to reciprocate. The tools for effective cooperation are in place and the Brazilian legal community is eager to usher in a new era. To read 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 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

Who’s Who Legal recognizes Sequor Law founding shareholder Edward H. Davis, Jr. as a Thought Leader. He discusses boutique focus, asset recovery, and major Ponzi cases. Edward H. Davis, Jr., selected as a Who’s Who Legal Thought Leader Open Awards & Recognition Open November 30, 2017 4 minutes read Sequor Law Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders 2018 brings together the insight, expertise and wisdom of some of the world’s foremost lawyers in a single book. This year’s edition features Q&As with 67 eminent practitioners across 22 practice areas. These lawyers obtained the highest number of nominations from peers, corporate counsel and other market sources in our most recent research cycle. Edward H. Davis, Jr. Questions and Answers: Who’s Who Legal Thought Leaders: Asset Recovery Edward H Davis, Jr, a founding shareholder of the international law firm Astigarraga Davis, heads the firm’s asset recovery and financial fraud group which represents victims of serious fraud and grand corruption including governments, corporations, insolvency practitioners and individuals by investigating and prosecuting civil fraud and asset recovery actions. Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery has recognised Davis as the global Asset Recovery Lawyer of the Year from 2013 to 2016, and his firm as Asset Recovery Firm of the Year for 2015 and 2016. WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO SPECIALISE IN ASSET RECOVERY AND FRAUD WORK? I enjoy representing victims and helping them level the playing field with those that prey on them. As a result, I decided to focus my practice on the representation of individual, corporate and governmental victims of fraud throughout the world. I also enjoy learning about other legal cultures, and asset recovery and fraud work is a specialised form of international litigation. Lastly, I enjoy the “hunt” for those that have committed fraud and their ill-gotten gains. WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO FOUND YOUR OWN FIRM? My partners and I were seeking a better way to serve our clients in response to new factors in the industry affecting both the legal profession and our clients. Having a specialised boutique allows us to employ our “power of focus” concept and truly focus deeply on our practice groups and developments in the law to a degree that might not be attainable in a more generalised platform. Also, our boutique setting is nimbler and more cost-effective than that of many other firms, and allows us to take cases on alternative fee structures. WHAT MAKES FOR A SUCCESSFUL ASSET RECOVERY SPECIALIST? The actions taken in the first days following the discovery of a fraud often will determine whether the misappropriated funds or other property are ultimately recovered. Our team responds quickly to such fraud by using emergency injunctions, expedited depositions, subpoenas of bank records, our vast connections to experienced professionals and investigators around the world to seek to either locate the assets before they are dissipated or to investigate and bring claims against third parties who assisted the fraudsters. WHAT IS THE MOST MEMORABLE MATTER THAT YOU’VE WORKED ON TO DATE? Stanford International Bank, Ltd was an Antiguan bank that sold phony certificates of deposit to 21,000 depositors, which resulted in the second-largest Ponzi scheme in history by causing losses to over 27,000 depositor-victims from around the world. Estimated losses by depositor-victims exceeded $5 billion. WHAT CHALLENGES ARE FACING PRACTITIONERS AT THE MOMENT AND HOW IS YOUR FIRM LOOKING TO MEET THESE OBSTACLES? The pressure from clients to keep legal fees and costs as low as possible continues to be one of the challenges affecting practitioners. This can be a problem because of the crisis-like atmosphere in which successful asset recovery practitioners function. We combat these challenges by working closely with investigators, computer forensic experts, foreign lawyers, forensic accountants, law enforcement and other experts. These professionals are key resources in a rapid response to a discovered fraud which can lead to escalated costs (such as cost bonds) which would not be the norm in another practice area. Our firm has been meeting this particular challenge by offering alternative fee arrangements when historically the standard was solely hourly fee billing, and by working with litigation funders that assist victims of fraud who usually don’t have the resources to fight the fraudster after the fraud. DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY’S INCREASING READINESS TO TACKLE CORRUPTION WILL LEAD TO GROWING INTEREST IN ASSET RECOVERY WORK IN THE WIDER LEGAL MARKET? Yes, as technology continues to get more sophisticated, the speed of the movement of money throughout the world will likewise increase. This, combined with a growing awareness that national borders are no more an impediment to recovery than they are to the fraudster who moves across those same borders, will likely result in the interest in asset recovery work growing into a larger distinct legal market. We already see firms forming asset recovery departments and groups which is a signal that that the market is recognising this distinct practice area as an exciting new offering to their clients. HOW IMPORTANT ARE ORGANISATIONS SUCH THE ICC COMMERCIAL CRIMES SERVICES’ FRAUDNET NETWORK IN INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECOVERY WORK? Organizations like the ICC’s FraudNet are very important and necessary in the international asset recovery work. Fraudsters work using their own networks of cronies and those that provide them assistance – legal and otherwise. So it is essential that counter-networks operate at a high level of coordination to defeat them. They also are powerful change agents that raise awareness and educate fraud victims worldwide about the methods that can be deployed to assist them in their fight to recover their assets and damages. AS HEAD OF THE FIRM’S ASSET RECOVERY AND FINANCIAL FRAUD PRACTICE, IN WHAT WAYS ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO DISTINGUISH YOUR GROUP FROM OTHER COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET? I work on creating innovative solutions. I’ve helped develop and expand various creative discovery and asset seizure methodologies to obtain recoveries for our clients. Additionally, I’ve both led and worked collaboratively on various civil asset recovery teams – another concept I helped pioneer – on cross-border asset recovery engagements. Having a strong commercial litigation and insolvency background, my team and I have championed and coordinated asset recovery efforts between civil and criminal systems as a means to penetrate and defeat complex opaque asset hiding structures used by fraudsters. I was recently mentioned by Latin Lawyer (2016) for my efforts in the area of asset recovery. Lastly, as a result of our efforts, I was also recognised as the global Asset Recovery Lawyer of the Year by Who’s Who Legal: Asset Recovery, in 2013 (and again in 2014, 2015 and 2016); my firm was recognised as the Asset Recovery Firm of the Year in 2015 and 2016 by the same publication. View PDF Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

A Florida bankruptcy judge preliminarily approved an $8 million settlement resolving Banco Santos’ racketeering and fraud claims against Espirito Santo Bank. Fla. Judge OKs Espírito Santo’s $8M Deal With Bankrupt Bank Open In the News Open December 23, 2014 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Carolina Bolado A Florida bankruptcy judge on Tuesday indicated that she would sign off on an $8 million settlement ending bankrupt Brazilian bank Banco Santos SA’s racketeering and tort suit against Portugal-based Espirito Santo Bank. In a hearing in Miami, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Isicoff said she would sign off on an order preliminarily approving a deal that resolves a suit filed by Banco Santos’ court-appointed administrator, Vanio Cesar Pickler Aguiar, claiming the bank lost $38.7 million through ESB’s fraud and money laundering. The judge noted that there were no objections filed to the settlement agreement and urged the attorneys to get the order in quickly so that she could sign off on it before the holiday break. In the adversary proceeding, filed in December 2013, Aguiar claims that ESB diverted millions in Banco Santos’ assets through various corporate entities to Florida, from which they were transferred offshore and laundered, according to the complaint. In the suit, Aguiar requested not just the $38.7 million the bank allegedly lost, but also treble damages of $116 million. ESB rebuts all of the claims in the complaint. Banco Santos was ordered into a court-supervised liquidation by the Second Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Court of Sao Paulo in September 2005. Aguiar filed a Chapter 15 petition in December 2010 in the Southern District of Florida listing $500 million to $1 billion in assets and more than $1 billion in liabilities. The Espirito Santo group, which traces to a storied Portuguese banking family, saw four of its companies file for creditor protection in July after a central bank audit two months earlier had turned up accounting irregularities at Espirito Santo International SA, the group’s holding company. The Portuguese central bank in August unveiled a plan to split up BES, the country’s second-largest lender, under a rescue plan backed by €4.9 billion ($6.4 billion) in state money after the bank failed to weather losses on its exposure to the Espirito Santo group. Authorities in several countries are investigating the dealings of the Espirito Santo empire. Switzerland’s financial regulator said in September that it is looking into the distribution of financial products by a Swiss bank, Banque Privee Espirito Santo SA, which is tied to the Espirito Santo group. Aguiar is represented by Edward H. Davis Jr. , Gregory S. Grossman , Arnoldo B. Lacayo and Nyana A. Miller of Astigarraga Davis . ESB is represented by Samuel J. Capuano and Gary M. Freedman of Tabas Freedman . The adversary proceeding is Aguiar v. Espirito Santo Bank, case number 1:13-ap-01934, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bankruptcy is In re: Banco Santos SA, case number 1:10-bk-47543, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. 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 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.

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 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. Firm News Jan 13, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Washington, D.C. Office with Addition of David Short Sequor Law expands its Washington, D.C. office with the addition of David Short, strengthening its cross-border litigation, asset recovery. Firm News Jan 12, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Expands Asset Recovery Practice With the Addition of Attorneys Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Michael Hanlon and Noah Rosenblum have joined the firm as attorneys further strengthening the firm’s. Attorney Spotlight Oct 9, 2025 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know David Short 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I don’t think that it was a matter of inspiration, but of choice – I wanted a career that.