Search this site

Hong Kong liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited obtain pre-recognition emergency discovery relief in Miami's Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 15 regarding a disputed Miami property. Dingway case in GRR Open In the News Open February 8, 2022 6 minutes read Sequor Law Hong Kong liquidators obtain pre-recognition discovery relief in Miami A Hong Kong headquartered, British Virgin Islands-incorporated company’s provisional liquidators have obtained emergency relief in the US to conduct discovery on a property it used to own in Miami, which they allege has been wrongfully transferred at least three times in the last three years. On 3 February, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laurel M Isicoff in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, granted an emergency motion allowing the liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited, Teneo’s Russel Crumpler in the BVI and KPMG’s Fergal Power in Hong Kong, to conduct proposed discovery under federal and local bankruptcy rules in the US, before they are formally recognised under Chapter 15. The pair submitted a recognition petition before the Miami court on 27 January, just three days after a Hong Kong court opened a winding-up petition against Dingway at the request of its majority shareholder, Hong Kong-based China City Construction International (China City). China City itself has also been in a creditor’s voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong since January 2019, and is currently being managed by KPMG’s global head of restructuring services Patrick Cowley and partner Lui Yee Man as liquidators. Cowley, Lui and KPMG director Christopher Ball are also currently sitting as three of Dingway’s five directors. In a declaration supporting Dingway’s Chapter 15 application, Crumpler explains that Dingway was incorporated in 2014 to indirectly purchase a “substantial” vacant land site in Miami’s Brickell Financial District through three intermediate Delaware companies. At the time of the purchase, an entity called China City Construction & Development Co (CCCDHK) funded the US$86.7 million purchase price for the property, in return for an equivalent reduction to a US$204 million debt it owned to China City. The latter then passed the funds down the structure to the titleholder of the Miami property by way of a series of shareholder loans. In October 2015, an entity called Champ Prestige took a 45% interest in Dingway for just over US$40 million, leaving China City with the remaining 55%. Three years later, CCDHK brought an unsuccessful claim against China City in the Hong Kong High Court, arguing that China City had always held its shares in Dingway and the US$40 million that Champ Prestige had paid for its interest, on trust for CCCDHK. It sought an order for China City to transfer the legal ownership of its shares and the money to CCDHK, but the court declined to grant the relief and CCCDHK discontinued the proceedings in December 2019. Crumpler notes in his declaration that investigations by China City’s liquidators, Cowley and Lui, suggest CCCDHK and China City are ultimately controlled by the same people associated with a mainland Chinese company called China City Development Academy (CCDA). CCDA indirectly held an interest in China City until April 2016 and obtained an indirect interest in CCCDHK in July of the same year. Despite one ownership interest ceasing before the other commenced, the same people seemed to exert a measure of control over both entities at all material times, China City’s liquidators claimed. In particular, City City’s liquidators told Crumpler that an individual named Zeng Yuqi seemed to be a common director of China City and CCCDHK between February and September 2018, while another director of CCCDHK, Sze Wai Suen, was an authorised signatory for certain China City accounts as late as September 2016, among other things. Crumpler claims that Zeng, acting as a “rogue director” and without authorisation from Dingway’s board or shareholders, signed an agreement in October 2019 to transfer its interests in the Delaware ownership structure and the Miami property to CCCDHK, for no consideration. He says Sze signed the agreement on CCCDHK’s behalf. The provisional liquidator claims CCCDHK then sold the Delaware structure and Miami property to a Californian entity in November 2019 for US$70 million, with Sze as signatory again. Crumpler says Champ Prestige, as Dingway’s minority shareholder, was initially prepared to cooperate with China City’s liquidators to try to retrieve its interest in the Miami property. But in March 2020, Cowley and Lui learned that Champ Prestige itself had been sold to CCCDHK for US$44 million. Finally, on 30 December last year, Crumpler notes Cowley and Lui found out through an online news article that the Miami property had been sold again – this time for US$103 million to an entity belonging to Miami real estate investment firm Mast Capital and Boston private equity group Rockpoint. The news article in the South Florida Business Journal reported that the property had been “seized” following “a legal battle with the previous owner”. Submitted at the same time as their Chapter 15 application, Crumpler and Power asked the Miami district court for emergency provisional relief so they could investigate the latest transaction with Mast Capital and Rockpoint. Specifically, they asked permission to issue and serve pre-recognition subpoenas for the production of documents on the two new acquirors and three Delaware entities they used to effectuate the sales, as well as two other Mast Capital companies that may have been involved in the sale. Crumpler and Power argued that the proposed discovery was limited and targeted to obtaining information regarding the location of the closing proceeds for the sale. They said they needed relief on an emergency basis to preserve the status quo of Dingway’s estate and prevent “further dissipation” of the Miami property’s proceeds of sale. Granting the provisional relief, Judge Isicoff noted it was “narrowly tailored in scope and duration” and reflected that there were no parties in opposition. The judge also said the “threatened injury” to Dingway’s estate outweighed “whatever damage the requested relief may cause an opposing party”. Champ Prestige proceedings Crumpler explains in his declaration that Champ Prestige originally brought an action in a Miami-Dade County court against China City and the Delaware entity that was the Miami property’s direct owner in June 2019, claiming the majority shareholder had breached its obligations under the sale and purchase agreement through which Champ Prestige had acquired its 45% interest in Dingway. Among other things, Champ Prestige sought to impose and foreclose on an equitable lien on the property, and in December 2019 it secured a temporary injunction from the Miami-Dade court enjoining the land’s disposition. The injunction was expanded in February 2020 to also prevent any indirect dispositions or the sale of any interests in the three Delaware holding companies. But after CCCDHK acquired Champ Prestige it voluntarily dismissed the Miami-Dade action and removed the lis pendens over the property. Crumpler has also recorded that Champ Prestige filed a winding-up petition against Dingway and China City in Hong Kong back in February 2018, but no steps had been taken in the petition since March 2020, when Mr Justice Harris dismissed an application from China City to strike it out on jurisdictional grounds. Crumpler explains in his declaration that Cowley and Lui, as China City’s liquidators, had wanted to try to recover its interest in Dingway and its ultimate 55% interest in the Miami property, but had been unable to take action due to lack of funding, and because of CCCDHK’s action in Hong Kong and the Miami-Dade proceedings. When the Hong Kong court placed Dingway in liquidation, it issued a proprietary injunction against CCCDHK in respect of the US$70 million for the November 2019 sale of the property. It also issued a mareva injunction restraining CCCDHK, Zeng and Sze from dealing with assets of up to US$103 million. The court was due to hold an inter partes hearing in Hong Kong to address Crumpler and Power’s continuing appointment as joint provisional liquidators and the injunctions on 4 February. GRR was unable to ascertain the outcome of that hearing by press time. After they have obtained evidence in aid of their asset recovery efforts, Crumpler and Power intend to file actions and proprietary claims in the US, including claims against third parties in the US that may have damaged Dingway or owe it money. The provisional liquidators have retained Sequor Law partners Fernando Menendez and Gregory Grossman as US counsel. The Chapter 15 bankruptcy court has scheduled a full recognition hearing on 23 February. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laurel M Isicoff Counsel to joint provisional liquidators of Dingway Investment Limited Sequor Law Partners Fernando Menendez and Gregory Grossman in Miami In the Hong Kong Court of First Instance In the matter of Dingway Investment Limited Mr Justice Peter Ng Joint provisional liquidators of Dingway Teneo Senior managing director Russel Crumpler in the British Virgin Islands KPMG Partner Fergal Power in Hong Kong Counsel to petitioner China City (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and then to joint provisional liquidators Tanner De Witt Senior associate Veronica Chan in Hong Kong Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Edward H. Davis Jr. examines cryptocurrency's impact on asset recovery work, exploring digital technology's positive and negative effects for practitioners. Edward H. Davis Jr. Thought Leaders Interview Open Awards & Recognition Open January 5, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Edward H. Davis, Jr. shines a spotlight on both the positive and negative aspects of advancements in digital technology such as the rise of cryptocurrency and its effects on the work of asset recovery specialists. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. joined ICC FraudNet leaders at the ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE International conference in Vilamoura, Portugal on May 19, 2022. Thought Leaders 4 Fire: FIRE International Vilamoura, Portugal May 19, 2022 Open Events & Speaking Open May 19, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law Incoming ICC FraudNet Co-Executive Director Rodrigo Callejas with Strategic Partner James Pomeroy and former Executive Director Edward H. Davis in Cyprus for the FraudNet Spring meeting. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Daniel Coyle explains the asymmetrical nature of discovery in Chapter 15 proceedings, where foreign representatives can obtain discovery while resisting demands from other parties. Just Say No: Discovery in Chapter 15 Bankruptcies is Asymmetrical Open Legal Insights Open April 21, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law By: Dan Coyle Foreign Representatives in Chapter 15 petitions are specifically permitted to conduct discovery to locate the debtor’s assets within the United States to increase estate and creditor recoveries in the overseas proceedings and to probe the debtor’s affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities. In the U.S. ancillary proceeding, the Foreign Representative will encounter resistance and other entities may seek to propound subpoenas under Fed. R. Bankr. 2004. Sometimes, these entities are creditors who seek information relevant to their claim or assets available to pay the same. Other times, these entities are subpoena targets who seek to gain a peek into the Foreign Representative’s search, seek to distract and/or delay the Foreign Representative from the asset search, or who seek to “punish” the Foreign Representative. The Foreign Representative may be able to avoid responding to such requests by moving for protective order or to quash the subpoena based upon 11 U.S.C. 1521(a)(4) and/or Rule 2004(a). The arguments are based upon: 1) the language of 1521(a)(4) and two canons of statutory construction, or, alternatively; 2) interpretive case law under Rule 2004 as to the requirements to show a “pecuniary interest” in a case. Read the original article here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

The foreign representative of bankrupt Brazilian businessman Daniel Birmann, accused of concealing assets and smuggling a $30M yacht into Brazil, files Chapter 15 recognition proceedings in Miami. Foreign representative of Brazilian businessman accused of smuggling yacht files Chapter 15 in Miami Open In the News Open November 9, 2018 3 minutes read Sequor Law By Benjamin Clarke The foreign representative of a long-time bankrupt businessman accused of concealing his assets and smuggling a US$30 million yacht into Brazil has filed Chapter 15 recognition proceedings in Miami. On 8 November, Fernando Correia of Rio de Janeiro-based Carlos Magno Nery & Meiros filed a petition in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, asking the court to recognize the Brazilian involuntary liquidations of copper manufacturer SAM Indústrias, its parent company Boulder Participações, and Boulder’s majority shareholder Daniel Birmann. Birmann and the two companies have been in insolvency proceedings for over a decade, after SAM defaulted on 40.1 million reais (US$14.5 million) worth of debentures back in December 2004. Back then a Rio court issued a bankruptcy order against SAM under the Brazilian Bankruptcy Law after it also closed down its principal place of business. Private pension fund Braslight, which held the defaulted notes, filed a petition for the involuntary liquidation of SAM and asked the court to extend the order to Boulder and Birmann – as the ultimate beneficial owner of the companies. The Brazilian court found that SAM’s main assets were 135 million reais (US$36.05 million) worth of loans to Boulder, and made the requested order in February 2008. The court said that Birmann had caused SAM’s collapse by transferring all of its available funds to Boulder and leaving it without sufficient liquid assets to pay creditors. Boulder then used the funds to make additional intercompany loans to Brazilian bank Banco Arbi, which is owned by Birmann’s family. Braslight was made the judicial administrator by the court, but last year Head Judge Maria Ruckerreplaced the pension fund with Carlos Magno, noting the proceedings had “not had an actual solution for several years”. Fraudulent transfers As well as the bankruptcy proceedings, the Brazilian Securities Exchange Commission (CVM) also launched an action against Birmann. According to a declaration filed by Correia in the US court, the CVM found that the loans extended to Banco Arbi were contracted under much more favorable conditions than those offered by the market and concluded that Birmann’s actions were an “abuse of control”. It imposed a fine of 234 million reais (US464.88 million) on Birmann – “the largest fine ever imposed to an individual by the CVM” according to Correia. “During the bankruptcy proceedings, Daniel Birmann was required to disclose of his assets to the Brazilian court, which he has failed to do,” Correia says. “Instead, it appears that he has fraudulently transferred assets to his family members in order to avoid enforcement of the bankruptcy order and to conceal his assets from creditors. Brazil’s department of revenue discovered a further attempt to hide assets in 2012 when it seized a yacht called “Big Aron” in the city of Salvador. The yacht was registered in the name of Isle of Man-incorporated company Tango Bravo, which had applied for a tax-free admission on the grounds it was a non-resident. But the authorities suspected that Brazilian resident Birmann was the actual owner and concluded that with Tango Bravo he had “smuggled” the yacht into the country. The name “Big Aron” caught the attention of the authorities because Birmann’s father was named “Aron Birmann” and, upon further analysis, the department of revenue learned that Birmann and his family were consistently registered as guests on trips in Brazil and elsewhere. After conducting investigations, the CVM found that Tango Bravo was held by another entity in the Cayman Islands, which in turn was held by a Panama-incorporated entity with a single shareholder: Birmann’s mother. With a value of 60 million reais (US$30.1 million), the CVM sought to levy on the yacht and use the proceeds to pay off the fine it had imposed on Birmann. A federal judge in Rio, Judge Fatima Sequeira made such a seizure order in 2015. But the following year, the department of revenue discovered furniture and appliances had been “stolen” from the yacht and transported to a Banco Arbi address. Public prosecutors were informed, and a criminal lawsuit for embezzlement and misappropriation was filed against Birmann last year. With counsel from Gregory Grossman of Sequor Law , Correia filed the Chapter 15 proceedings in Miami “in furtherance of a worldwide pursuit of assets” to satisfy unpaid claims. Birmann has a Florida driver’s license listing an address in Florida, Correia says, and the debtors’ have assets located in the United States. Judge Robert Mark has listed the matter for a hearing on 4 December. In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division In re SAM Industrias S.A.; Boulder Participacoes LTDA; and Daniel Benasayag Birmann Judge Robert Mark Counsel to the foreign representative Sequor Law Partner Gregory Grossman with Nyana Miller in Miami Foreign representative to SAM Industrias, Boulder Participacoes and Daniel Birmann Carlos Magno Nery & Meiros Partner Fernando Correia in Rio de Janeiro To view full article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Joseph B. Rome wins ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE's 2nd Future Thought Leaders Essay Competition, with his essay on the future of fraud, insolvency, and asset recovery in 2023. Joseph B. Rome Wins ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Essay Competition Open Awards & Recognition Open January 19, 2023 1 minute read Sequor Law Congratulations to our very own Joseph B. Rome who was selected by ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE as the winner of its 2nd Edition of the Future Thought Leaders Essay Competition ! His essay, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the magazine, addresses the topic of where the industry is headed in 2023 by focusing on N Click the image below to read his full essay. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Of Counsel. Harvard Law School alumnus. University of Miami Law professor. ABI Medal of Excellence. Reporter, ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Andrew B. Dawson Of Counsel adawson@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 269 vCard Andrew B. Dawson Of Counsel adawson@sequorlaw.com (+1) 305-372-8282, Ext. 269 vCard Practice Areas Cross-Border Insolvency Federal Bankruptcy Education Harvard Law School, J.D. (2008) American Bankruptcy Institute Medal of Excellence in Bankruptcy Irving Oberman Memorial Award Williams College, B.A. (1999) Admissions New York State United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Languages English Location Miami Favorite Quote “All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. ” – Winston Churchill Bio Media Andrew (Drew) B. Dawson, Of Counsel at Sequor Law and a professor at the University of Miami School of Law faculty, focuses his research on cross-border insolvency, as well as federal bankruptcy and labor laws, both in the corporate and municipal bankruptcy context. Previously, Drew was a Kauffman Legal Fellow at Harvard Law School, clerked for the Hon. Jane R. Roth, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and clerked for the Hon. Peter J. Walsh, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. He was also a Reporter for the Labor and Benefits Subcommittee of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, researching ways in which the Bankruptcy Code should be modernized. Well-versed in his field, Drew has served on the Caribbean Insolvency Symposium’s advisory board and as the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Robert M. Zinman Resident Scholar. He has presented at numerous conferences, and published various peer-reviewed articles, books, essays, and blogs. Drew is admitted to practice in New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. At the University of Miami School of Law, he teaches Bankruptcy, Business Associations, Commercial Law: Secured Transactions, and Contracts. Asset recovery column: The long arm of the liquidating trustee – Madoff trustee reaches offshore transferees Asset Recovery Magazine – Florida Leads the Way in Development of Chapter 15 Jurisprudence University of Miami names Sequor of counsel as first bankruptcy chair Legal Prowess. Global Impact.

Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Robert B. Kearney Open Attorney Spotlight Open December 3, 2024 3 minutes read Sequor Law 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? My dad was a small-town doctor. It was really important to him to help people in his community to—literally—get back on their feet. His role as a healer was more than a vocation to him; it was his identity and his calling. When I was in middle school, he was wrongfully forced out of the clinic he had helped build. The excuse the clinic provided was that he could no longer provide adequate care. Although the termination itself was certainly alarming, he was completely heartbroken by the insinuation that he ever provided anything other than the highest standard of care. That insinuation tarnished his very understanding of himself, I think. It truly changed him for a long time. Eventually, he filed a lawsuit against his former clinic and, when I was in college, he won, receiving some backpay for the wrongful termination. What mattered most to him, however, was that a jury of his peers had sat down and certified, after weeks of testimony, that his termination had nothing to do with his ability to heal. It really gave him back to us, in a lot of ways. I think that was the first time I really appreciated that the ability of the law to make someone whole is something more than an arithmetic exercise in compensation. Until then, I had primarily been looking at a career in consulting or finance, but that experience really drew me to the law. 2. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? It goes without saying that the ethos of this practice area is in line with what initially drew me to the law. Beyond that, however, I thrive on complexity. I truly enjoy unraveling and solving a difficult problem with a lot of variables, and I think that’s part of what drew me to insolvency and asset recovery. For example, I chose my bankruptcy clerkship over a district court offer because I had been tracking developments in the law and was fascinated by its breadth and the tools it offered. 3. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? Several past employers have commented on my ability to work through immense amounts of information relatively quickly and synthesize it into a story. I think that’s my primary skill and the one that I’ve found most useful here. It works for legal aspects of this practice area, as well as the complex factual situations we often encounter. 4. What is the most rewarding part about your job? So far, it’s the fact that I get to go to sleep every night knowing that I’m helping people be made whole. They say the arc of the universe bends towards justice; it’s nice to imagine I’m putting my own tiny amount of force into pushing that arc in the right direction. 5. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. I had several professors in law school that encouraged me to pursue what I was interested in, beyond the standard law school path. I also had two outstanding judges, Judge Erik Atas in the Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City and Judge James Tancredi in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, that pushed me to think creatively, learn to be better every day, and gave me incredible advice on so much more than my legal career. It feels like an injustice to name only one. 6. If you weren’t practicing law, what would you be doing? Probably working in consulting. That was my original path, but I’m not sure how much my heart was really in it. I prefer to imagine I’d be a history professor, but I don’t think I would have actually gone that route. 7. What might people be surprised to learn about you? I am a huge outdoorsman. I used to be a certified Wilderness First Responder and lifeguard, but I let those lapse a few years ago. It feels very surreal, I’m sure, to imagine anyone you have met in a suit standing up to their knees in a bog with a canoe on their back in the Canadian wilderness. 8. What is a good book or article you read recently? My favorite book I’ve read in the last few years is probably “The Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers” by James D. Hornfischer, which is a fantastic book for World War II history buffs. I’m currently reading “Chip War” by Chris Miller, which is a captivating narrative of the growth of semiconductors and their importance to geopolitics. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Daniel Coyle of Sequor Law analyzes Florida's adoption of the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (UCRERA) — receiver powers, procedures, key differences from the Model Act Florida’s New Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act Open Legal Insights Open September 30, 2020 1 minute read Daniel M. Coyle Florida’s New Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act By Daniel Coyle In July, Florida became the ninth state to adopt the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”). 1 The timing could not be better, given the near-universal prediction that defaults on commercial loans will skyrocket due to the COVID-19 pandemic once foreclosure moratoriums end and the growing suspicion that many borrowers will not reflexively file for bankruptcy. Those with experience as federal equity receivers and Chapter 7 trustees will find they are well suited to creatively and effectively use the greater powers receivers enjoy under UCRERA to achieve better and more fruitful outcomes. Drafted in 2019 by the Uniform Law Commission, UCRERA significantly broadens the powers of state receivers of commercial real property while also establishing a standard set of rules governing the reasons authorizing appointment and the procedures for seeking appointment. 2 UCRERA’s passage is a welcome event for receivers, trustees, fiduciaries, lenders and other parties involved with commercial real estate along with their counsel. This article will analyze Florida’s UCRERA as well as to point out some key differences between Florida’s version and the Model Act. I. Florida’s Receivership Scheme Prior to UCRERA In Florida, prior to UCRERA’s enactment, receivers were generally appointed as an equitable remedy to preserve the status quo of the real estate and to collect the rents and profits. 3 Appointment was difficult to obtain because: (1) it was in derogation of the common law, and; (2) it divested the property owner of the owner’s right to manage and control the property. 4 Consistently with this, the applicant also had to meet a high burden by demonstrating a serious and significant ongoing loss, usually, but not always, in the form of waste, even if the applicant had a right to appointment in a mortgage. 5 The waste could take the form of ongoing damage or disrepair of the real property, failing to pay property taxes, or failure to turn over rents. 6 Once appointed, the ultimate rights, duties and liabilities of the receiver were solely determined from the language of the order of appointment. In other words, they were left completely up to the court. One might think this discretion could result in robust powers but case law curtailed these powers significantly. For instance, it was improbable, if not impossible, to obtain an appointment order empowering the receiver to sell the real property 7 because appointment does not affect the title to property or deprive the owner of rights to the property. 8 Instead, receivers were limited to managing the property in the ordinary course of business. II. UCRERA’s Scheme A. The Receiver’s Powers under UCRERA UCRERA broadens the powers of a receiver significantly, to the degree that the receiver obtains many of the same powers as a Chapter 7 trustee in bankruptcy. The receiver is given the status of lien creditor under Florida’s recording statute chapter (Ch. 695 Fla . Stat .) and Florida’s enactment of the UCC pertaining to secured transactions (Ch. 679 Fla. Stat. ), similarly to 11 U.S.C. §544 as to receivership property or fixtures. 9 Thus, the receiver may now pursue avoidance/clawback actions regarding the property as a Chapter 7 Trustee or Debtor-in-Possession would. 10 Similarly to 11 U.S.C. §542, the receiver is entitled to turnover of receivership property. Persons owing debts that constitute receivership property must pay those debts to the receiver. 11 One of the most significant improvements is that the receiver is authorized to sell the property before or after judgment. The receiver is now authorized to sell the receivership assets outside of the ordinary course of business before judgment and with the approval of the owners, 12 or after judgment and with court approval 13 , much like the bankruptcy process under 11 U.S.C. §365. As in a bankruptcy “363 sale,” this is a sale of the asset “free and clear” of liens on the property, with the liens attaching to the proceeds. 14 Good faith purchasers are protected from reversal or modification on appeal of an order approving the sale. 15 The receiver also has the power to accept or reject executory contracts relating to the property with court approval. 16 This power may be used even if the appointment of the receiver constitutes a breach under the contract. 17 Also, the receiver's performance of an executory contract before court approval of its adoption or rejection does not preclude the receiver from later seeking approval to reject the contract. 18 Similarly to a section 362 stay in bankruptcy, the court may enter an order providing for a stay of acts relating to the property to protect against misappropriate or waste. 19 This order must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained. 20 With court approval, the receiver may incur debt outside of the ordinary course of business, make improvements to the receivership property, make a distribution of receivership property, and take the other actions described above regarding selling the property, adopting or rejecting executory contracts. 21 In addition to those innovative provisions, the receiver also has the more typical powers to collect, control, manage and perfect the property, operate the business, incur unsecured debt and pay expenses in the ordinary course of business, assert rights, claims and defenses relating to the property, and engage professionals. 22 Regarding its duties, the receiver must prepare and retain appropriate records, including a record of each receipt, disbursement and disposition of the property, account for the proceeds of all dispositions, file a copy of the order of appointment and disclose any fact arising which would disqualify the receiver. 23 The receiver’s powers and duties may be expanded, modified or limitedby court order. 24 To further the goal of standardization of appointments and broaden the receiver’s powers, UCRERA contains two provisions that seek to homogenize processes across state lines . The court may appoint a receiver already appointed in another state or even the nominee of that receiver as an ancillary receiver of property located within the state, so long as the person would be eligible for appointment under the standards of UCRERA. 25 The ancillary receiver has the same rights, powers, and duties as a receiver appointed under the statute. 26 Additionally, the Court may domesticate an order entered in another state appointing or directing a receiver. 27 The Act also provides that decisions of other states interpreting UCRERA’s provisions are persuasive authority. 28 A court may award a receiver the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of performing its duties and exercising the receiver's powers from the revenue generated by the property. 29 Or, the court may order either the person who requested the appointment or the person whose conduct justified the appointment to pay the reasonable and necessary fees and expenses of the receivership. 30 B. Sufficient Cause for Appointment UCRERA provides grounds for authorizing an appointment prior to a judgment and grounds for authorizing an appointment after entry of a judgment. 31 A court may appoint a receiver before judgment if the property or its revenue-producing potential: (1) is subjected to waste, loss, substantial diminution in value, dissipation, or impairment or (2) has been, or is about to be, the subject of a voidable transaction. 32 After judgment, a court may appoint a receiver:(a) to the judgment or (b) to preserve the property pending appeal or when an execution has been returned unsatisfied and the owner refuses to apply the property in satisfaction of the judgment. 33 UCRERA also provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in ruling on a request for appointment based upon a mortgage, which include many of the same themes discussed previously (e.g., protection from waste, loss, diminution in value, etc.). C. Procedure for Appointment The Florida provision governing appointments 34 was significantly augmented from the Model Act because the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure governing appointments provides significant due process protections with which Florida's version of UCRERA had to harmonize. An appointment requires notice and opportunity for hearing, except that the court may issue an order without notice if immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant or that waste, dissipation, impairment, or substantial diminution in value will result before any adverse party can be heard. 35 The person seeking appointment without prior notice or hearing must provide security for the payment of damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs incurred or suffered by any person if the court later concludes that the appointment was not justified. 36 ENDNOTES 1 Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Tennessee, Michigan, Arizona, Maryland, and North Carolina are the others. Connecticut has introduced a bill to enact the law. 2 According to section 714.04(1), UCRERA applies to a receivership initiated in a court of Florida for an interest in real property and any incidental personal property related to or used in operating the real property. The insertion of the term “incidental” was to make clear that the Act does not apply to personal property broadly, but instead only to personal property connected with or associated with commercial real property (e.g., fixtures). Property is defined broadly and expansively in section 714.02(13) to include all “right, title, and interest, legal and equitable … and includes proceeds, products, offspring, rents, and profits.” 3 U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Cramer , 113 So. 3d 1020, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 4 Twinjay Chambers P'ship v. Suarez , 556 So. 2d 781, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). 5 Boyd v. Banc One Mortg. Corp., 509 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). 6 Smith v. State Life Insurance Company , 153 So. 842 (1934); Smith v. DuPuis , 157 So. 491 (1934); ( Carr v. Marion Mortg. Co ., 128 So. 12 (1930). 7 See, e.g., Shubh Hotels Boca, LLC v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. , 46 So. 3d 163, 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 8 Eppes v. Dade Developers Inc. , 170 So. 875 (1936). 9 Fla. Stat. §714.09. III. Conclusion UCRERA is a significant and welcome step in both standardizing the rights, powers, duties, and procedures related to state receivers of commercial real property. With the moratoriums on foreclosures in multiple states ending or coming to an end and the expected increase in commercial loan defaults, Florida’s enactment of UCRERA is timely, and more states should consider passing their own versions of the Act. END About the Author : Daniel Coyle is an attorney with Sequor Law in Miami. His practice focuses on bankruptcy , creditors’ rights , secured transactions, collections , executions, asset recovery and cross-border insolvency . dcoyle@sequorlaw.com 10 One limitation to this is that under Fla. Stat. §714.10, appointment does not affect the validity of a pre-receivership perfected security interest or property acquired post-receivership under a perfected floating lien. 11 Fla. Stat. §714.11. 12 Fla. Stat. §714.16(2). 13 Fla. Stat. §714.16(3). 14 Fla. Stat. §714.16(4). 15 Fla. Stat. §714.16(6). 16 Fla. Stat. §714.17. 17 Fla. Stat. § 714.16(4). 18 Fla. Stat. §714.17(3). Also, under Fla. Stat. §714.17(5), if the executory contract is rejected, it is treated as if it were breached as of the day before the date the receiver was appointed so that the aggrieved party may assert rejection damages against the receivership estate. 19 Fla. Stat. §714.14. 20 Fla. Stat. §714.14(3). The permissive nature of this stay and the description requirements in the order are different than the Model Act, which provides that the appointment automatically provides for a such a stay. A person affected may apply for relief from the stay and the court must hear the motion within five (5) days or at such time as the court determines is reasonable and appropriate. Fla. Stat. §714.14(4). 21 Fla. Stat. §714.12(2). 22 Fla. Stat. §714.12(1). 23 Fla. Stat. §714.12(3). 24 Fla. Stat. §714.12(4). 25 Fla. Stat. §714.24(1)(a). 26 Fla. Stat. §714.24(3). 27 Fla. Stat. §714.24(2). 28 Fla. Stat. §714.26. 6 | P a g e 29 Fla. Stat. §714.21(1). 30 Fla. Stat. §714.21(2). 31 Fla. Stat. §714.06. 32 Fla. Sta. §714.06(1)(a). 33 Fla. Sta. §714.06(1)(b). 34 Fla. Stat. §714.03. 35 Fla. Stat. §714.03(2). 36 Fla. Stat. §714.06. Subsection 714.06(3) also provides that, if and when the Court determines the appointment was justified, and the order of appointment becomes final and no longer subject to appeal, the court will release the bond or other security. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

A practical analysis of asset sales under § 363 in Chapter 15 bankruptcy cases, addressing cross-border insolvency challenges and the role of foreign representatives in U.S. courts. Selling Assets in Chapter 15 Matters: Practical Considerations in Cross- Border Insolvencies Open Legal Insights Open August 26, 2019 9 minutes read Sequor Law Asset sales under § 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code [1] have become a critical component of the bankruptcy practitioner’s arsenal, and a preferred avenue of monetizing a debtor’s assets. The process is generally straightforward, and the Bankruptcy Code provides the framework of how sales should proceed. U.S. practitioners have become well versed in the § 363 sale process and how to address recurring issues; however, chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code [2] adds an additional layer of complexity that must be observed and resolved carefully. When the U.S. adopted chapter 15, it codified the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“Model Law”). [3] Chapter 15 aimed to facilitate U.S. recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and increase international cooperation among courts in cross-border insolvency cases. [4] However, the Model Law is a generic template for countries around to world to incorporate into their existing insolvency laws. [5] Therefore, chapter 15’s adoption has created both conflicts and gaps as to how practitioners utilize the Bankruptcy Code to aid and facilitate cross-border insolvencies. This article highlights how the application of and compliance with § 363 is an example of these conflicts and gaps, and it provides some thoughts on what to look out for and how to address some of these issues. First: Is Relief Under § 363 Available? Chapter 15 proceedings fork into two paths: one for foreign main proceedings and the second for foreign non-main proceedings. [6] Under § 1520 of the Bankruptcy Code, foreign main proceedings automatically obtain rights under a number of other Bankruptcy Code sections immediately upon recognition. [7] Section 1520, however, only applies to foreign main proceedings; foreign non-main proceedings do not receive any sort of automatic applications. One of the sections automatically applied to foreign main proceedings is the right to sell property under § 363. [8] Therefore, if your proceeding is a foreign main proceeding, you are automatically entitled to utilize § 363 wherever and whenever appropriate. Although § 363 is not automatically applied to non-main proceedings, it is still available, but it requires additional steps. Specifically, once a foreign non-main proceeding is recognized, relief must be sought from the court to authorize the application of § 363 to the proceedings. This request for relief is presented to the court under § 1521. Once the court grants the requested relief, the § 363 sale process becomes available to the non-main proceeding. Section 1521 is a broad section of chapter 15 that allows the court, upon recognition of the proceedings, to provide additional relief to the foreign representative subject to limitations of the Bankruptcy Code and U.S. laws. [9] As such, the section can be used to utilize other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that are not explicitly adopted or automatically applied in chapter 15, if that is necessary to assist the foreign representative. Second: Which Assets Can Be Sold, and Which Court Approves the Sale? Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code is largely inapplicable in a chapter 15 proceeding. [10] An estate is never created in a typical chapter 15 proceeding. Section 363 contemplates the sale of property of the estate, so which assets are allowed to be sold under § 363 in chapter 15 proceedings? [11] Section 1520’s adoption of § 363 modifies the section so that it applies to transfers of any interest of the debtor in property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. to the same extent that the section would apply to property of an estate. [12] Therefore, the assets that can be sold under chapter 15 appear to be broader than in other bankruptcy contexts because it is not limited to the estate. Could this mean that a foreign representative could sell property of the debtor in the U.S., even if the debtor would have claimed it exempt, if the case were a domestic case? To date, there do not appear to be any cases deciding this point. In Fairfield Sentry, [13] the Second Circuit analyzed what chapter 15 means by “transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [14] Fairfield Sentry LLC was a BVI investment fund that filed customer claims in the SIPA liquidation of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS). Fairfield Sentry invested approximately 95 percent of its assets with BLMIS when Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme became public. [15] As a consequence, Fairfield Sentry was placed into liquidation in the BVI in 2009, and in 2010 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized the foreign main proceeding. [16] Fairfield Sentry ultimately decided it would sell the SIPA claims and entered into an agreement with Appellee Farnum Place, LLC to sell the claims for 31.125 percent of their value. [17] However, days after the parties entered into the agreement, the trustee for the BLMIS liquidation announced that he had entered into a settlement agreement that would increase the value of Fairfield Sentry’s SIPA claims from 32 percent to 50 percent of the total amount claimed. [18] This substantial increase created tension between Fairfield Sentry’s liquidators and Farnum. The liquidators sought to cancel the sale, and Farnum sought to enforce it. The BVI court approved the sale over the liquidators’ objections, but instructed the liquidators to question the U.S. Bankruptcy Court as to whether § 363 applied and whether the section required disapproval of the sale. [19] Thereafter, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court rejected the liquidators’ application for disapproval of the proposed sale, and the district court affirmed. However, the Second Circuit reversed the decisions of the lower courts on appeal, finding that the “property” in this case was the SIPA claims and that the SIPA claims were located in New York, “where the property could be assigned or transferred,” [20] and therefore that § 363 applied. The Second Circuit made clear that a bankruptcy court’s “principal responsibility … is to secure for the benefit of creditors the best possible bid,” and the sale of the SIPA claims was ultimately disapproved. [21] Fairfield Sentry solidified that § 363 applies in chapter 15 whenever the asset to be sold is within the U.S. Moreover, Fairfield Sentry also set a line on the extent that comity will have in chapter 15 proceedings, and § 363 sales in particular. The Second Circuit rejected Farnum’s arguments that deference to the BVI decision was required, and the opinion makes clear that the court of the jurisdiction where the asset to be sold is located is the court with the ultimate approval of the sale. Third: How Do I Give Notice, and Where Are Objections Heard? One of the trickiest portions of utilizing § 363 in chapter 15 proceedings may be complying with the procedural requirements of the sale — specifically, notice to creditors and the hearing requirement. [22] Whereas a creditor matrix is easily accessible in domestic bankruptcy proceedings, it is not always the case in cross-border proceedings. Chapter 15 does not require any schedules, a creditor matrix or a claims register. A chapter 15 case requires nothing more than an application, statement identifying the foreign proceedings, and evidence of the existence of the foreign proceeding and appointment of the foreign representative. [23] In addition to the lack of traditionally relied-upon creditor information, some foreign jurisdictions make it difficult to locate the necessary creditor information. Also, the foreign representative might not always be the trustee of the foreign main proceedings, and therefore might not have direct access to the list of creditors. Every foreign jurisdiction is unique, and there are many factors that could lead to delays in utilizing § 363 in chapter 15 proceedings. You must prepare as best as possible to avoid any such delays. Complicating matters further, sometimes the notice requirements in the foreign main jurisdiction might not comply with the requirements of the U.S. How, then, does one go about notifying the creditors, and what is considered sufficient notice? In In re Banco Santos S.A., [24] a chapter 15 case filed in the Southern District of Florida, Hon. Laurel M. Isicoff addressed the issue of notice in the context of approving a settlement in a chapter 15 proceeding, which may be applied in the context of a § 363 sale. There were two separate instances where notice was required in Banco Santos. In the first instance, the foreign representative requested a bar order in favor of certain settling parties, and in the second instance, the foreign representative did not. [25] The court considered the nature and implications and the requests of the foreign representative for each instance. In the first instance (which requested a bar order), the court determined that directly mailing to each creditor in Brazil would be required, and in the second instance (which did not require a bar order), the court determined that notice via publication in the Brazilian Gazette, which is sufficient under Brazilian law, was sufficient despite the fact that notice by publication is generally insufficient in domestic proceedings. [26] Judge Isicoff highlights in Banco Santos that in a chapter 15, the court has the ability and duty to look at the requests made and the nature and implications of the requests before making a determination. Ultimately, the more burdensome the request, the more stringent the notice requirement should be. Similar to Fairfield Sentry, the property and assets to be sold in Banco Santos were located within the territory of the U.S. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the notice and hearing requirements of § 363, Judge Isicoff conditionally approved the pending sale and ordered any objections thereto be filed in the U.S. Judge Isicoff also ordered the foreign representative to request an order in the foreign main proceedings instructing any creditor with an objection to file them in the U.S. [27] This process created a simplified procedure to obtain approval of a sale while consolidating all objections into the appropriate jurisdiction. Fourth: Who Can Assist in the Sales Process? More often than not, professional persons need to be retained to assist in a sales process (an appraiser, auctioneer, realtor, etc.). The Bankruptcy Code lays out a clear process for how to go about hiring professional persons, and provides limitations on their compensation. [28] However, none of the relevant sections, including §§ 329 and 330, were adopted in chapter 15. What recourse does the foreign representative have in situations where they enter into a bad deal with a professional person? Is the court then authorized to disapprove any agreements or appointments? Ideally, § 1521 would allow the court to adopt any section of the Bankruptcy Code necessary, but what happens in a situation where the appointment of a professional person and their compensation is approved in the foreign main jurisdiction, but the appointment and compensation (while acceptable in the foreign main jurisdiction) would normally be considered unconscionable in the U.S.? It follows that the rationale in Fairfield Sentry will also apply here, but this is another situation that has not yet been challenged. There are many benefits to the adoption of the Model Law through chapter 15, and utilization of chapter 15 has been steadily increasing since the chapter was enacted. This article addresses some of the methods of dealing with the gaps and conflicts created by chapter 15 and the general requirements of the Bankruptcy Code in the context of § 363 sales, although the dueling nature of two insolvency proceedings arising in two separate jurisdictions necessitates that bankruptcy practitioners be twice as diligent in their cases. [1] Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). [2] 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1532. [3] 11 U.S.C. § 1501. [4] See generally 11 U.S.C. § 1501. Help Center [5] See www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/1997Model.html . [6] “Foreign main proceeding” means a foreign proceeding pending in the country where the debtor has the center of its main interests. 11 U.S.C. § 1502 (4). “Foreign non-main proceeding” means a foreign proceeding, other than a foreign main proceeding, pending in a country where the debtor has an establishment. 11 U.S.C. § 1502 (5). [7] See generally 11 U.S.C. § 1520. [8] 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(2)-(3). [9] See 11 U.S.C. § 1507(a); see also § 1521(a)-(b). [10] Section 541 is only discussed in chapter 15 in relation to concurrent proceedings and in authorizing a representative of a domestic bankruptcy to act abroad; see 11 U.S.C. §§ 1528 (commencement of a case after recognition of foreign main proceeding) and 1505 (authorization to act in foreign country). [11] 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1). (the “trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or lease, other than in the ordinary course of business, property of the estate…” (emphasis added); see also infra footnote 14. [12] 11 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(2). [13] In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 768 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014). [14] See Fairfield Sentry, 768 F.3d at 244; see also § 1520(a)(2). [15] Id. at 241. [ 16] Id. [17] Id. at 242. [18] Id. [19] Id. at 243. [20] Id. at 244. [21] Fairfield Sentry, 768 F.3d at 246-47, quoting In re Fin. News Network Inc., 980 F.2d 165, 169 (2d Cir. 1992). [22] 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) (“The trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or lease…”) (emphasis added). [23] 11 U.S.C. § 1515. [24] In re Banco Santos S.A., Case No. 10-47543-BKC-LMI. [25] Banco Santos, Case No. 10-47543-BKC-LMI [D.E. 170, 184, 185]. [26] Id. [27] Id. [D.E. 170, 185]. [28] 11 U.S.C. §§ 327, 328. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Christopher A. Noel examines fraud in the art market for Fraud Intelligence, exploring recent cases and legislative measures against art fraud and money laundering. Art for Fraud’s Sake – Fraud Intelligence Article by Christopher A. Noel Open Legal Insights Open August 2, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law The glamorous, uber-wealthy, largely unregulated and opaque world of art dealing and collecting has intrinsic features that make it vulnerable to fraud. Christopher A Noel of Sequor Law sketches recent cases and legislative steps toward combating the problem. Andy Warhol is famously quoted as saying, “Art is what you can get away with.” Since the explosion of the contemporary art market during the past two decades, artists, collectors and fraudsters alike have embraced Warhol’s precarious perspective. The modern art market no longer exists in wood-panelled galleries lining the streets of London, Hong Kong and New York. Today’s collectors are mobile, purchasing artworks at all price points, sight unseen, during their commutes and while on holiday. These new business practices have had positive impact – UBS estimates that global art and antiquities sales in 2021 reached an estimated US$65.1 billion, surpassing even the peak sales figures seen in 2019. Click here to read the full article online. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law represents the co-liquidator in R.R. Donnelley Argentina’s Chapter 15 petition in the Southern District of Florida to access a Citibank account and repatriate funds to the Argentine proceeding. Argentine Publisher Files for Chapter 15 Recognition in Florida to Access Citibank Account Open In the News Open January 25, 2018 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Benjamin Clarke One of the court-appointed liquidators of a “prominent” Argentine publishing company has filed for Chapter 15 recognition in Florida, in an effort to repatriate funds from a bank account held with Citibank in the US. Co-liquidator Mario Risso , of Argentine firm Risso Plastina y Asociados, filed the petition before Judge Robert Mark in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida on 24 January, requesting recognition as the foreign representative of Donnelley Argentina (DA). DA is 98.47% owned by a company in Santiago that is a subsidiary of Chicago-headquartered communications network RR Donnelley. According to the declaration Risso filed at court, DA filed a bankruptcy petition at the 19th Commercial Court of Buenos Aires in August 2014, claiming it was insolvent due “in part” to the Argentine economic crisis. Counsel to Risso, Sequor Law partner Arnoldo Lacayo , tells GRR that although the economic crisis was the “primary driver” for the bankruptcy, there were other factors linked to the printing industry that predated the financial crisis. Shortly after DA started the proceedings, Argentina’s then president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner accused its US parent company of breaching anti-terrorism laws, according to the Chicago Tribune . Kirchner allegedly said Donnelley had breached the laws because the shutdown of its Argentine subsidiary “will exacerbate her country’s economic woes”. Argentina’s federal tax authority also called for the arrest and imprisonment of DA’s directors, accusing the company of committing acts of fraud. The Buenos Aries court appointed Riso’s firm as co-liquidator, together with another Argentine outfit, Rego Saavedra, represented by Ana Rego and Maria Saavedra . During their investigation into the assets and liabilities of DA, the liquidators discovered that the company held a bank account with Citibank in the US. On 13 October, the Argentine court authorized them to take action in the US to recover any funds. Risso filed the Chapter 15 petition to enable the liquidators to “communicate with Citibank” regarding the account, and “take steps to repatriate the funds to the foreign proceeding”. He told the court he had satisfied each of the requirements for recognition under Chapter 15, and requested a stay against any action concerning DA’s estate. Judge Mark has listed a recognition hearing to take place on 20 February. In the United Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida In re R.R. Donnelley Argentina, S.A. Judge Robert Mark Counsel to the foreign representative ‐ Sequor Law Partner Arnoldo Lacayo and attorney Cristina Beard in Miami Foreign representative ‐ Risso Plastina y Asociados Mario Risso in Buenos Aires Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..