Search this site

Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. co-hosts the C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Miami conference (Jan 24-25, 2022), with Daniel Coyle presenting on crypto asset fraud. C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Open Events & Speaking Open November 22, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law C5 Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery January 24-25, Miami Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Miami | American Conference Institute 🔗 Sequor Law’s Edward H. Davis, Jr. will once again be co-hosting this much anticipated event together with Tameka Davis, Martin Kenney, and Keith Oliver. Don’t miss Sequor Law’s Daniel Coyle , as he discusses Crypto Asset fraud as an Existential Threat. Portrait of Edward H. Davis Jr. Portrait of Daniel Coyle from Sequor Law Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

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

Rolling Stone’s 2018 feature on the ‘kill list’ case put Tara J. Plochocki’s fight for a citizen’s due process rights before a national audience. How to Survive America’s Kill List Open In the News Open July 19, 2018 2 minutes read Sequor Law When *Rolling Stone* gave a single federal lawsuit the full weight of a long-form investigative feature, it made a quiet argument: the question of whether a citizen can be killed without a hearing belongs to the public, not only to lawyers and judges working behind closed doors. The 2018 piece followed Bilal Abdul Kareem, an American journalist who came to believe his work in Syria had landed him on a secret government targeting list after he survived a series of airstrikes. What might have read as a personal survival story instead opened onto a constitutional question most Americans never face: whether a citizen can even find out that his government has marked him for a drone strike, and whether a court is allowed to review that decision at all. For the press, these are not abstract concerns. Kareem was reporting from a war zone, and the case raised the prospect that journalists doing dangerous, unpopular work could be swept into a lethal designation with no way to contest it. Press freedom and due process rights, usually treated as separate concerns, met in a single file. A magazine known for cultural reporting recognized that and gave it the length the subject demanded, reaching readers who would never open a national security law journal. Carrying that litigation was attorney Tara J. Plochocki , who represented Kareem alongside the human rights organization Reprieve. The matter produced a notable result: a federal judge allowed his due process claim to move forward, refusing to treat the government's targeted killing authority as entirely beyond judicial review. For a citizen who wanted nothing more than a chance to be heard before the use of lethal force, that ruling mattered. The feature is worth reading in full for how it turns a dense legal fight into human terms. Sequor Law points readers to the original reporting: "How to Survive America's Kill List." The case also says something about the kind of work that defines Plochocki's record. She took it on earlier in her career; today she is a Partner at Sequor Law, where she leads the firm's Washington, D.C. office. An ICC FraudNet member admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. and Second Circuits, she built a practice around cross-border asset recovery, financial fraud, and international commercial litigation, and she still litigates at the intersection of constitutional rights, international law, and national security, including amicus briefs on the laws of war. Beyond one man's ordeal, the feature kept a single premise in view: that government power, however secret, still answers to the Constitution — a kill list included. Testing that in court, and a national publication taking the time to explain why it counts, kept a hard question from slipping out of public view. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

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

Sequor Law has become Miami's go-to firm for Brazilian Chapter 15 cases, handling cross-border insolvency, asset recovery, and fraud investigations for Brazilian companies and institutions. Miami’s Specialist in Brazilian Chapter 15 Cases Open Legal Insights Open January 6, 2020 3 minutes read Sequor Law By Kirk O’Neil When the foreign representative of defunct Brazilian limestone mining company Brasagro Fertilizantes Minerais Ltda. in October sought to investigate and recover alleged improper transfers of the company’s assets to the U.S., its advisers made a popular choice for the firm to handle the needed Chapter 15 petition: Miami-based Sequor Law PA. Sequor also in October handled a Chapter 15 petition for Brazilian media company Minuano Comunicações e Produções Editorias Ltda., which sought recognition of its involuntary insolvency case in Brazil as it worked to recover assets that might have been diverted to banks in Miami and New York. The fledgling law firm, which former shareholders of Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman PA formed in April 2017 after that firm split in two, has quickly grown into the favored counsel of many Brazilian companies, financial institutions, sovereign entities and state-owned enterprises seeking representation for insolvency, financial services litigation, financial fraud and asset recovery. Sequor, which on its website says its name in Latin means “to pursue, to chase, to attain,” has been involved in 13 Brazilian insolvency cases since 2017, according to shareholder Leyza B. Florin . About 60% of Sequor’s total business focuses on Chapter 15 cases, and 80% of those filings are for Brazilian insolvency cases, said Blanco, who joined the firm in June 2018 from Orlando, Fla.-based GrayRobinson PA. In addition to Minuano and Brasagro, the firm has represented sugar and ethanol producer São Fernando Açúcar e Álcool Ltda. (Aug. 22), construction company Knijnik Participações SA (July 24), securities holder Schahin Holdings SA (July 26), process control equipment maker Smar Equipamentos Industrias Ltda. (Feb. 28) and rubber tire product maker Marangoni Tread Latino America Indústria e Comércio de Artefatos de Borracha Ltda. (Feb. 15) in Chapter 15 cases in 2019. The “Southern District of Miami is a popular court for Brazilian filings because of their many connections to Miami,” Blanco said. “It’s the gateway to the Americas and home to a great deal of Brazilian offshore business. It is a natural conclusion that in looking to track offshore transactions from Brazil that Miami would be a likely first place to look.” Sequor’s Chapter 15 roots also go deep, with founding shareholder Gregory S. Grossman filing the first Chapter 15 case in Florida, for a Barbadian financial institution while he was at Astigarraga Davis. The predecessor firm handled a fair amount of Brazilian Chapter 15 proceedings, and there have been more to go around lately. Blanco pointed to an apparent rise in fraud-related cases that require investigation as the root of an increase in Chapter 15 filings. In addition, she said more Brazilian insolvency advisers are familiar with Chapter 15 as a tool to assist that country’s bankruptcy courts in investigating and obtaining assets that may have been transferred outside the country to defraud creditors. The Operação Lava Jato, or Operation Car Wash, criminal investigation that began in 2014 ultimately embroiled state-controlled Petróleo Brasileiro SA and construction company Odebrecht SA and led to indictments and convictions of politicians and professionals as it probed alleged money laundering, corruption, embezzlement and bribery. Among the politicians indicted and jailed were former Brazilian presidents Fernando Collor de Mello, Michel Temer and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Odebrecht CEO Marcelo Odebrecht also was sentenced to prison. Bribes and improper conduct by defendants caused a domino effect with insolvencies and liquidations of companies, Blanco said. Companies or individuals moving company assets offshore and outside Brazil led to many Chapter 15 filings, Blanco asserted. Brazil’s recession and severe economic crisis, which began in 2014, also contributed to the financial distress that has led to more filings, she added. “Sequor was formed to offer clients the relentless global pursuit to recover assets lost to bad actors,” said Blanco, who has been working on bankruptcy, restructuring, insolvency and Chapter 15 cases since 1997. “That pursuit often occurs through the use of Chapter 15 cross-border insolvency cases and other asset recovery tools.” The law firm employs 15 full-time attorneys and one of counsel. All of the multilingual firm’s attorneys focus on asset recovery, and seven attorneys have substantial bankruptcy experience, Blanco said. To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Michael Hanlon of Sequor Law on cross-border asset recovery and financial fraud — and why curiosity is the most essential skill for unraveling complex cases. Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon Open Attorney Spotlight Open May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more to the kind of work it allows you to do — untangling complicated situations where the facts aren't obvious and the stakes are real. 2. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? Asset recovery and financial fraud work felt like a natural fit because it's part legal analysis and part investigation. It takes problem solving to a new level: you're reconstructing stories from incomplete information, often against the odds. Beyond that, the work is inherently cross-border, which blends my passions for languages and the law into one. 3. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? At the forefront of the skills I draw on for asset recovery and financial fraud matters is curiosity, along with being comfortable with the unknown. Navigating the unknown in a way that is calculated and driven by a desire to unravel what really happened is essential to crafting a plan — and to deviating from that plan when the situation calls for it. 4. What is the most rewarding part about your job? The most rewarding part of my job is getting clarity — or rather, fighting to uncover clarity where there initially wasn't any. It's the moment when something that looked opaque starts to make sense, and you can actually do something with that understanding. 5. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. One of my many mentors taught me, through action and inaction, that in order to grow, you have to be willing to be wrong and even more willing to be corrected. 6. If you weren't practicing law, what would you be doing? Given my love of languages, I would probably be an interpreter and/or translator. 7. What might people be surprised to learn about you? I have lived in Spain, Brazil, and Italy, and I speak Spanish and Portuguese fluently. 8. What is a good book or article you read recently? O beijo do rio by Stefano Volp. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Explore how Rule 4(f) international service of process provides options for serving defendants abroad without an international agreement. Learn more about Rule 4(f) international service of process strategies. Service of Process Abroad: No International Agreement? Open Legal Insights Open May 23, 2022 2 minutes read Sequor Law Serving a defendant outside the United States can quickly become one of the most procedurally complex stages of a case—particularly when the destination country is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention or any other applicable international service treaty . But the absence of a treaty does not leave litigants without options. In their article for ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE Magazine (Issue 9) , Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza Blanco , Attorney Juan Mendoza , and Attorney Alejandro Rodriguez Vanzetti examine how Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides workable mechanisms for effecting service abroad even when no international agreement governs. The authors take a practical, court-centered approach to Rule 4(f) , explaining how its structure allows litigants to pursue several avenues depending on the circumstances. While treaty-based service under Rule 4(f)(1) is often the first consideration, the analysis does not end there. The article discusses how courts interpret Rule 4(f)(2) and 4(f)(3) , particularly in jurisdictions where no international agreement applies or where traditional channels are ineffective. Emphasis is placed on due process, judicial discretion, and the requirement that any proposed method be reasonably calculated to provide notice. Importantly, the article highlights how courts assess whether a proposed method is affirmatively prohibited by foreign law, how alternative service has evolved in response to modern realities, and what evidentiary support judges expect when litigants seek court-directed service. Rather than treating service abroad as a rigid procedural obstacle, the authors frame it as a strategic issue—one that requires careful analysis of the rule, the foreign jurisdiction, and the factual record before the court. For practitioners confronting cross-border defendants in commercial litigation , fraud matters , or enforcement proceedings, this piece offers a grounded examination of the available procedural tools and the considerations that can influence a court’s decision. To explore the full discussion and case analysis, we invite you to read the complete article in the T4 Fire magazine PDF (pages 48–50). Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza B. Florin is inducted to the 32nd Class of The American College of Bankruptcy, recognized for professional excellence in bankruptcy and insolvency practice. Leyza B. Florin Inducted to the 32nd Class of The American College of Bankruptcy Open Awards & Recognition Open November 9, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law Congratulations to Shareholder Leyza B. Florin for her induction to the 32nd Class of The American College of Bankruptcy and being honored and recognized for her professional excellence and her exceptional contributions to the bankruptcy and insolvency practice. 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..

Burford Capital raises $250 million in 24 hours, signaling continued growth in litigation funding. Lawyers and firms explore third-party financing as the practice sheds its stigma in the U.S. Burford Raises $250 M in 24 Hours, Litigation Funding Rolls On Open In the News Open October 4, 2018 3 minutes read Sequor Law By Stephanie Russel-Kraft Burford Capital, the world’s largest litigation finance firm, announced this week that it had raised another $250 million in a span of just 24 hours, the latest sign that litigation funding is still booming. As Bloomberg Law reported in March, Big Law firms are increasingly gravitating toward litigation finance as the practice sheds its stigma. And yet, according to lawyers and funders in the market, the contours of that boom remain fuzzy. “My anecdotal sense, confirmed by Burford putting more money in the market, is that it’s growing,” said Lucian Pera, commercial litigation partner at Adams and Reese who has worked with litigation funders. “How much it’s growing is very hard to say.” The practice of litigation funding, in which third parties pay litigation fees up- front in the hopes of making a return, originated in Australia in the 1990s and only took hold in the United States in the past decade. The practice is not without its critics, most notably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argues it can lead to unnecessary litigation. Critics also question the ethics of litigation being funded by third parties that can remain anonymous. Burford is by far the largest litigation funder. The firm, which has been publicly traded since launching in 2009, now employs over 100 people and claims a market cap of over $5.4 billion. Growth Expected In the first half of 2018, Burford invested $540.3 million, and the firm says it expects continued growth in coming years. Unlike Burford and Bentham, another publicly traded litigation finance firm with a $5.6 billion portfolio, most litigation funders are not public companies, nor are they disclosed in litigation itself. “It’s very opaque,” said Pera. “There’s no place to go to find a reliable list of funders. It’s difficult for example to find out how much money is deployed in the market. You can look at Burford and guestimate upward.” Greg Grossman, a shareholder at Sequor Law who focuses his practice on asset recovery, estimates that 40 percent of his law firm’s revenue comes from litigation funders. And yet he says he still lacks an overview of the market. In addition, because litigation finance is still a relatively new practice in the U.S., it still lacks standardization, according to Grossman. “It’s not the kind of market that is transparent, so you’re comparing apples to oranges,” Grossman said. For example, he said Burford’s documents don’t look anything like those provided by Bentham. Calls More Frequent Lawyers and funders who spoke with Bloomberg Law said they believe market saturation will eventually come, but it isn’t imminent. Over the past five years, a slew of smaller funders have entered the market, though none of them near the size of Burford or Bentham. Curiam Capital, one of those new players, launched with $100 million in capital earlier this year. Managing principal Ross Wallin said the firm is on track to commit that money “quicker than we expected.” “We have continued to receive calls from entities who are interested in the asset class and who want to be on the list the next time we want to raise capital,” Wallin told Bloomberg Law. “Investors are looking for returns that are off the beaten track,” said Pera. “I keep hearing from people, … mostly law firms and lawyers exploring some option. They want to talk through how does it work, what are the possibilities, what are the dangers.” Pera said these calls are becoming more frequent. “I’m old enough to remember when mediation was not common, and now you can’t be a trial lawyer without having some clue of how it works,” he said. “I think we’ll see a time when that’s the case with litigation funding, that it’s just another tool in the toolbox. That’s what I think is coming, but it sure is not here yet.” 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 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 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 Shareholder Leyza B. Florin is named a finalist at the Chambers Diversity & Inclusion Awards: North America 2022, honoring her dedication to advancing D&I in the legal field. Leyza Florin Blanco Makes D&I North America Shortlist Open Awards & Recognition Open April 13, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law We are delighted to announce Sequor Law Shareholder, Leyza B. Florin as a finalist at the Chambers Diversity & Inclusion Awards: North America 2022. These awards celebrate the fantastic achievements of firms, companies and individuals who are furthering the advancement of diversity and inclusion across the USA and Canada. Congratulations Leyza, and thank you for your endless dedication to promote diversity and inclusion in all you do! 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..

Meet Sequor Law founding shareholder Edward H. Davis Jr., a Miami asset recovery attorney who pursues corrupt politicians and Ponzi schemers, seizing art, cars, and exotic assets worldwide. Art, Cars, Parrots and Other Spoils of Miami Fraud Lawyer Edward H. Davis Open In the News Open November 1, 2018 4 minutes read Sequor Law “Corruption is like an acid eating away the steel understructure of society,” said Edward H. Davis Jr. of Sequor Law, Miami, who’s made it his mission to pursue corrupt politicians and Ponzi-schemers hiding money, boats, sports cars and exotic pets around the globe.” By Raychel Lean Ask Miami asset recovery lawyer Edward H. Davis Jr. where in the world he hasn’t been, and he’ll have to pause for a moment to think. Israel — Davis hasn’t gone there yet. But by next week it’ll be the 81st country he’s visited, edging him one step closer to a spot in the Travelers’ Century Club. “You have to prove you’ve been to 100 countries to join,” Davis said. “I’m on my way.” Lucky for Davis, founding shareholder of Sequor Law, fraudsters don’t just leave stolen money in their backyard. They scatter it all over the globe, using it to buy outlandish collectibles, unconventional modes of transport and exotic pets. As a representative of fraud victims, it’s Davis’ job to seize those assets, sell them and return as much as possible to the client. “We’ve repossessed some very, very beautiful sports cars, yachts and airplanes. We’ve recovered land, houses, hotels,” Davis said. “One time we got a guy’s prized dog and prized parrot, and were able to sell them back to him for money to give to the victims.” Davis once recovered a Jean-Michel Basquiat painting, bought with money a fraudster had stolen from a Brazilian bank. He represented the liquidator in the case and sold the piece by the renowned painter for $13 million. “I hate to say this, but it looked like a 5-year- old drew it,” Davis said.” The fraudster paid $1.2 million for it, so we actually made money on that particular piece.” Davis also seized a Serge Poliakoff painting that once belonged to Edemar Cid Ferreira, former president of Brazilian bank Banco Santos, who was charged with money laundering. Offshore jurisdictions and remote islands are particularly popular hiding place for fraudsters, who “try to use places that are hard to get to and hard to find,” according to Davis. Mauritius, Guernsey, Dominica, the British Virgin Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, the Dutch and French sides of Saint Martin — all regular haunts. Davis has also been to Finland twice, but only to the airport, so it doesn’t count toward his 100-country goal. “I’m very strict about that,” he said. Early in his career, Davis represented a defrauded Guatemalan family business in a case spanning 10 jurisdictions . “I grew up dreaming about going to these places, and when you get there you still pinch yourself a little bit,” said Davis, who grew up in a tiny farm town near Buffalo, New York, where he said dairy cows outnumbered humans. Though it’s tough spending up to 100 nights away from home every year, the attorney says he still hasn’t gotten over the novelty. “I’ve been to Slovenia, Dubai, Hong Kong, India. I get to learn about other cultures, hear their language, eat their food, understand how they live,” Davis said. “And when you really get down to it, most people are pretty much the same. But instead of focusing on that 90 percent of stuff we all agree on, we tend to focus on the 10 percent that we disagree on.” The way Davis sees it, corruption is “the No. 1 thing that we have to fight in the world.” “Lack of medical care, lack of adequate clean water, food and housing can be stopped if we get rid of corruption,” he said. “It should be a human right to live in a society free from corruption, and it’s not.” On a daily basis, Davis encounters people who’ve lost everything “but the lint in their pocket,” so funding litigation can be a big problem. Third-party litigation funders have emerged in the last few years to help pay for asset recovery. But before then, Davis said, many cases languished and fraudsters went unpunished. Never a Pang of Guilt These criminals are almost always men — often “amazingly intelligent and charming” businessmen or politicians who, according to Davis, are “almost like computers,” unable to process emotion ”the way most normal human beings do.” “They can smile at you, tell you they love you, then steal your money and walk away, and never feel a pang of doubt, a pang of guilt. Nothing,” Davis said. “What’s really tragic is that most of them are so smart that they could actually do really well if they applied themselves.” At the beginning of every case, Davis and his team write two words on a white board — “We win.” “We ask every client, ‘What do you define as a win?’ Then we design a strategy to get to that point,” he said. Davis served as co-general counsel to the liquidators of Stanford International Bank in a case against Allen Stanford , the second most notorious Ponzi- schemer in history — after Bernie Madoff. He found many of Stanford’s victims were seniors, forced to return to work after losing their retirement. While sending perpetrators to jail provides a sense of justice, Davis admits this does nothing to restore what victims have lost. “Corruption is like an acid eating away the steel understructure of society,” he said. “If you let it get out of hand, and you don’t fight it and don’t get the money back, then eventually that acid will eat through the under-structure, the metal skeleton, and the whole society collapses.” Davis calls himself an “accidental lawyer,” having switched tracks from marine biology on a whim and taken the LSAT without studying. But since then, he’s developed an unwavering mission statement. “What I think we’re doing is restoring hope and trying to do our little part to help society work,” he said. “So much of what we have is based on trust, and the minute that people say they can’t trust, you’re done. We’re trying to counteract that.” Edward H. Davis Jr. Born: March 1962, Buffalo, New York Spouse: Kateri Davis Children: Ashley, Alissa and Jaclyn Davis Education: University of Miami, J.D., 1987; University of Miami, B.A., 1984 Experience: Founding shareholder, Sequor Law, 2017-present; founding shareholder, Astigarraga Davis, 2000-2017; founding shareholder, Davis, Devine, Goodman & Wells, 1998-1999; associate and partner, Steel Hector & Davis 1992-1998; law clerk and associate, Paul Landy Beiley & Harper, 1987- 1992. 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..