Search this site

Sequor Law partners Leyza B. Florin, Edward H. Davis Jr., Gregory Grossman, and Arnoldo Lacayo named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Leading US Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide. The 2020 Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers Open Awards & Recognition Open July 24, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law 24 July 2020 Sequor Law Partners Leyza B. Florin , Edward H. Davis, Jr. , Gregory S. Grossman and Arnoldo “Arnie” Lacayo were named to the inaugural Lawdragon 500 Leading US Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide. Included in the Global guide are lawyers with leading cross-border practices that “bring remarkable skills in financing, structuring, litigating and creating a pathway forward” for their clients. Open the 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 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that private and investor-state arbitration tribunals are not "foreign tribunals" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, limiting its use in international arbitration discovery. US Supreme Court Rules on Use of Section 1782 in Support of Arbitration Proceedings Open Legal Insights Open July 8, 2022 1 minute read Sequor Law In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that two arbitration tribunals—one private and one investor-state—did not constitute “foreign or international tribunal[s]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The statute is widely used by litigants to obtain discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” The decision came after years with a split among the Courts of Appeals on the issue, particularly in the area of international private arbitration. In its 17-page decision, the Court analyzed the language of the statute and its history noting that § 1782’s purpose is comity. The Court reasoned that a broad reading of §1782 “would open district court doors to any interested person seeking assistance for proceedings before any private adjudicative body—a category broad enough to include everything from a commercial arbitration panel to a university’s student disciplinary tribunal.” Opting for a narrower construction, the Court held that “only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies constitute a ‘foreign or international tribunal’ under § 1782”, adding that, “[s]uch bodies are those that exercise governmental authority conferred by one nation or multiple nations.” More on the decision can be found here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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 federal judge confirms a $24.5M arbitration award under the New York Convention, clearing enforcement against sovereign bank assets. NY Judge Confirms Investment Co’s $24.5M Arbitration Award Open In the News Open August 26, 2020 2 minutes read Sequor Law A federal judge in the Southern District of New York confirmed a $24.5 million arbitration award in favor of Hong Kong based Super Perfect Investments Ltd. against Tajikistan’s Agroinvestbank Open Joint Stock Co. The decision came after the bank failed to respond to the enforcement petition by the August 17, 2020 deadline. Judge Jesse M. Furman found no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary judgment enforcing the award. The dispute stems from failed cotton supply contracts. In 2012, Agroinvestbank issued guarantees to Super Perfect tied to agreements for the purchase of 20,000 metric tons of cotton from Tajik company Levakan-M LLC. In February 2013, the bank issued an $11 million guarantee, which was later revised and split. When Levakan failed to deliver the cotton, Super Perfect sought payment under the $11 million guarantee. The bank refused, asserting that the original guarantee had been canceled and that a subsequent $6 million guarantee was never issued. In July 2017, a Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution panel in Geneva ruled in favor of Super Perfect. The arbitrator determined that the revised $11 million guarantee remained valid and applied an 18% interest rate. The final award totaled $11 million in damages, $12.86 million in interest, and $739,668 in legal costs. Super Perfect petitioned the New York federal court to recognize the award under the New York Convention and Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The company argued that both the United States and Tajikistan are signatories to the Convention, giving the court subject matter jurisdiction. It also identified Agroinvestbank assets in the district, including a Citibank account, to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction and pursue enforcement. With no opposition filed, the court confirmed the award, clearing the way for enforcement against the bank’s U.S. assets. To read the 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..

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..

A Florida court grants Chapter 15 recognition to BVI liquidators of three 1MDB-linked funds. Sequor Law's Juan Mendoza represents the liquidators seeking US discovery to recover stolen assets. Liquidators of BVI Funds Linked to 1MDB Win Recognition in Florida Open In the News Open May 18, 2022 4 minutes read Sequor Law Ben Clarke 18 May, 2022 The joint liquidators of three 1MDB-linked British Virgin Islands funds have secured recognition of their appointments in Miami, pledging to obtain discovery in the US to help with their recovery efforts. In an oral ruling on 18 May, Judge Robert Mark in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recognized the BVI liquidations of SRC International (Malaysia) (SRC BVI) and subsidiaries SRC Strategic Resources and Bright Oriande. The judge also granted a motion to jointly administer the proceedings. While Judge Mark agreed to recognize the liquidators’ appointments, he questioned the draft order provided – particularly a clause that would have blocked any party from bringing a claim against the joint liquidators in any US court without first obtaining leave of the bankruptcy court. Counsel to the liquidators, Sequor Law’s Juan Mendoza , said the clause was included to enforce the Barton doctrine, established by the Supreme Court to require any party wishing to bring a claim against a receiver to first obtain the leave of the court that appointed the receiver. He said the clause was actually “Barton-lite” because they were not requesting potential litigants gain approval from the BVI courts to launch an action against the joint liquidators in the US. The judge said he would take the clause out but would include it in an amended order if he is provided with the relevant authorities. He said he didn’t fault the purpose or intent of the clause, to prevent the potential harassment of the joint liquidators, but he considered it “pretty sweeping relief” that pre-empts unknown future events. Fraud scheme The rulings come after the joint liquidators, BVI-based Helen Janes of Hyperion Risk Solutions and Quantuma’s Angela Barkhouse in the Cayman Islands and Carl Jackson in the UK, filed Chapter 15 proceedings last month in an effort to recover some of the billions of dollars allegedly stolen from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB. Various authorities around the world have been investigating 1MDB and an entity it established in Malaysia, SRC International (SRC Malaysia), for the last seven years over a huge fraud that saw about US$8.5 billion diverted from them to numerous entities and individuals. During the short recognition hearing, Mendoza highlighted some of the suspicious transactions the joint liquidators have identified involving the three debtor companies – including over US$1 billion of funds transferred from SRC Malaysia to SRC BVI bank accounts in Hong Kong and Switzerland, and about US$60 million transferred to SRC Strategic Resources. Mendoza noted SRC BVI invested almost US$250 million into three funds of segregated portfolio company Asia Momentum Fund, which only ended up with a balance of about US$17 million. He also highlighted about US$652 million of investments in two BVI companies between 2011 and 2014, which he said “basically evaporated” as a result of redemptions that left no trace. Janes said in court filings last month that most investigation attempts in Malaysia were thwarted by the Malaysian government because the country’s Prime Minister, Najib Razak, was the force behind the creation of 1MDB. But Najib was removed from office in 2018 and has faced criminal and civil proceedings with other co-conspirators in relation to the misappropriation of 1MDB funds. While the US Department of Justice has also investigated multiple parties, and last month secured a conviction against former Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng for his role in the scandal, Janes said it has focused its efforts on 1MDB and not SRC Malaysia, the parent of the three BVI funds. The joint liquidators have issued proceedings against companies in multiple jurisdictions since they were appointed last Summer, but Janes said they suspect there are other entities related to the fraud that are yet to be uncovered. According to Janes, SRC BVI has been principally used by fraudsters throughout its existence to misappropriate funds, and Bright Oriande is believed to have been established solely to divert funds from 1MDB and SRC Malaysia. With recognition of their appointments, the joint liquidators intend to obtain discovery relating to transactions involving the debtors so they can take steps to potentially realize assets for creditors. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Robert Mark Foreign representatives of SRC International (Malaysia) et al Hyperion Risk Solutions Group head of finance Helen Janes in the British Virgin Islands Quantuma Caribbean head Angela Barkhouse in the Cayman Islands and chief executive Carl Jackson in Southampton, UK Counsel to joint liquidators of SRC International (Malaysia) et al Sequor Law Shareholder Gregory Grossman and attorneys Juan Mendoza and Jennifer Mosquera in Miami In the British Virgin Islands Commercial Division Joint liquidators of SRC International (Malaysia) et alJoint liquidators of SRC International (Malaysia) et al Hyperion Risk Solutions Group head of finance Helen Janes in the British Virgin Islands Quantuma Caribbean head Angela Barkhouse in the Cayman Islands and chief executive Carl Jackson in Southampton, UK Counsel to joint liquidators of SRC International (Malaysia) et alCounsel to joint liquidators of SRC International (Malaysia) et al Emery Cooke Partner Andrew Emery in the British Virgin Islands 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..

Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Alain M. Acanda Open Attorney Spotlight Open January 29, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was inspired to pursue a career in the law after having negative experiences with the law as a child. Growing up I wanted to change the relationship I had with the law and use the legal field to build myself and my community up. 2. Why did you choose the areas of law that you practice? I chose the areas of law I practice because it allows me to take advantage of Miami’s unique position as a hub for the exchange of culture, business, and legal work. Practicing in areas like cross border insolvency and arbitration allows me to gain a broad range of perspectives from clients across the globe. 3. What skills do you draw upon when it comes to your specific practice areas? The skills I draw upon in my practice areas are understanding how all the moving pieces of a case fit together and being flexible in order to deliver results for the client. Being able to understand how these pieces fit together keeps a case moving forward and being flexible permits adapting to changing circumstances in order to still deliver for a client. 4. What is the most rewarding part about your job? The most rewarding part of the job is being able to deliver for a client. 5. Tell us about a mentor who made an impact on your career. A mentor who had an impact on my career was my high school AP European History teacher. He also served as my coach for the international debate club which was where I first became interested in international law which has carried on until today. 6. If you weren’t practicing law, what would you be doing? If I wasn’t practicing law, I’d either be a history professor or restoring classic American cars. 7. What might people be surprised to learn about you? People might be surprised to learn that I love to cook. Whether it be cooking steaks on a grill or making pasta from scratch, I enjoy trying new recipes and making different dishes. 8. What is a good book or article you read recently? A good book I read recently was : Cuba, An American History by Ada Ferrer. It explores the rich shared history between the two nations which can be often overlooked beyond the Castro-regime years. 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..

Edward H. Davis Jr. and Andres H. Sandoval assess the Panama Papers leak’s impact on transparency and why asset recovery lags due to evidentiary challenges and litigation hurdles. Panama Papers update: progress and impediments Open Legal Insights Open November 10, 2017 7 minutes read Sequor Law Scandalous revelations of suspicious financial activity exposed by the Panama Papers have toppled political leaders, induced regulatory reforms and prompted greater cooperation from Panama itself towards international efforts to combat tax evasion. But Edward H Davis Jr and Andres H Sandoval would like to see more headway in the area of asset recovery. In April 2016 the Suddeutsche Zeitung released the ground-breaking publication covering the ‘Panama Papers’ – a massive leak of 11.5 million documents from the Panamanian Mossack Fonseca firm and its affiliates, formerly the world’s fourth-largest provider of offshore incorporation services. Shortly thereafter, due largely to the efforts of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), limited information extracted from the Panama Papers was digitised and disseminated to the public in the searchable Offshore Leaks Database maintained on the ICIJ’s website. [1] The impact of the Panama Papers leak in the political, journalistic, investigative and financial arenas is plain to see. However, well over a year later, the Panama Papers fervour is only now creeping into the asset recovery arena. That it has taken this long to arrive is frustrating, but perhaps predictable in light of evidentiary concerns and the inherent difficulty in commencing litigation. Regardless, this signals the next step in combating tax evasion, corruption, fraud and money laundering in the wake of the historic leak. Facts and figures The global effect and pervasiveness of the Panama Papers leak is unrivalled. The 11.5 million leaked documents, dating back nearly 40 years, contain information on more than 214,000 offshore entities, in more than 200 jurisdictions, created by Mossack Fonseca. Major financial institutions alone drove the creation of nearly 15,600 offshore entities. Of these financial institutions, HSBC and its affiliates were responsible for the creation of more than 2,300 offshore corporate vehicles. Others, such as Banque J Safra, UBS AG and Societe Generale, were not far behind. The Panama Papers also exposed 140 politicians from over 50 countries to charges of bribery and corruption for allegedly improper ties to offshore corporate vehicles in no fewer than 21 financial havens. As a result, 14 current and former heads of state as well as over 30 current and former politicians or public figures have come under scrutiny by governmental bodies. Several top government and corporate officials have cracked under the pressure, including, notably, the former Prime Minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davia Gunnlaugsson, who resigned just days after the initial media coverage of the Panama Papers leak. Other political figures have been faced with high- profile investigations, including Argentina’s Mauricio Macri, Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko and Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. These investigations are bearing fruit. In late July 2017, Pakistan’s Supreme Court deemed Sharif unfit to be a member of parliament for reasons of dishonesty and corruption. The Supreme Court’s decision is the culmination of months of proceedings sparked by the Panama Papers leak, which linked Sharif’s family members to purchases of luxury real estate in London through offshore corporate vehicles. Further, on 31 July 2017, the National Accountability Bureau, Pakistan’s top anti-corruption unit, announced it would file formal corruption charges against Sharif, his children, son-in-law and the former Pakistani Finance Minister, Ishaq Dar. Beneficial effects Among the seemingly more positive effects, the Panama Papers leak has fuelled a global push towards transparency and accessibility of information regarding the ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) of opaque offshore entities and accounts. Just weeks after the leak, the United States executive administration under former President Barack Obama announced it would implement regulatory reform to increase financial transparency and combat tax evasion, corruption and money laundering. Among the various measures, in May 2016, the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) promulgated new rules on customer due diligence requirements, which require financial institutions to identify any natural person beneficially owning more than 25% of, or otherwise controlling, the institution’s legal entity customers. Similar initiatives are being pushed in the United Kingdom, Germany and others in the G20 group. Only time will tell if these initiatives prove to be effective or are just window dressing. Cleaning the backyard The Panama Papers leak has also exerted pressure on countries previously resistant to increased financial transparency – namely, Panama. In 2016, Panama’s Vice President Isabel de Saint Malo pledged Panama’s willingness to sign the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters – an agreement developed jointly by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe to combat tax evasion through the automatic sharing of residents’ financial information. Holding fast to that pledge, on 3 March 2017, Panama deposited with the OECD its instrument of ratification of the Convention, which came into force in Panama on 1 July 2017. Panama has also signed an information-sharing treaty with Mexico and continues its negotiation of similar agreements with Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK and Switzerland. As of 12 June 2017, the OECD reports 112 jurisdictions currently participating in the Convention. Delayed Recovery Where the Panama Papers have had much less impact than was originally hoped for is in the asset recovery arena. Following the leak, early commentators predicated litigation in the financial havens themselves, such as the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Hong Kong and Panama, as well as financial centres that may house assets or UBOs, such as Switzerland, the UK and the US. However, now over one year later, this litigation has largely yet to be seen. This is disappointing in light of estimates that as much as 8% of the world’s financial wealth (approximately US$7.6 trillion) is held in financial havens. Further, according to Gabriel Zucman, economist, professor and author of The Hidden Wealth of Nations, as much as 80% of that hidden wealth is not reported to the tax authorities of any country. Equally astounding, the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative – a partnership between the World Bank Group and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to promote international efforts to end financial havens for corrupt funds and prevent the laundering of the proceedings of corruption – estimates that up to US$40 billion per year is stolen by corrupt public officials around the world. Those most affected by this hidden wealth are the citizens of the governments susceptible to tax evasion, corruption and the illicit diversion of funds, as well as the victims of fraud where the opaque corporate structures are used to hide the proceeds of these crimes. As a result, these jurisdictions often suffer from undeveloped infrastructure, failing health facilities and inadequate educational institutions. While it may be no less important to investigate and expose the corrupt actors that prey on these governments, there must also be a focus on and concerted effort to recover the value that has been secreted in financial havens and often elsewhere. A Start There may be signs of change, however. On 14 July 2017, the US Department of Justice commenced a civil forfeiture proceeding against approximately US$144 million in assets – primarily, a luxury yacht and Manhattan real estate-allegedly representing the proceeds of corruption, bribery and money laundering. The allegations concern prominent businessmen Kolawole Akanni Aluko and Olajide Omokore, and Nigeria’s former Minister for Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke. The US alleges in part that Aluko and Omokore purchased, luxury real estate in London and high-end furniture for Alison-Madueke’s benefit and, in return, Alison-Madueke used her influence to steer lucrative state oil contracts to companies ultimately owned or controlled by Aluko and Omokore. The ICIJ’s Will Fitzgibbon first reported in July 2016 on the links between Aluko, Omokore and Alison-Madueke as detailed in the Panama Papers. This led to investigations in Nigeria, the UK and elsewhere. Evidence and privilege concerns So, what is the reason for the tardy arrival of the Panama Papers’ impact in the asset recovery arena? Firstly, a lack of competent evidence. The ICIJ’s Offshore Leaks Database largely, if not entirely, lacks source documentation. The same is true of the ICIJ’s database for the ‘Swiss Leaks’ and the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ in previous years (other than documents expressly approved by Luxembourg authorities). Similarly, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the Panamanian authorities have disseminated to the public or shared with authorities of other countries the documents seized from Mossack Fonseca’s offices following the initial leak. While there may be legitimate reasons for restricting the disclosure of source documentation, the availability of only extracted and secondary information poses hearsay, trustworthiness and other evidentiary problems for authorities, asset recovery professionals and victims in constructing asset recovery cases. More must be done to allow access to this critical information. Secondly, it is an open issue as to whether information taken from the Panama Papers is privileged or protected. Additionally, the issue is complicated by the possible application of foreign law, making it difficult to know which privilege rules apply. Though exceptions to privilege may exist, such as the crime-fraud exception under US law or the iniquity exception under English law, this issue must be weighed carefully. Rather, a best practice would be to treat the Offshore Leaks Database as an important tool in the investigative toolbox and a springboard to pursue additional disclosure in the appropriate jurisdiction. In this respect, emerging asset tracing techniques in recent years can assist greatly in closing the fence around intricate offshore structures. With respect to the US, these techniques include pursuing disclosure proceedings in aid of foreign litigation under 28 USC § 1782, the subpoenaing of information from banks in order to trace the flow of monies through different jurisdictions, and seeking recognition of foreign bankruptcy proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. By using the Model Law, foreign bankruptcy trustees can gain access to US-style discovery and broad turnover powers of assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Whatever the reason for the delay, the fervour to see positive change prompted by the Panama Papers must now enter the next phase: concerted efforts to pursue – on behalf of the victims of tax evasion, corruption, fraud and money laundering – the vast hidden wealth that has been secreted through the use of opaque offshore corporate vehicles. Such efforts are long overdue. Click to view the full article. Notes: Panama Papers Website Edward H. Davis Jr (+1 305 372 8282, Ext. 228, edavis@ sequorlaw.com) is a founding shareholder of Sequor Law. Davis was recognised as the Asset Recovery Lawyer of the Year by Who’s Who Legal in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. With nearly 30 years of experience, he focuses his practice on asset recovery, financial fraud and the pursuit of misappropriated assets throughout the world on behalf of the victims of fraud. Davis is also a leading member of the ICC Commercial Crimes Services FraudNet Network. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin joins the Felony Miami podcast for the Bankruptcy Episode, exploring disparities in the criminal justice system and how the arts can drive meaningful reform. The Bankruptcy Episode w/ Paul Orshan, Leyza Florin Blanco, Jacqueline Calderín, and Joe Stone Open Events & Speaking Open August 19, 2018 1 minute read Sequor Law Felony Miami explores the disparities in the criminal justice system and the intersection of those disparities and the arts. In this exploration, Felony Miami seeks to educate, entertain, enlighten and contribute towards the improvement and fairness of the system. Felony Miami intends to do this by bringing together thought leaders, decision makers, the accused, the guilty, the not guilty and other participants in the system and in the arts to examine the current state of being, ways in which the system can be improved and ways in which the arts can contribute to this exploration and improvement. Sequor Law’s Leyza B. Florin spoke with Felony Miami as part of their Bankruptcy Episode. 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 estate of late German filmmaker Gideon Bachmann in a Chapter 15 petition in Florida, seeking to recover $495,000 in US bank accounts to settle debts owed to creditors. German filmmaker’s estate files Florida Chapter 15 Open In the News Open March 22, 2019 2 minutes read Sequor Law Funds in a Florida bank account belonging to the late German filmmaker and Federico Fellini collaborator Gideon Bachmann are at the centre of a new Chapter 15 application, two years after he died seemingly bankrupt in Germany. Peter Jost, a partner at Jost Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart, applied to the Tampa division of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida for recognition as foreign representative of Bachmann’s estate on 13 March. Represented by Sequor Law, Jost is seeking US$495,000 held in two Bank of America accounts in Bachmann’s name to pay off debts Bachmann owed to eight creditors at his death. In the Chapter 15 application, under which Bachmann is referred to by his birth name of Hans Werner Bachmann, Jost says the filmmaker’s creditors have US$12,617 in claims against him, an amount easily exceeded by the amount in the Bank of America account. Bachmann, who died in Karlsruhe, a city in the south west German region of Baden-Württemberg, on 24 November 2016 at the age of 89, was born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1927 before emigrating to Tel Aviv in 1936 after the rise of the Nazi party. He initially worked as a journalist for Haaretz , returning to Germany in 1947 to document concentration camps left by the Nazi regime. The following year he began to study under the celebrated Dadaist film director Hans Richter in New York, moving in the 1960s to Italy, where he was a close friend of Federico Fellini, even creating a documentary film about the Italian director, Ciao, Federico! , in 1970. He also performed in a number of Fellini’s films. His film output also included Underground New York , a 1967 portrait of the underground film movement in which he was a player, which featured rare films of Andy Warhol, Shirley Clarke and Allen Ginsberg. That moved him to direct A Camera Is Not a Molotov Cocktail in 1977, in which he explained his belief that film’s purpose was not to “convince the unconvinced” but to provide solidarity for people of shared views. He also performed in films, including for Fellini and his own 1983 film Peppermint Peace . He returned to Germany in 1996, and in his latter years worked as a film critic for a US radio programme, also establishing and editing periodical magazine Cinemages . The District Court of Karlsruhe appointed Jost as liquidator over Bachmann’s estate in November 2018, two years after his death. In the US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida Chief Judge Michael Williamson Counsel to Jost Sequor Law Partner Gregory Grossman and attorney Amanda Finley in Miami Open Article here Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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 monitors COVID-19's impact across Latin America, analyzing emerging threats to cross-border insolvencies as the pandemic disrupts economies, court systems, and exit financing. COVID-19 and Cross-Border Insolvencies Open Legal Insights Open April 17, 2020 5 minutes read Sequor Law Brazil’s health minister has predicted that the spread of COVID-19 would reach its peak between April and June and has warned that Brazil’s health system could reach saturation by the end of April. As the novel coronavirus has been spreading throughout the region, Sequor Law has monitored its impact across Latin America. Brazil confirmed its first COVID-19 case, the first in Latin America, from a traveler who had visited Northern Italy before arriving in Sao Paulo, a city of approximately 20 million people with the largest urban population in the Americas. It is also the country’s financial center and a business hub representing one of Latin America’s largest economies. The news, which arrived after a long weekend of Carnival celebrations, brought with it a deep and almost immediate dive in the Ibovespa stock index similar to the losses that have been seen elsewhere around the globe. Most recently, Brazil closed its border to eight neighboring countries, banned travel from Europe and Asia, and closed schools, colleges, courts, and commercial business in its largest cities. Brazil’s top soccer teams have handed stadiums over to health authorities to turn them into field hospitals and clinics in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Brazil’s health minister has predicted that the spread of COVID-19 would reach its peak between April and June and has warned that Brazil’s health system could reach saturation by the end of April. At present, the country has over 4,600 confirmed cases, 165 deaths and reports indicate that the number of new cases is steadily growing. With various government officials testing positive for COVID-19, including 14 who accompanied its president, Jair Bolsonaro, to Florida a few weeks ago, the federal government has declared a national emergency in Brazil allowing the government to free up budget resources and announcing an economic stimulus package of approximately $40 billion euros. Notwithstanding all of these measures, Brazil’s currency recently hit an all-time low of R $5.2 per dollar before its Central Bank helped pare losses by cutting its benchmark interest rate to an all-time low of 3.75%, pledging to deploy financial stability policies to fight the crisis. Like the United States, closures of commercial establishments and travel bans have hit Brazil’s retail, entertainment and aviation sectors hard. Like Brazil, nations throughout the region are in a race to “flatten” the exponential spread of COVID-19. Recent reports have stated that every country in Latin America and the Caribbean now have confirmed cases of COVID-19. Argentina is on total lockdown. In Chile—a country that already faced a political crisis prior to the coronavirus pandemic—restricted freedom of movement has postponed its April referendum for a new Constitution. Examples of such “social distancing”-inspired policies are ubiquitous. Efforts to get ahead of the most horrific potential consequences of COVID-19, however, have begun to exact a hefty price, as large sectors of the regional economy have all but shut down. Even in these early days, we have already begun to see an impact in U.S. bankruptcies, as distressed companies in pending reorganization proceedings are losing their exit financing and private equity investors are lowering or pulling bids to acquire the assets of bankrupt companies due to market volatility caused by the pandemic. Unfortunately, with no clear medical solution on the horizon and talk of increasing infection rates impacting the region, it appears likely that the situation will get worse before it gets better. On March 27, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, said that the global economy has now entered a recession that could be as bad as or worse than the financial crisis in 2009. Although Georgieva noted that the world economy could experience a “sizeable rebound” in 2021 if nations are successful in containing the pandemic, she stressed that “a key concern about a long-lasting impact of the sudden stop of the world economy is the risk of a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs that not only can undermine the recovery but erode the fabric of our societies.” These statements capture the reality that, unlike other recent recessions, it is difficult to identify sectors of the economy that will not be impacted by the current crisis. The extent of the crisis is perhaps most poignantly captured by the report that more than 6.6 million workers filed claims for unemployment in the United States this week—a number that shattered all prior records for such filings. Although the most widely publicized effects of the worldwide shutdown have been seen in the aviation, cruise, hospitality (restaurant and hotel) and retail sectors, this crisis will undoubtedly result in a sharp increase in both domestic bankruptcy cases, and cross-border insolvency matters across all sectors where foreign companies and liquidators may seek U.S. assistance to obtain relief from creditors (such as by obtaining a stay of collection actions), to protect assets located in the United States or to obtain information or directly enforce rights against third parties in furtherance of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. Certainly, our years of experience as bankruptcy specialists tell us that the rise of domestic bankruptcy cases for small businesses and the sectors of the economy hardest hit by the shutdowns are inescapable, as many businesses cannot withstand the strain of even a temporary closure without revenue combined with continuing obligations to pay fixed costs. It is likely that a similar dynamic will play out in national economies around the globe, including Brazil and other Latin American countries. Countries are already responding to the anticipated surge in insolvencies. In the United States, the recently enacted stimulus bill dramatically expands access to the simplified and expedited procedures that apply to small business bankruptcies, such that relief may temporarily be accessed to reorganize debts up to $7,5 million (up from $2,725,625) through Dec. 31, 2020, and extending payment plans under Chapter 13 up to seven years due to financial consequences stemming from COVID-19. Similarly, in Brazil, the Chamber of Deputies approved new preventive restructuring measures to enable companies facing financial difficulties to continue their operations including a special recovery plan for micro and small companies, allowing the extension of payment terms, reduction of interest and fines relating to tax debts, allowing more flexibility in relation to the possibility of negotiation of the parties in structuring a recovery plan and simplification of judicial procedures. In addition to the potential for increased bankruptcy filings, our experience in cross-border fraud suggests that widespread financial distress (such as that seen during the last financial crisis) and the ensuing insolvency proceedings that follow, bring increased oversight, investigations, and, potentially, the discovery of financial frauds (like Madoff or, more recently, the “Operação Lava Jato” or “Car Wash” scandal in Brazil) that may have previously been overlooked. The discovery of improper transfers and fraud, which are more likely to come to light during a downturn, and certainly in bankruptcy, may result in the filing of cross-border insolvency proceedings under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, where administrators and trustees search for offshore assets and information that will facilitate recovery for their creditors. Even if the United States is fortunate enough to avoid the worst potential outcomes of this pandemic (most critically as it relates to the loss of human life), it appears inescapable that the ongoing shutdown of the global economy will result in increasing insolvency proceedings in all economic sectors (both in the United States and abroad). As numerous international businesses have substantial ties and interests in the United States (particularly, in South Florida), this drastic increase in foreign insolvency proceedings will inevitably translate to increasing numbers of cross-border insolvency proceedings in the United States. Leyza B. Florin and Fernando J. Menendez are shareholders at Sequor Law in Miami. The firm specializes in hidden asset recovery, notably Brazil-linked Chapter 15 cross-border cases. 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..

Sequor Law earns Chambers USA 2019 recognition in Bankruptcy and Restructuring, with Leyza Blanco and Gregory Grossman ranked and the firm shortlisted for Diversity & Inclusion honors. Sequor Law Recognized by Chambers USA 2019 Open Awards & Recognition Open May 3, 2019 1 minute read Sequor Law We are honored to announce that Sequor Law has received the prestigious Chambers USA 2019 “Recognized Practitioner” designation among Florida law firms in Bankruptcy/Restructuring. Additionally, the firm has been shortlisted at the Chambers Diversity & Inclusion Awards: USA 2019 as “Most Inclusive Firm for Minority Lawyers”. The following Sequor Law attorneys are included in Chambers USA 2019 guide: Leyza Blanco Band 2, Bankruptcy/Restructuring Gregory Grossman Band 3, Bankruptcy/Restructuring Chambers is the authoritative guide to the world's leading lawyers, with rankings based on exhaustive research, including confidential interviews with clients and attorneys. We warmly thank our clients for their trust and confidence, which have driven these recognitions. 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..

Miami's Sequor Law hires insolvency and litigation partners Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez Jr. from GrayRobinson, growing to 14 lawyers and strengthening its cross-border insolvency practice. Miami’s Sequor Law Raids GrayRobinson for Two Insolvency/Litigation Partners Open In the News Open June 4, 2018 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Brenda Sapino Jeffreys Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez Jr. joined Miami’s Sequor Law as partners. Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez Jr. Sequor Law , the Miami firm formed in 2017 as the successor to Astigarraga Davis, on Monday hired insolvency and litigation lawyers Leyza B. Florin and Fernando Menendez Jr. as partners. Both came from GrayRobinson . Florin said Sequor Law’s well-known international insolvency practice is a great fit for her practice. She does a range of insolvency work and litigation, including complex business bankruptcy and commercial litigation. Menendez does a variety of insolvency work, including complex workouts, bankruptcy litigation and representation of foreign and domestic court-appointed trustees. Florin , who is also a Florida Supreme Court-certified civil mediator, declined to identify clients they brought with them to the new firm. “The firm not only gains two outstanding lawyers with years of experience in insolvency, restructuring and commercial litigation, but their bilingual and multicultural heritage will add to the growth of our market leadership in international asset recovery and cross-border insolvency,” Edward Davis, a founding partner of Sequor Law, said in a statement. Both Florin and Menendez are fluent in English and Spanish. In April 2017, Astigarraga Davis co-founder Jose Astigarraga left the firm along with a group of international arbitrators to open a Miami office for Reed Smith. At that time, Davis changed the name of Astigarraga Davis to Sequor Law, which has a practice focusing on asset recovery, financial fraud and cross-border insolvency. With the lateral hires, Sequor Law now has 14 lawyers. GrayRobinson, the duo’s former firm, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Click to view full article. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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..