Sequor Law earns top rankings in 2021 Chambers USA for asset recovery and bankruptcy litigation, with attorneys recognized as Global Elite Thought Leaders. Sequor Law’s Latest Rankings and Recognitions Open Awards & Recognition Open July 1, 2021 2 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law continues to earn national and global recognition for its work in high-stakes Asset Recovery , Bankruptcy Litigation , and cross-border disputes. In the 2021 Chambers USA and Litigation Support Guides, the firm ranked among the top firms in Band 2 for both Bankruptcy Litigation and Global-Wide Asset Tracing & Recovery. These rankings are based on extensive independent research, including client and peer interviews. The message from the market is consistent. Sequor delivers results in complex, international matters where precision and strategy matter most. Chambers also recognized individual shareholders for leadership in their respective fields. Edward H. Davis Jr. earned Band 2 recognition for Global-Wide Asset Tracing & Recovery. Gregory S. Grossman was ranked in Bankruptcy Litigation. Leyza F. Blanco received Band 2 distinctions in Bankruptcy Litigation and Bankruptcy/Restructuring in Florida. These rankings reinforce Sequor’s standing in International Litigation , restructuring disputes, and recovery actions spanning multiple jurisdictions. The firm’s reputation extends beyond Chambers. Who’s Who Legal named Edward H. Davis Jr. and Arnoldo B. Lacayo as Global Elite Thought Leaders in Asset Recovery, a distinction reserved for a small percentage of practitioners worldwide. Sequor’s forensic and investigative capabilities were also recognized, with professionals such as Bob Lindquist and Barbara Miranda acknowledged as leading experts in the recovery space. This combination of litigation strategy and financial investigation is central to Sequor’s model in global fraud and enforcement matters. Sequor attorneys were further recognized by Super Lawyers, including Edward H. Davis Jr. , Gregory S. Grossman , Leyza F. Blanco , and Arnoldo B. Lacayo , along with Rising Stars across international and creditor-debtor rights practice areas. These honors reflect sustained excellence in Creditors’ Rights , complex insolvency litigation, and cross-border recovery efforts. Beyond rankings, Sequor continues to lead thought leadership in Cross-Border Insolvency . Counsel Nyana Abreu Miller contributed to international education initiatives and co-authored analysis on Brazil’s implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law, underscoring the firm’s global reach. Attorneys such as Juan J. Mendoza also remain active in asset recovery and Section 1782 evidence-gathering proceedings. For clients confronting fraud, corruption, insolvency disputes, or international enforcement challenges, these recognitions signal more than accolades. They confirm depth of experience, global connectivity, and a results-driven approach. To view the full rankings and learn more about Sequor Law’s recognized attorneys and practice strengths, read the complete announcement here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin and Raul Torrao explain UNCITRAL's 2019 Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and its implications for cross-border insolvency proceedings. Asset recovery column: The mechanics of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency Open Legal Insights Open December 4, 2019 8 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Raul Torrao in Miami discuss the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)’s newly approved Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. Purpose The model law, approved in July 2019, is a new legal framework designed to address domestic and cross-border insolvency cases involving multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group. Though it provides innovative tools to address the specific needs of proceedings involving enterprise groups, its practical use will be revealed throughout the next years by its implementation and actual application by the courts of states that adopt the model law. UNCITRAL developed the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency to fill a void left by the 1997 Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, with respect to the administration of multiple insolvency proceedings affecting different members of an enterprise group located in multiple jurisdictions. Indeed, in today’s global economy, the operations of the members of some enterprise groups are so interconnected and span so many jurisdictions that the group can only be appropriately reorganized or liquidated if there is a plan that embraces the whole group – or at least the part of the group that is affected by the insolvency proceedings. Both model laws provide for the cooperation of courts presiding over cross-border insolvency cases, although each applies in a different context. The Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency focuses on single debtor insolvency proceedings, while the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is designed to address the specific needs of insolvency proceedings that involve multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group in different jurisdictions. Concepts To address such specific needs, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency provides directives on coordination and cooperation between courts and among insolvency representatives, development of a group insolvency solution for the whole enterprise group or part of it in a single planning proceeding, the appointment of a single representative to coordinate the development of a group insolvency solution and voluntary participation of enterprise group members in the planning proceeding regardless of whether they are affected by the insolvency of part of the enterprise group. It also includes directives on access by foreign courts and insolvency representatives to the planning proceeding, cross-border recognition of foreign planning proceedings, and measures to minimize the commencement of non-main and main proceedings through the equal treatment of claims in a foreign main proceeding in an adopting jurisdiction. The Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency uses some nomenclature and definitions from the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such as what is a main proceeding, a non-main proceeding, and the center of main interest (COMI) of a debtor. In addition, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency contains several articles similar to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, especially in the chapters regarding the cooperation and coordination between courts and among insolvency representatives and in the chapters that provide for the recognition of a foreign proceeding. Among the new concepts introduced by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, the “group insolvency solution” is one of the most relevant ones. Article 2(f) of the model law broadly defines a group insolvency solution as “a proposal or set of proposals developed in a planning proceeding for the reorganization, sale or liquidation of some or all of the assets and operations of one or more enterprise group members, with the goal of protecting, preserving, realizing or enhancing the overall combined value of those enterprise group members.” The draft guide of enactment of the model law clarifies that the term is intended to be a flexible concept, that can be tailored to address the specific circumstances of the enterprise group, such as its structure, business model, degree and type of integration between enterprise group members and other factors. The group insolvency solution is developed in a “planning proceeding,” which is an insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to an enterprise group member that meets certain criteria. It must be a main proceeding taking place in the jurisdiction where an enterprise group member debtor has the COMI, in which the enterprise group member likely is a necessary and integral participant of the solution (although the concept is still undefined). It must include the voluntary participation of enterprise group members for the development of a group insolvency solution (although they may opt-out at any point), and include the appointment of a group representative, which may be the same person as the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding or a different person. Once a planning proceeding is established, the group representative may seek relief from the court that is either needed to preserve the possibility of developing or implementing a group insolvency solution, or to protect, preserve, realize, or enhance the value of assets of an enterprise group member subject to or participating in a planning proceeding or the interests of the creditors of such enterprise group member. Relief The model law provides for a non-exhaustive list of reliefs that are typically granted in insolvency proceedings. This includes empowering the group representative to seek recognition of the planning proceeding in other jurisdictions and seek any relief available to support the development and implementation of a group insolvency solution, as well as seek to participate in foreign proceedings relating to an enterprise group member regardless of whether the latter is participating in the planning proceeding. Despite the model law’s aim to centralize an enterprise group’s insolvency proceeding, nothing in the model law prevents more than one planning proceeding from being established. Obviously, the immoderate commencement of multiple planning proceedings would destroy the purpose of having a centralized proceeding where all parties can meet and develop a group insolvency solution. However, the special circumstances driven by the way enterprise groups are structured might justify the exceptional establishment of more than one planning proceeding to obtain the proper insolvency solution for the group. To aid its goal of centralizing and streamlining insolvency proceedings of members of an enterprise group, the model law also provides a mechanism to minimize the commencement of non-main proceedings in other jurisdictions. A creditor of any enterprise group member may choose to bring its claim directly in the main proceeding commenced in a jurisdiction that adopted the model law. The claim will be treated in the main proceeding in accordance with the treatment it would be accorded in its original jurisdiction; that is, the foreign claim will receive the same distribution and priority rights in the main proceeding as it would receive in its original jurisdiction. To accomplish such treatment of claims, the claim treatment must: be presented by the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding – or jointly by the insolvency representative and the group representative; meet any additional formal requirements established by the jurisdiction of the main proceeding; and be approved by the court of the main proceeding. Once the claim treatment is approved, it is enforceable and binding on the insolvency estate of the main proceeding, this way protecting the creditor of the foreign claim. In addition to the above-described mechanism, the model law allows the court of the foreign forum where the creditor could have brought the aforementioned foreign claim to approve the treatment accorded in the main proceeding and to stay any non-main proceedings already commenced or to decline the commencement of new non-main proceedings. The effect of this implementation is that creditors of similar foreign claims may only file such foreign claims before the court of the main proceeding. This measure is not mandatory and it is the option of the court of the original jurisdiction of the foreign claim to use such tool. The model law also provides for this undertaking on the treatment of foreign claims and the possibility of the court to stay or decline to commence a new insolvency proceeding also in relation to a main proceeding. In other words, creditors of a claim that may be brought in a main proceeding in one jurisdiction also have the option to file the claim in another main proceeding affecting one of the enterprise group members in another jurisdiction that adopted the model law, and courts of the first jurisdiction may approve the undertaking on the treatment of that claim and stay or decline to commence a main proceeding. This measure is counterintuitive and is inconsistent with the expectations of creditors, the enterprise group members, and third parties that expect that insolvency proceedings should be conducted in the jurisdiction where the COMI of the enterprise group is located. Thus, the draft guide to the enactment of the model law advises that such measure should only be taken in exceptional circumstances, specifically when the efficiency benefits largely outweigh the negative effects on the creditors’ expectations. The provisions that refer to minimizing the commencement of main proceedings are located in part B of the model law, and are available for adoption by jurisdictions that want to take this extra step on the centralization of cross-border insolvency proceedings. It is important to note that the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is not a workaround from the formalities of the insolvency laws of the adopting jurisdiction. The fact that a planning proceeding may address the reorganization or liquidation of a participating enterprise group member does not grant unrestrictive access by creditors to the assets of that enterprise group member. Under the model law, relief in the planning proceeding may not be granted with respect to the assets of participating enterprise group members if the entity is not subject to an insolvency proceeding under the forum’s applicable laws, unless the reason that such proceeding has not commenced was for the purpose of minimizing the commencement of insolvency proceedings in accordance with the Model Law. In addition, if the participating enterprise group member has its COMI in another jurisdiction, relief will only be granted in the jurisdiction that adopted the model law if it does not interfere with the administration of insolvency proceedings taking place in other jurisdictions. Impact The framework presented by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency not only creates new legal tools for specific insolvency cases, but also creates a new international cooperation system to enhance the insolvency proceedings of an enterprise group. Though issues regarding the jurisdiction and the power of courts may be minimized in a single-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such issues are more prevalent when members of an enterprise group are subject to insolvency proceedings in different jurisdictions. Indeed, in a multi-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, several issues regarding the jurisdictional power of the courts involved are likely to arise. This is because there are potentially multiple main proceedings, each located in a different jurisdiction, and only one – or a few – of them can be qualified as a planning proceeding for the development of a group solution, which will determinate the outcome of the insolvency proceedings. It is unclear if the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency’s cooperation system will only be useful if all jurisdictions involved have adopted its text. With regard to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, generally only the jurisdiction of the court that is providing assistance to the foreign proceeding must have adopted it in order for that cooperation system to work. On the other hand, the cooperation between courts of different jurisdictions in a group insolvency case might not work if one of the involved jurisdictions has not adopted the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. It is possible that jurisdictions that do not adopt provisions relating to centralized planning proceedings will be reluctant to defer their jurisdiction over an insolvency proceeding involving an enterprise group member to another jurisdiction. Hopefully, jurisdictions will see the benefits of having a group insolvency solution for maintaining or adding value to the whole group, or even to the group members that are affected by the insolvency proceeding in that jurisdiction, and utilize the new tools provided by the new model law. To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law's Nyana Miller is selected for the International Insolvency Institute's NextGen Leadership Program Class X, recognized as a future expert in international insolvency. Nyana Miller announced as a member of Class X for the NextGen Leadership Program Open Awards & Recognition Open November 4, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law November 4, 2021 | Stanardsville, Virginia Nyana Miller was nominated by Members of the International Insolvency Institute (III), approved by the III Executive Committee and recognized by the III Bo ard of Directors. The NextGen Class X was honored at the III’s 21st Annual Conference in New York, NY on October 18-20, 2021. These professionals represent the best of the future experts in International Insolvency. The NextGen Leadership program was established in 2012 to create an interesting, informative and valuable environment for younger professionals and academics which will provide them with an opportunity to liaise with the best people in the world in the insolvency area, the Members of the International Insolvency Institute. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law remains committed to pursuing results for clients during the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring the safety of staff and attorneys during these unprecedented times. We Remain Relentless in Our Commitment to You Open Firm News Open March 19, 2020 1 minute read Sequor Law Dear Clients and Friends: As COVID-19 sweeps the globe, Sequor Law continues to relentlessly pursue results for our clients during these unprecedented times. In addition, we have taken proactive steps to ensure the safety and well-being of our staff and lawyers in line with the guidance provided by the relevant authorities. Sequor Law has a proven track record in helping our clients navigate through troubled waters to secure the best possible outcomes for them. If you find yourself in need of professional guidance in our core practice areas of asset recovery, domestic and cross-border insolvency, financial fraud, creditors' rights and financial services litigation, we are here for you. We thank you for the trust and confidence you have placed in us and extend our best wishes to you and your loved ones for continued good health. Sincerely, The Sequor Law team Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

A Florida bankruptcy judge preliminarily approved an $8 million settlement resolving Banco Santos’ racketeering and fraud claims against Espirito Santo Bank. Fla. Judge OKs Espírito Santo’s $8M Deal With Bankrupt Bank Open In the News Open December 23, 2014 2 minutes read Sequor Law By Carolina Bolado A Florida bankruptcy judge on Tuesday indicated that she would sign off on an $8 million settlement ending bankrupt Brazilian bank Banco Santos SA’s racketeering and tort suit against Portugal-based Espirito Santo Bank. In a hearing in Miami, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Isicoff said she would sign off on an order preliminarily approving a deal that resolves a suit filed by Banco Santos’ court-appointed administrator, Vanio Cesar Pickler Aguiar, claiming the bank lost $38.7 million through ESB’s fraud and money laundering. The judge noted that there were no objections filed to the settlement agreement and urged the attorneys to get the order in quickly so that she could sign off on it before the holiday break. In the adversary proceeding, filed in December 2013, Aguiar claims that ESB diverted millions in Banco Santos’ assets through various corporate entities to Florida, from which they were transferred offshore and laundered, according to the complaint. In the suit, Aguiar requested not just the $38.7 million the bank allegedly lost, but also treble damages of $116 million. ESB rebuts all of the claims in the complaint. Banco Santos was ordered into a court-supervised liquidation by the Second Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Court of Sao Paulo in September 2005. Aguiar filed a Chapter 15 petition in December 2010 in the Southern District of Florida listing $500 million to $1 billion in assets and more than $1 billion in liabilities. The Espirito Santo group, which traces to a storied Portuguese banking family, saw four of its companies file for creditor protection in July after a central bank audit two months earlier had turned up accounting irregularities at Espirito Santo International SA, the group’s holding company. The Portuguese central bank in August unveiled a plan to split up BES, the country’s second-largest lender, under a rescue plan backed by €4.9 billion ($6.4 billion) in state money after the bank failed to weather losses on its exposure to the Espirito Santo group. Authorities in several countries are investigating the dealings of the Espirito Santo empire. Switzerland’s financial regulator said in September that it is looking into the distribution of financial products by a Swiss bank, Banque Privee Espirito Santo SA, which is tied to the Espirito Santo group. Aguiar is represented by Edward H. Davis Jr. , Gregory S. Grossman , Arnoldo B. Lacayo and Nyana A. Miller of Astigarraga Davis . ESB is represented by Samuel J. Capuano and Gary M. Freedman of Tabas Freedman . The adversary proceeding is Aguiar v. Espirito Santo Bank, case number 1:13-ap-01934, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bankruptcy is In re: Banco Santos SA, case number 1:10-bk-47543, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Click to view full article. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

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 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law's Summer Series Podcasts feature distinguished attorneys and experts discussing cross-border insolvency, cryptocurrency recovery, financial fraud, and asset tracing topics. Sequor Law’s Summer Series Podcasts Open Events & Speaking Open August 17, 2021 2 minutes read Sequor Law In this series, our distinguished Sequor Law attorneys sit down with other subject-matter experts to discuss cutting-edge legal issues, from the recovery of cryptocurrency to the psychology behind financial fraud to uncovering nominees and other aiders and abettors. See below our upcoming podcasts for the month of August. Hot Topics in Cross Border Insolvency with Sequor Counsel Nyana Abreu Miller August 19, 2021 12PM EST Expert Guest Speakers: Sarah Murray, Head of Dispute Resolution, Stevens & Bolton (UK) Felipe Vieira, Attorney, Duarte Forssell Advogados (Brazil) In this podcast episode, three lawyers specializing in cross-border insolvency and litigation discuss recent developments in the United States, Great Britain, and Brazil. A Brazilian lawyer will discuss Brazil’s recent implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. An English solicitor will look at remedies available in the English courts to support efforts to recover assets, in accordance with the principles in the Model Law and more generally through Mareva/freezing injunctions and Norwich Pharmacal Orders. A U.S. lawyer will address the treatment of corporate groups in cross-border cases and recent decisions of interest arising under the Model Law. Click here to register The Effect of the General Data Protection Regulation on Discovery with Sequor Attorney Amanda Finley August 25, 2021 4PM EST This podcast episode will discuss the case law regarding the GDPR as interpreted under U.S. law. It will address the various approaches that U.S. courts have taken in response to objections to discovery based on the GDPR. Finally, it will address practical actions that both plaintiff and defense counsel may take in order to resolve these disputes effectively. Click here to register The Tangled Web They Weave: Detangling the Web of Nominees, Aiders and Abettors with Sequor Attorney Carolina Goncalves and Director of Investigations Barbara Miranda August 31, 2021 2PM EST Expert Guest Speaker: Julieta LaMalfa, Director of Disputes, Compliance & Investigations, Stout (US) The use of nominees, aiders and abettors to transfer and hide assets is common throughout all jurisdictions. Moreover, each jurisdiction has different levels of public records and information available to identify the ultimate beneficial owners of assets as well as laws related to piercing through these facades to ultimately access the assets of the debtor. With this in mind, this podcast is meant to give an introduction into the types of nominees, aiders and abettors, how to identify them, the availability of records reflecting ultimate beneficial ownership in various jurisdictions, and potential legal tools to use once you have sufficient evidence to show a judge that these individuals and/or entities are in fact nominees, aiders and/or abettors of the debtor. Click here to register Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Gregory Grossman spoke at IBRA – Instituto Brasileiro de Rastreamento de Ativos, addressing asset tracing and recovery professionals. Gregory Grossman Spoke at Ibra- Instituto Brasileiro de Rastreamento de Ativos Open Events & Speaking Open November 30, 2021 1 minute read Sequor Law Sequor Law Founding Shareholder Gregory Grossman spoke at IBRA-Instituto Brasilerio de Rastreamento de Ativos on Friday, November 26th. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Sequor Law was established in Miami by internationally noted attorneys Edward H. Davis, Jr. and Gregory Grossman to focus on international asset recovery, financial fraud, cross-border insolvency, and financial services litigation. Internationally Noted Attorneys Establish Sequor Law Open Firm News Open April 11, 2017 2 minutes read Sequor Law New Firm to Focus on International Asset Recovery, Financial Fraud, Cross-Border Insolvency and Financial Services Litigation MIAMI – April 11, 2017 –Edward H. Davis,Jr., a founding shareholder of Astigarraga Davis, today announced the opening of Sequor Law to focus on representing clients internationally in asset recovery, financial fraud, cross-border insolvency and financial services litigation. Sequor Law’s attorneys include all members of the Astigarraga Davis top-ranked asset recovery team. Jose Astigarraga and the other attorneys in the firm’s international arbitration practice have moved their practice to join a global law firm. Davis and Gregory Grossman , another founding shareholder, consider this a natural next step in the development of their respective law practices. “We are energized about the evolution of our practices. The new platform of Sequor Law will better position us to meet a growing global demand for our high-quality legal counsel,” said Davis, a certified fraud examiner who has been recognized as the Asset Recovery Lawyer of the Year for the past four years by Who’s Who Legal and who has an internationally recognized financial fraud, asset recovery and international litigation practice. “It will enable the attorneys at Sequor Law to continue building upon our unique strengths and pursue significant new opportunities in areas we excel, while also becoming more nimble in today’s ever-changing legal environment.” Added Davis: “Sequor Law derives its name from the Latin word ‘to pursue, to chase, to attain,’ and signifies our core values: the agile, aggressive, and relentless pursuit of assets and success on behalf of our clients.” Sequor Law’s international insolvency and financial services litigation practice is headed by Grossman. He will focus his practice on creditors’ rights, bankruptcy, insolvency litigation, and operational bank litigation. Grossman filed the first Chapter 15 Petition in the state of Florida and is recognized as a thought leader in the use of cross-border insolvency proceedings on behalf of creditors and fraud victims. Sequor Law’s multi-lingual team includes: Arnoldo Lacayo , a shareholder, certified specialist in asset recovery, and incoming chair of The Florida Bar International Law Section who focuses his practice on international corruption investigations and asset recovery for governments and state-owned enterprises Daniel Coyle , an associate who represents creditors and insolvency practitioners in domestic and international insolvency matters Nyana Abreu Miller , an associate who focuses her practice on asset recovery for women in cross-border divorce cases Cristina Vicens Beard , an associate focusing her practice on representing victims in the recovery of assets in cross border frauds At Sequor Law, the attorneys will continue their collaboration with ICC FraudNet, a world-class network of specialized attorneys, best-in-class investigators, and forensic accountants. About Sequor Law Sequor Law is a Miami-based international law firm representing financial institutions, sovereign governments and state owned enterprises, public and non-public companies, insolvency practitioners and individual clients in the areas of asset recovery, financial fraud, insolvency and financial services litigation. More information is available at www.SequorLaw.com ### Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...

Cryptocurrency is becoming a new frontier for hiding assets in divorce cases. Sequor Law's Edward Davis warns that crypto-based financial infidelity will become increasingly common in coming years. How cryptocurrency assets are becoming a new battleground in divorce disputes Open In the News Open March 10, 2019 5 minutes read Sequor Law By Kelly Anne Smith Fighting over money is one thing; dealing with bitcoin and other types of cryptocurrency in a divorce is an entirely different story. As cryptocurrency has surged in popularity, it’s become much more common for investors to carry shares in the largely unregulated market. For married couples looking to part ways, this means dealing with cryptocurrency as an asset could make for a difficult and lengthy divorce process. Considering regulations and standards on digital currencies such as bitcoin are still being weighed by governments and financial regulators across the world, could the future of hiding assets during a nasty divorce be lying in its hands? The role cryptocurrency is beginning to play in divorces Cryptocurrency is virtual currency; it lives online and is traded on a blockchain, an encrypted ledger detailing transactions. Since each transaction is associated with a public and private key, it’s possible for each transaction to be traced back to a single individual. Cryptocurrency has been around for about a decade, but it became more mainstream around 2017 when bitcoin skyrocketed to a price of $20,000 per coin and caught the public eye, before giving back much of its value in the time since. In 2018, only 5 percent of the American population held cryptocurrency, according to a survey by the Global Blockchain Business Council. An additional 21 percent of respondents, however, said they were considering adding it to their portfolio. As cryptocurrency grows in popularity, lawyers all over the world are beginning to face divorce cases with high-value disputes over these digital assets. Jacqueline Newman, a New York-based matrimonial law attorney, represents all different types of clients, including those divorcing with cryptocurrency. She asks all of her clients to fill out a statement of net worth — a comprehensive document detailing income, assets and debt of each party. She says her forms now ask parties to include cryptocurrency, too. “It hasn’t gotten to the point where the court forms include it yet, but we have asked on ours and people list it under their general assets,” Newman says. Hiding assets: Is cryptocurrency a new way to do it? Since bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are largely unregulated and encrypted, some might think it’s a perfect place to anonymously stash away funds. But that’s not necessarily the case. Mark DiMichael, CPA, certified Financial Forensics accountant and fraud examiner, specializes in cryptocurrency. In one recent case, a husband didn’t report $100,000-plus in cryptocurrency assets on his statement of net worth. During the discovery process, DiMichael closely analyzed his bank statements and was able to trace the crypto transactions through a crypto-trading platform. DiMichael warns, however, that cases can get more complicated. The more knowledgeable someone is in crypto, the bigger the threat they pose to successfully hiding the assets. Although he hasn’t worked on a large number of cases involving cryptocurrency so far, DiMichael gives the example of a cybersecurity expert exchanging cash for bitcoin as payment. By conducting the transaction in person, there would be no “proof” of the transaction occurring — making the asset-hiding much more difficult to reveal to the court. “It’s really hard to trace if the individual knows what they’re doing,” DiMichael says. “An expert is going to know not to leave any evidence on their computer, and it can be much more difficult to subpoena.” The future of spouses hiding money in crypto should be seen as a threat Edward Davis , a Miami-based asset-recovery attorney and founding shareholder of Sequor Law, says cases of financial infidelity involving crypto are only going to become more frequent in the coming years. In 15 to 20 years, Davis expects people with large sums of money to turn toward cryptocurrency as a way to hide their assets. “It’s a real threat,” Davis says. “It’s not going to come up in the average divorce of Joe versus Mary where they both have regular jobs and are a middle class family. But the wealthy and uber-wealthy who have access to this are going to use it to hide their value.” Matrimonial attorneys interviewed for this story say there aren’t currently any specific laws regarding cryptocurrency protection during a divorce process. Davis says these laws to protect consumers from fraudulent crypto activity are likely coming, but they will be slow to implement. “The legal infrastructure and regulatory infrastructure for this stuff is way behind,” Davis says. “If you look at some of the people sitting in Congress — some of them are in their 70s and 80s — they have no idea what this is. They don’t even know what Snapchat is. You’re talking about a generational change [that] is going to [have to] happen before people are confronting this kind of issue.” Another issue for getting a hand on regulating crypto, Davis says, is that there’s a wide misunderstanding of how blockchain technology works. “Whenever something new comes along, everyone tends to minimize it,” Davis says. “Predicting technology is a very hard thing. People who are intimidated or scared or don’t understand technology tend to minimize it.” How the financial and divorce industries are adjusting to this rising trend As interest and commonality surrounding crypto continues to increase, experts in the legal field are having to quickly educate themselves on the asset to keep up. Some experts say there isn’t enough being done to inform and train legal counsel on the inner workings of the asset. Most of what DiMichael knows about crypto is self-taught. In 2018, DiMichael published “A Forensic Guide to Finding Cryptocurrency in Divorce Litigation.” He created the guide after his own research found there weren’t many resources available on the matter. “I’ve seen some courses for it, but I think there should be more training,” DiMichael says. “Uncovering crypto is fairly complicated, and that can be even harder for someone not trained in crypto.” Most accountants don’t understand cryptocurrency, DiMichael adds. More complicated divorce cases involving cryptocurrency can be a lengthy and complicated process — and for an accountant learning everything on the fly, this can mean longer hours and a higher bill for the client. DiMichael says that he currently charges $435 per hour. Davis hasn’t worked directly on a case recovering cryptocurrency assets yet, but he has noticed an upswing in industry-related conversations in the past two years. Lawyers, who he says aren’t technology-savvy by nature, should pay close attention to cryptocurrency and educate themselves on how to manage it in court cases. “The main concern about crypto is how little we understand it and how dangerous it is because it’s an unregulated, untethered currency,” Davis says. “This is a real threat and one we have to think about.” Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open 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.. Firm News Apr 11, 2026 2 minutes read Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Continued Support of Paws4You Rescue In recognition of National Pet Day, Sequor Law is proud to continue its support of Paws4You Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit...