Search this site

Inside the $360 million Ponzi scheme that used fake consumer debt to defraud hundreds of investors in Maryland and Virginia, with insights from Sequor Law's Arnoldo Lacayo on financial fraud. Inside the scheme that allegedly used fake debt to steal $360 million from investors in Maryland and Virginia Open In the News Open April 12, 2019 5 minutes read Sequor Law By Aaron Gregg Cameron Jezierski was stoic but offered his attorney a brief smile as proceedings wrapped up at the federal courthouse. This wasn’t where he’d expected to land. He’d imagined that before he was 30, he’d be a millionaire. Instead, the 28-year-old from Texas had signed a plea agreement with federal prosecutors this month that cast him as a minor player in a sprawling $360 million Ponzi scheme that bilked hundreds of investors in Maryland and Virginia. Prosecutors said it was dreamed up by his employers. When Jezierski walked out of court, he would be an admitted felon for life. At the courthouse, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joyce McDonald described a scheme led by two others — Kevin Merrill of Towson, Md., and Jay Ledford of Texas — in promoting “investor confidence that they could entrust their funds to what was really a criminal enterprise.” Jezierski faces a $116,435 fine and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, though his term could be much less because of the plea agreement. Merrill, 53, and Ledford, 55, both face civil and criminal charges. Attorneys in the criminal and civil cases have filed motions to dismiss the charges. Jezierski admitted in his signed plea agreement to participating in “a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property from investors by materially false and fraudulent promises” and that he “knowingly and willfully” worked with other people to do so. The scheme affected investors including doctors, retirees, accountants and current and former professional athletes. An attorney for Jezierski did not respond to requests for comment. Merrill did not have a lawyer listed in court documents. Jim Jamison, an attorney representing Ledford in the civil case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, described his client as “a very small player” in the alleged fraud. “There was no conspiracy,” he said. “Merrill was involved in buying consumer debt, but he has not been for quite some time.” According to a copy of the plea agreement obtained by The Washington Post, Jezierski participated in the scheme for about 10 months, culminating in a set of indictments in September 2018. The three men are accused in court papers of duping more than 400 investors with “an elaborate web of lies” to give the impression that they were running a successful investment operation profiting from student and consumer debt. In reality, prosecutors say, the men fraudulently diverted investors’ money to maintain a criminal operation in which funds were cycled from one investor to the next. The trio offered investors the chance to profit from consumer debt portfolios ― in this case car, student loan and credit card debts that people have defaulted on, with assets that could be eligible for seizure. Prosecutors alleged the defendants were diverting the payments they received for those investments into their own pockets and to pay off earlier investors. They say investors were cheated out of more than $360 million. Arnoldo Lacayo , a partner at the firm Sequor Law who specializes in financial fraud, said the idea of so-called “fake debt” is a common thread in Ponzi schemes, which leverage a real or perceived economic crisis to lend an air of credibility to an otherwise dubious investment opportunity, he said. “A lot of Ponzi schemes will have some sort of current event that is part of what entices people to get involved,” Lacayo said. “We hear all the time about the coming calamity in student loans, about people defaulting on car loans. . . . If you’re presented an investment opportunity to get ahead of that trend, it might not sound far-fetched.” Ledford and Merrill used the proceeds of their fraud to enrich themselves and sustain lavish lifestyles, prosecutors said. According to court documents, the two men together bought more than 20 high-end automobiles, including Porsches, Ferraris and Rolls-Royces; mansions in Florida, Maryland, Texas and Las Vegas; more than $8.3 million in fancy watches, jewelry and collectibles; a boat; and an interest in a private jet. They blew $25 million gambling in casinos, according to documents. Prosecutors said Jezierski began working for Ledford as a financial data analyst at Riverwalk Financial in Texas in October 2014.They said Jezierski learned if he submitted financial statements that did not meet certain targets, Ledford would be angry. Jezierski began submitting false information and setting up fake companies, the prosecutor said, to satisfy Ledford and defraud investors. “Jezierski’s trend lines based on actual operations were not satisfactory to Ledford because the trend lines did not show sufficiently robust collection results,” according to the plea agreement.“Jezierski had to falsify data to create reports that matched Ledford’s directions,” the plea agreement says. Over time, Jezierski became an important participant in a scheme that predated his involvement and benefited his employers, according to the deal. Jezierski became chief operating officer in 2017 and was drawn into the scheme. According to text messages cited in court documents, Ledford at one point texted Merrill, “Cameron is working on it too. I have him with the program. He gets it.” Ledford allegedly pressed Jezierski to hide his activities, at one point telling him via text message, “Need all of this to be discreet. . . . we do not want anyone to know details,” according to the plea agreement. Jezierski responded: “I got your back. No one knows anything nor will they.” While working for Ledford, Jezierski had a salary of $80,000 but made significantly more in bonuses, the plea agreement states. Ledford had told Jezierski he would make him a millionaire before his 30th birthday and dangled the goal in front of him as the pair finalized a purported investment deal weeks before the Justice Department charged them. “Almost 30. I am confident you will reach your goal we discussed,” Ledford said in September. Jezierski had hoped to progress even further: “I have your back like always and this is just the beginning,” Jezierski told Ledford after receiving a $50,000 bonus, according to the plea agreement. The scheme was uncovered when an undercover FBI agent was offered the opportunity to invest $10 million by Merrill, the Maryland-based defendant, last summer. At a meeting in Dallas involving all three defendants, Jezierski offered the undercover FBI agent financial documents about the business that the plea agreement notes were “fraudulent.” Prosecutors say the criminal activity did not end when the three men were charged. Using coded phone calls and handwritten notes held up to the glass wall separating prisoners and visitors where he was held, Merrill told his wife to retrieve wads of cash from their white-gated waterfront mansion in Naples, Fla., which the two referred to as “the restaurant,” according to documents. Jezierski’s sentencing is Aug. 12, a month after Merrill and Ledford are scheduled to stand trial. 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..

This article examines the Isaías Brothers case as a modern prisoner exchange between Ecuador and the United States, exploring press freedom, Edward Snowden asylum politics, and campaign finance. A Twenty-First Century Prisoner Exchange: The Case of the Isaías Brothers Open Legal Insights Open September 3, 2014 1 minute read Sequor Law Two brothers from Latin America are pitting the United States and Ecuador against each other in a battle over the freedom of the press, Edward Snowden, and campaign finance rules. 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's Leyza B. Florin and Raul Torrao explain UNCITRAL's 2019 Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and its implications for cross-border insolvency proceedings. Asset recovery column: The mechanics of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency Open Legal Insights Open December 4, 2019 8 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Raul Torrao in Miami discuss the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)’s newly approved Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. Purpose The model law, approved in July 2019, is a new legal framework designed to address domestic and cross-border insolvency cases involving multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group. Though it provides innovative tools to address the specific needs of proceedings involving enterprise groups, its practical use will be revealed throughout the next years by its implementation and actual application by the courts of states that adopt the model law. UNCITRAL developed the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency to fill a void left by the 1997 Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, with respect to the administration of multiple insolvency proceedings affecting different members of an enterprise group located in multiple jurisdictions. Indeed, in today’s global economy, the operations of the members of some enterprise groups are so interconnected and span so many jurisdictions that the group can only be appropriately reorganized or liquidated if there is a plan that embraces the whole group – or at least the part of the group that is affected by the insolvency proceedings. Both model laws provide for the cooperation of courts presiding over cross-border insolvency cases, although each applies in a different context. The Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency focuses on single debtor insolvency proceedings, while the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is designed to address the specific needs of insolvency proceedings that involve multiple debtors that are members of the same enterprise group in different jurisdictions. Concepts To address such specific needs, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency provides directives on coordination and cooperation between courts and among insolvency representatives, development of a group insolvency solution for the whole enterprise group or part of it in a single planning proceeding, the appointment of a single representative to coordinate the development of a group insolvency solution and voluntary participation of enterprise group members in the planning proceeding regardless of whether they are affected by the insolvency of part of the enterprise group. It also includes directives on access by foreign courts and insolvency representatives to the planning proceeding, cross-border recognition of foreign planning proceedings, and measures to minimize the commencement of non-main and main proceedings through the equal treatment of claims in a foreign main proceeding in an adopting jurisdiction. The Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency uses some nomenclature and definitions from the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such as what is a main proceeding, a non-main proceeding, and the center of main interest (COMI) of a debtor. In addition, the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency contains several articles similar to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, especially in the chapters regarding the cooperation and coordination between courts and among insolvency representatives and in the chapters that provide for the recognition of a foreign proceeding. Among the new concepts introduced by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, the “group insolvency solution” is one of the most relevant ones. Article 2(f) of the model law broadly defines a group insolvency solution as “a proposal or set of proposals developed in a planning proceeding for the reorganization, sale or liquidation of some or all of the assets and operations of one or more enterprise group members, with the goal of protecting, preserving, realizing or enhancing the overall combined value of those enterprise group members.” The draft guide of enactment of the model law clarifies that the term is intended to be a flexible concept, that can be tailored to address the specific circumstances of the enterprise group, such as its structure, business model, degree and type of integration between enterprise group members and other factors. The group insolvency solution is developed in a “planning proceeding,” which is an insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to an enterprise group member that meets certain criteria. It must be a main proceeding taking place in the jurisdiction where an enterprise group member debtor has the COMI, in which the enterprise group member likely is a necessary and integral participant of the solution (although the concept is still undefined). It must include the voluntary participation of enterprise group members for the development of a group insolvency solution (although they may opt-out at any point), and include the appointment of a group representative, which may be the same person as the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding or a different person. Once a planning proceeding is established, the group representative may seek relief from the court that is either needed to preserve the possibility of developing or implementing a group insolvency solution, or to protect, preserve, realize, or enhance the value of assets of an enterprise group member subject to or participating in a planning proceeding or the interests of the creditors of such enterprise group member. Relief The model law provides for a non-exhaustive list of reliefs that are typically granted in insolvency proceedings. This includes empowering the group representative to seek recognition of the planning proceeding in other jurisdictions and seek any relief available to support the development and implementation of a group insolvency solution, as well as seek to participate in foreign proceedings relating to an enterprise group member regardless of whether the latter is participating in the planning proceeding. Despite the model law’s aim to centralize an enterprise group’s insolvency proceeding, nothing in the model law prevents more than one planning proceeding from being established. Obviously, the immoderate commencement of multiple planning proceedings would destroy the purpose of having a centralized proceeding where all parties can meet and develop a group insolvency solution. However, the special circumstances driven by the way enterprise groups are structured might justify the exceptional establishment of more than one planning proceeding to obtain the proper insolvency solution for the group. To aid its goal of centralizing and streamlining insolvency proceedings of members of an enterprise group, the model law also provides a mechanism to minimize the commencement of non-main proceedings in other jurisdictions. A creditor of any enterprise group member may choose to bring its claim directly in the main proceeding commenced in a jurisdiction that adopted the model law. The claim will be treated in the main proceeding in accordance with the treatment it would be accorded in its original jurisdiction; that is, the foreign claim will receive the same distribution and priority rights in the main proceeding as it would receive in its original jurisdiction. To accomplish such treatment of claims, the claim treatment must: be presented by the insolvency representative appointed in the main proceeding – or jointly by the insolvency representative and the group representative; meet any additional formal requirements established by the jurisdiction of the main proceeding; and be approved by the court of the main proceeding. Once the claim treatment is approved, it is enforceable and binding on the insolvency estate of the main proceeding, this way protecting the creditor of the foreign claim. In addition to the above-described mechanism, the model law allows the court of the foreign forum where the creditor could have brought the aforementioned foreign claim to approve the treatment accorded in the main proceeding and to stay any non-main proceedings already commenced or to decline the commencement of new non-main proceedings. The effect of this implementation is that creditors of similar foreign claims may only file such foreign claims before the court of the main proceeding. This measure is not mandatory and it is the option of the court of the original jurisdiction of the foreign claim to use such tool. The model law also provides for this undertaking on the treatment of foreign claims and the possibility of the court to stay or decline to commence a new insolvency proceeding also in relation to a main proceeding. In other words, creditors of a claim that may be brought in a main proceeding in one jurisdiction also have the option to file the claim in another main proceeding affecting one of the enterprise group members in another jurisdiction that adopted the model law, and courts of the first jurisdiction may approve the undertaking on the treatment of that claim and stay or decline to commence a main proceeding. This measure is counterintuitive and is inconsistent with the expectations of creditors, the enterprise group members, and third parties that expect that insolvency proceedings should be conducted in the jurisdiction where the COMI of the enterprise group is located. Thus, the draft guide to the enactment of the model law advises that such measure should only be taken in exceptional circumstances, specifically when the efficiency benefits largely outweigh the negative effects on the creditors’ expectations. The provisions that refer to minimizing the commencement of main proceedings are located in part B of the model law, and are available for adoption by jurisdictions that want to take this extra step on the centralization of cross-border insolvency proceedings. It is important to note that the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency is not a workaround from the formalities of the insolvency laws of the adopting jurisdiction. The fact that a planning proceeding may address the reorganization or liquidation of a participating enterprise group member does not grant unrestrictive access by creditors to the assets of that enterprise group member. Under the model law, relief in the planning proceeding may not be granted with respect to the assets of participating enterprise group members if the entity is not subject to an insolvency proceeding under the forum’s applicable laws, unless the reason that such proceeding has not commenced was for the purpose of minimizing the commencement of insolvency proceedings in accordance with the Model Law. In addition, if the participating enterprise group member has its COMI in another jurisdiction, relief will only be granted in the jurisdiction that adopted the model law if it does not interfere with the administration of insolvency proceedings taking place in other jurisdictions. Impact The framework presented by the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency not only creates new legal tools for specific insolvency cases, but also creates a new international cooperation system to enhance the insolvency proceedings of an enterprise group. Though issues regarding the jurisdiction and the power of courts may be minimized in a single-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, such issues are more prevalent when members of an enterprise group are subject to insolvency proceedings in different jurisdictions. Indeed, in a multi-debtor cross-border insolvency case under the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency, several issues regarding the jurisdictional power of the courts involved are likely to arise. This is because there are potentially multiple main proceedings, each located in a different jurisdiction, and only one – or a few – of them can be qualified as a planning proceeding for the development of a group solution, which will determinate the outcome of the insolvency proceedings. It is unclear if the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency’s cooperation system will only be useful if all jurisdictions involved have adopted its text. With regard to the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, generally only the jurisdiction of the court that is providing assistance to the foreign proceeding must have adopted it in order for that cooperation system to work. On the other hand, the cooperation between courts of different jurisdictions in a group insolvency case might not work if one of the involved jurisdictions has not adopted the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. It is possible that jurisdictions that do not adopt provisions relating to centralized planning proceedings will be reluctant to defer their jurisdiction over an insolvency proceeding involving an enterprise group member to another jurisdiction. Hopefully, jurisdictions will see the benefits of having a group insolvency solution for maintaining or adding value to the whole group, or even to the group members that are affected by the insolvency proceeding in that jurisdiction, and utilize the new tools provided by the new model law. To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Explore Sequor Law's interactive case map tracking Chapter 15 cases, Section 1782 applications, and their international connections. Filter by jurisdiction and court Interactive Case Map Click on any of the Sequor shields to view our cases across the globe. Additional cases will be added on an ongoing basis. Chapter 15 Cases Section 1782 Cases List of Chapter 15 cases below Hide Sidebar Open Sidebar Currently Showing Representative U.S. Bankruptcy Chapter 15 Cases Filter by jurisdiction Filter by court No. Case Name Represented Recognition Date Court Jurisdiction Case Number Judge 114 In re: Conexión Ganadera Ltda., et al. Alfredo Ciavattone 29/07/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Uruguay 26-17836 Scott M. Grossman 113 In re: Asociación Mutual Para Profesionales De La Fuerza E Infantes De Marina (Asomuffaa); Jorge Luis Penuela Soto; Samuel Castillo Robles; And Nayib Alberto Tapia Lian Rodolfo Andrés Yañez Otalora 24/07/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Colombia 26-18292 Robert A. Mark 112 In re: Demar Instaladora Y Constructora, S.A. De C.V. Miguel Hernandez Quezada and Amada Josefa Ferrera Gunnersan 10/06/2026 Bankr. S.D. Texas Mexico 26-90523 Christopher Lopez 111 In re: San Agustin Energy Corp. Guillermo Antonio Tamayo Sanchez 13/05/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Panama 26-14331 Corali Lopez-Castro 110 In re: RTI Limited (In Liquidation) Alan Roberts and James Pirie 10/04/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Jersey 26-11695 Erik P. Kimball 109 In re: Rental Coins Tecnologia Da Informação Ltda. Átila Sauner Posse Sociedade de Advogados 22/12/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 25-23659 Corali Lopez-Castro 108 In re: Tiner Empreendimentos e Participações S.A., et. al F. Rezende Consultoria e Administração Judicial 16/01/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 25-22720 Peter D. Russin 107 In re: Banco Master, S.A., et. al Eduardo Felix Bianchini 08/01/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 25-24568 Scott M. Grossman 106 In re: Panagiotis Stavropoulos a/k/a Peter Stavropoulos Grant Thornton Limited 07/01/2026 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Canada 25-24201 Mindy A. Mora 105 In re: Phoenix Global DMCC Ryan Jarvis and John Johnston 14/11/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 25-21716 Laurel M. Isicoff 104 In re: Phoenix Pte. Ltd Ryan Jarvis and John Johnston 14/11/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 25-21718 Laurel M. Isicoff 103 In re: Phoenix Commodities Pvt. Limited Ryan Jarvis and John Johnston 14/11/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 25-21713 Laurel M. Isicoff 102 In re: Global Fidelity Bank Global Fidelity Bank 03/06/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands 25-14799 Mindy A. Mora 101 In re: Allbank, Corp. AllBank, Corp. 12/05/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Panama 25-13609 Robert A. Mark 100 In re: Rontan Eletro Metalúrgica Ltda., And Rontan Telecom Comércio De Telecomunicações Ltda Campi Serviços Empresariais Ltda. 13/03/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 25-11421 Scott M. Grossman 99 In re: Natural Capital Ltd. Liquidators of Natural Capital Ltd. 26/02/2025 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands 25-10662 Mindy A. Mora 98 In re: Ojuolape Arcade Ltd. (In Liquidation) Jason Ainge, Paul Stanley, and Robert Armstrong 02/01/2025 Bankr. M.D. Fla. United Kingdom 24-06357 Tiffany P. Geyer 97 In re: Abayomi Adegbuyi-Jackson Jason Ainge, Paul Stanley, and Robert Armstrong 02/01/2025 Bankr. M.D. Fla. United Kingdom 24-06356 Tiffany P. Geyer 96 In re: Funmilayo Ojuolape Adegbuyi-Jackson Jason Ainge, Paul Stanley, and Robert Armstrong 02/01/2025 Bankr. M.D. Fla. United Kingdom 24-06355 Tiffany P. Geyer 95 In re: 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited Angela Barkhouse and Toni Shukla 29/03/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 24-11469 Robert A. Mark 94 In re: Platinum Global Luxury Services Limit Angela Barkhouse and Toni Shukla 29/03/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 24-11468 Robert A. Mark 93 In re: Aabar International Investments PJS Limited Angela Barkhouse and Toni Shukla 29/03/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 24-11467 Robert A. Mark 92 In re: Blackrock Commodities (Global) Limited Angela Barkhouse and Toni Shukla 29/03/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 24-11466 Robert A. Mark 91 In re: Alsen Chance Holdings Limited Angela Barkhouse and Toni Shukla 29/03/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 24-11465 Robert A. Mark 90 In re: BWA BRASIL TECNOLOGIA DIGITAL LTDA Laspro Consultores Ltda. 01/02/2024 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 23-19826 Mindy A. Mora 89 In re: ISAK HENRY GABAY Kevin John Hellard, Nicholas William Nicholson, and Prashan Patel 19/01/2024 Bankr. S.D.N.Y. United Kingdom 23-11871 Michael E. Wiles 88 In re: Gam Empreendimentos E Participações S.A., And Florida Paulista Açúcar E Etanol S.A., Nexgenesis Holdings Ltda., Gencomm Financial Services do Brasil Ltda., Gencomm Internet Services do Brasil Ltda., and Gencomm Logistics Services do Brasil Ltda. 17/01/2024 Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Brazil 23-20364 Scott M. Grossman 87 In re: AAX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED Angela Barkhouse and George Kimberley Leck 30/06/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands ,Singapore 23-14347 Peter D. Russin 86 In re: AAX ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED Angela Barkhouse and George Kimberley Leck 30/06/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands ,Singapore 23-14346 Peter D. Russin 85 In re: ATOM HOLDINGS, Angela Barkhouse and George Kimberley Leck 30/06/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands ,Singapore 23-14343 Peter D. Russin 84 In re: PJSC PLATINUM BANK Victor Volodymyrovich Novikov 05/05/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Ukraine 23-12421 Scott M. Grossman 83 Tinto Holding Ltda.: (Brazil) Brazilian Liquidators 07/04/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 23-11719 Mindy A. Mora 82 In re: Anatoly Leonidovich Motylev Kevin Hellard, Robert Starkins, and Nick Nicholson 28/03/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. United Kingdom 23-10717 Scott M. Grossman 81 In re: Mirror Trading International (PTY) LTD, Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper 20/03/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. South Africa 23-11046 Peter D. Russin 80 In re: Tonon Bioenergia S.A., Tonon Holding S.A., and Tonon Luxembourg S.A. Orlando Geraldo Pampado 06/03/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 23-10878 Erik P. Kimball 79 In re: Envestio SI OÜ Andres Hermet 02/02/2023 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Estonia 22-19961 Mindy A. Mora 78 In re: Chapeco Companhia Industrial de Alimentos S.A. Chapter 15 and S.A. Industria e Comercio Chapeco Brazilian Liquidators 28/12/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Santa Catarina (Brazil) 22-18876 Peter D. Russin 77 In re: Brazen Sky Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16802 Robert A. Mark 76 In re: Aabar Investments PJS Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16802 Robert A. Mark 75 In re: Tanore Finance Corporation BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16803 Robert A. Mark 74 In re: Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16805 Robert A. Mark 73 In re: Vasco Investment Services SA BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16808 Robert A. Mark 72 In re: Selune Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16810 Robert A. Mark 71 In re: Pacific Rim Global Growth Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16812 Robert A. Mark 70 In re: Affinity Equity International Partners Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-16815 Robert A. Mark 69 In re: Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC Cayman Joint Liquidators 05/10/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands 22-16816 Robert A. Mark 68 In re: Nexgenesis Holdings LTDA., et al Brazilian Liquidators 17/06/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 22-14043 Laurel M. Isicoff 67 In re: SRC Strategic Resources Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 19/05/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-12654 Robert A. Mark 66 In re: Bright Oriande Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 19/05/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-12655 Robert A. Mark 65 In re: SRC International (Malaysia) Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 19/05/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 22-12656 Robert A. Mark 64 In re: Dingway Investment Limited Hong Kong Joint Liquidators 02/03/2022 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Hong Kong 22-10648 Laurel M. Isicoff 63 In re: Leonardo Rozenblum Trosman and Fabian Elias Rozenblum Gorel Uruguayan Joint Liquidators 08/10/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Uruguay 21-18199 Laurel M. Isicoff 62 In re: Motociclo, S.A. Uruguayan Joint Liquidators 08/10/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Uruguay 21-18193 Laurel M. Isicoff 61 In re: Oceanroad Global Services Limited, Holdwave Trading Limited (jointly administered) UK Joint Liquidators 05/08/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. United Kingdom 21-16133 Laurel M. Isicoff 60 In re: KG Manhattan 126 Finance Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 14/07/2021 Bankr. S.D.N.Y. British Virgin Islands 21-11080 Michael E. Wiles 59 In re: Exential Investments, Inc. BVI Joint Liquidators 30/06/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 21-15203 Robert A. Mark 58 In re: FCI Markets Inc. BVI Liquidator 11/06/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 21-14743 A. Jay Cristol 57 In re: Talal Qais Abdulmunem Al Zawawi UK Joint Trustees 06/05/2021 Bankr. M.D. Fla. United Kingdom 21-01251 Lori V. Vaughan 56 In re: Performance Insurance Company SPC Cayman Islands Joint Liquidators 15/04/2021 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Cayman Islands 21-12609 A. Jay Cristol 55 In re: PJSC Bank Finance and Credit Ukrainian Foreign Representative 08/12/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Ukraine 20-22241 A. Jay Cristol 54 In re: Magazine Incorporações S.A., et al. (M. Grupo) Brazilian Judicial Administrator 08/10/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Brazil 20-19746 Laurel M. Isicoff 53 In re: Trium Bank & Trust Limited Antigua & Barbuda Receiver 02/10/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Antigua and Barbuda 20-19637 A. Jay Cristol 52 In re: Aircraft Solutions Lux V-B SARL Luxemburg Bankruptcy Administrator 20/04/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Luxembourg 20-12589 Laurel M. Isicoff 51 In re: MacDoel Investment Ltd. BVI Liquidators 21/01/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 19-26547 A. Jay Cristol 50 In re: Kildare Finance Ltd. BVI Liquidators 21/01/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 19-26545 A. Jay Cristol 49 In re: Durant International Corp. BVI Liquidators 21/01/2020 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 19-26542 A. Jay Cristol 48 In re Darren Bernard McCormick UK Joint Trustees 27/12/2019 Bankr. M.D. Fla. Newcastle Upon Tyne (UK) 19-10768 Catherine Peek McEwen 47 In re: Ji-Chuen Jason Tsai UK Trustee 16/12/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Leeds (UK) 19-25250 Robert A. Mark 46 In re: Changtel Solutions UK Limited UK Liquidator 16/12/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Leeds (UK) 19-25248 Robert A. Mark 45 In re: Brasagro Fertilizantes Minerais Ltda. and Petrocal Industria e Comercio de Cal S A Brazilian Judicial Administrator 10/12/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Mato Grosso (Brazil) 19-23832 A. Jay Cristol 44 In re: Minuano Comunicações e Produções Editorias Ltda., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 18/11/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 19-23184 Laurel M. Isicoff 43 In re: São Fernando Açúcar e Álcool Ltda., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 20/09/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 19-21256 A. Jay Cristol 42 In re: Schahin Holdings, S.A., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 21/08/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 19-19932 Robert A. Mark 41 In re: Knijnik Participações S.A., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 20/08/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 19-19817 Robert A. Mark 40 In re: Hans Werner Bachman German Insolvency Liquidator 20/08/2019 Bankr. M.D. Fla. Karlsruhe (Germany) 19-02092 Michael G. Williamson 39 In re: Smar Equipamentos Industrias, Ltda., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 28/03/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 19-12734 Robert A. Mark 38 In re: Silisten Trading Limited BVI Joint Liquidators 22/03/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 19-13723 Laurel M. Isicoff 37 In re: Marangoni Tread Latino America Industria e Comercio de Artefatos de Borracha Ltda. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 13/03/2019 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Minas Gerais (Brazil) 19-12070 Laurel M. Isicoff 36 In re: Viação Itapemirim S.A. et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 28/12/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 18-24871 Robert A. Mark 35 In re: SAM Industrias S.A., et al. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 06/12/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 18-23941 Robert A. Mark 34 In re: Privilege Wealth Management Limited Gibraltarian Joint Liquidators 09/10/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Gibraltar 18-20346 Laurel M. Isicoff 33 In re: Privilege Wealth One Limited Partnership UK Joint Liquidators 15/09/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. London (UK) 18-19845 Laurel M. Isicoff 32 In re: R.R. Donnelley Argentina, S.A. Argentine Liquidator 25/01/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Buenos Aires (Argentina) 18-10862 Robert A. Mark 31 In re: Junie Conrad Omari Bowers UK Liquidator 09/01/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. London (UK) 18-10298 Robert A. Mark 30 In re: Andrew Nathaniel Skeene UK Liquidator 09/01/2018 Bankr. S.D. Fla. London (UK) 18-10301 Robert A. Mark 29 In re: World Financial Group, Inc. (Denied) BVI Joint Liquidators 24/10/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. British Virgin Islands 17-22869 A. Jay Cristol 28 In re: Mabe Brasil Eletrodomesticos Ltda. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 29/09/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 17-21906 A. Jay Cristol 27 In re: Alberto Samuel Chang Rajii Chilean Liquidator 25/08/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Santiago (Chile) 17-20788 Laurel M. Isicoff 26 In re: GFI Consultants Limited UK Liquidator 07/08/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. London (UK) 17-20003 A. Jay Cristol 25 In re: MMX Sudeste Mineração S.A. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 12/06/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Minas Gerais (Brazil) 17-16113 Robert A. Mark 24 In re: Companhia Albertina Mercantil e Industrial; Ventura Energetica Ltda., Santuario Participacoes Ltda., and Luzeiro Agroindustrial Ltda. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 28/04/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 17-15463 Robert A. Mark 23 In re: Banca Turco Romana S.A. Romanian Judicial Administrator 06/04/2017 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Bucharest (Romania) 17-12995 A. Jay Cristol 22 In re: Onix Capital S.A. Chilean Liquidator 02/12/2016 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Santiago (Chile) 16-26082 Laurel M. Isicoff 21 In re: Cinque Terre Financial Group, Limited BVI Liquidator 27/04/2016 Bankr. S.D.N.Y. British Virgin Islands 16-11086 James L. Garrity, Jr. 20 In re: Douglas Dixon Canadian Trustee 23/03/2016 Bankr. M.D. Fla. Quebec City (Quebec) 6-02453 Caryl E. Delano 19 In re: Viação Area São Paulo S.A. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 02/07/2015 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 15-22091 Robert A. Mark 18 In re: Probank S.A., Probank Participações S.A., Via Telecom S.A., Via Participações S.A. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 23/12/2014 Bankr. S.D. Fla. Minas Gerais (Brazil) 14-37790 A. Jay Cristol 17 In re: Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 04/06/2014 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 14-22974 Laurel M. Isicoff 16 In re: Industria de Alimentos Nilza S.A. Brazilian Judicial Administrator 30/05/2014 Bankr. S.D. Fla. São Paulo (Brazil) 14-22549 Robert A. Mark 15 In re: Mark Charles Richardson UK Joint Liquidators 30/04/2014 Bankr. M.D. Fla. London (UK) 14-04875 Carle E. Delano Currently Showing Applications for Judicial Assistance Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Select jurisdiction Select court No. Case Name Foreign Jurisdiction Date Obtained Court 43 In re: Frasers Group plc United Kingdom 21/11/2023 S.D.N.Y. 42 In re: Frasers Group plc United Kingdom 20/09/2023 S.D.N.Y. 41 In re: Anatolie Stati Moldova 05/12/2022 S.D.N.Y. 40 In Re: Application Of B. High House International Pte Ltd Singapore 21/01/2022 M.D. Fla. 39 In Re Application Of Diamond Family Foundation Zurich 23/12/2022 S.D.N.Y. 38 In Re Application Of Vinmar Overseas, Ltd Indonesia 12/08/2020 S.D.N.Y. 37 In re Application of BITO Storage Solutions US, Inc. Duisburg (Germany) ,Hamburg (Germany) ,Lueneburg (Germany) 31/07/2020 S.D.N.Y. 36 In re YS GM MARFIN II LLC, et al. Malaysia ,London (UK) 07/04/2020 S.D.N.Y. 35 In re Application of Newbrook Shipping Corporation, et. al. South Africa,Nevis 27/03/2020 D. Md. 34 In Re Application of Inmobiliaria Tova, S.A. and Mini Depositos Denpar Venezuela 31/01/2020 S.D. Fla. 33 In re Application of Motransa S.A. Ecuador 21/01/2020 S.D. Fla. 32 In re Application of Nicholas James Poulton, et. al. Cayman Islands 18/12/2019 M.D. Fla. 31 In re: Mario Mena Marqua Guatemala 06/12/2019 S.D. Fla. 30 In re Application of Tianrui (International) Holding Company Limited Cayman Islands 26/11/2019 S.D.N.Y. 29 In re Application of Geribá Participações SPE-1 Ltda. Brazil 09/09/2019 S.D.N.Y. 28 In re: Maria Fernanda Rigail Pons Ecuador 13/08/2019 S.D. Fla. 27 In re Application of Vinicius Coutinho Consultoria e Perícia S/S Ltda., Judicial Administrator of the Sao Fernando Group Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil) 12/04/2019 D. Kan. 26 In re Application of Monica Maria Mellao Silveira Mello São Paulo (Brazil) 30/11/2018 S.D. Fla. 25 In re: Application of Maria Esther Tabak Argentina 31/05/2018 S.D.N.Y. 24 In re Application of William McKeeva Bush Cayman Islands 12/04/2018 S.D. Fla. 23 In re Application of Diana M. Gonzalez Venezuela 13/02/2018 S.D. Fla. 22 In re Application of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago 26/10/2017 S.D. Fla. 21 In re Application of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago 28/09/2017 S.D.N.Y. 20 In re Application of Cozumel Caribe S.A. de C.V. Mexico 12/06/2017 D. Minn. 19 In re Application of GD Holdings, et al. Guatemala 20/12/2016 S.D. Fla. 18 In re Application of Albert John Martin Abela, et al. United Kingdom 29/09/2016 S.D.N.Y. 17 In re Application of Mohammad Awar Fared Al-Saleh United Kingdom ,Bahamas ,Switzerland ,Jordan ,Dominican Republic 11/12/2015 N.D. Tex. 16 In re Application of Andrea A. Abrams Venezuela 10/09/2015 S.D. Fla. 15 In re Application of Clarice Oliveira Tavares Argentina 10/07/2015 S.D. Fla. 14 In re Application of Kenichi Machida Japan 30/04/2015 S.D. Fla. 13 In re Application of Lisa Armoyan Canada ,Other Jurisdictions 16/04/2015 S.D.N.Y. 12 In re Application of Novoship UK Limited, et al. United Kingdom ,Switzerland 19/03/2015 S.D.N.Y. 11 In re Application of Mohammad Awar Fared Al-Saleh Canada ,United Kingdom ,Jordan ,The Bahamas,Dominican Republic 03/03/2015 S.D.N.Y. 10 In re Application of Ana Lucia Pedriali Nobrega Brazil 01/08/2013 S.D. Fla. 9 In re Application of Sendas Comercio Exterior, S.A. Brazil 30/05/2013 S.D. Fla. 8 In re Application of Sociedad Militar Seguro de Vida Curacao 26/03/2013 N.D. Ga. 7 In re Application of Alfredo Carlos Pott Argentina 04/03/2013 S.D. Fla. 6 In re Application of Jurema Dimas de Melo Pimenta Brazil 08/11/2012 S.D. Fla. 5 In re Application of Innovative Group Capital Corp. S.A Mexico 11/10/2011 S.D. Tex. 4 In re Aplication of Petroforte Brasileiro de Petróleo Ltda. Brazil 05/11/2010 S.D. Fla. 3 In re Application of Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. Guayaquil (Ecuador) 27/07/2010 S.D. Fla. 2 In re Application of DVLP LLC, et. al. Anguilla (UK) 28/06/2010 M.D. Fla. 1 OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp Stockholm (Sweden) 27/08/2009 D. Conn.

Sequor Law's Edward H. Davis Jr. and Cristina Vicens Beard discuss COVID-19-related fraud risks and litigation support strategies, featured in Chambers 2020 Litigation Support Guide. Chambers 2020 Litigation Support Guide Open Legal Insights Open September 22, 2020 10 minutes read Sequor Law Recovering our greatest asset: our creativity! by Edward H. Davis, Jr. and Cristina Vicens Beard Although the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic continues to cause major disruptions and volatility in global markets, economies, and businesses, at least one group of individuals carries on undeterred: fraudsters, con artists, Ponzi schemers, and their ilk. Indeed, these bad actors are exploiting ever-increasing opportunities at a time when millions of people are seeking unemployment benefits, awaiting government financial aid, and desperately seeking to adapt or reinvent themselves in the face of this quickly evolving landscape. When the 2008 financial crisis exploded, it helped expose some of the largest and most infamous fraud schemes in world history, to wit: Madoff and Stanford. Now, as the tide precipitously recedes, many are predicting that it is a pre-cursor to a tsunami of newly discovered frauds, which will allow even more illicit conduct in the aftermath of this tragedy. While this means that asset recovery practitioners are likely to benefit from an influx of business due to newly dis-covered fraudulent schemes and an increase in related reorganization and liquidation proceedings, these new matters will not come without their challenges. This article seeks to provide an overview of the developments, hurdles, and trends in asset tracing and recovery in light of the coronavirus. This comes with a warning, however: as our current situation is so unprecedented and dynamic, it seems inevitable that any attempt to make predictions and identify trends carries with it the simultaneous risk of overstatement and understatement. On the one hand, when one is in the middle of a storm—regardless of its size—it is difficult for one to calculate the magnitude of the storm without a point of reference, or without being able to see the edges of the storm. As well, many of us want to understate the enormity of the changes we are facing as a coping mechanism—that is well within the range of normal human reactions to a crisis—but it should be consciously discount-ed as we attempt to make credible predictions and identify enduring trends. What is unique about this situation is that it is global and, even if you live in an area that is relatively untouched, it affects you due to travel, economic, and social restrictions that did not exist a few short months ago. Cross-border asset recovery practitioners are usually called to arms when (i) there is a high-value fraud or claim where the proceeds of the fraud may be on the move, and which claim has likely not yet resulted in a judgment or arbitral award (although the issues are just as alive in a post-judgment or post-award setting), (ii) the fraudster (or debtor) or its affiliates have an international footprint, but their assets do not appear to be readily collectible where the fraud was committed and/or where the judgment or award would be rendered, and (iii) there is a concern that the debtor will not have sufficient (or any) assets to satisfy the judgment or award, either in the situs of the fraud or in other jurisdictions where the proceeds may have been secreted. In other instances, cross-border asset recovery practitioners may get involved when (i) a foreign company or individual has entered reorganization or liquidation proceedings, (ii) the debtor’s insolvency was a result of a fraudulent scheme (i.e. corruption, embezzlement, or Ponzi schemes), and (iii) the debtor has assets (including third-party liability claims) in other jurisdictions. Oftentimes, the asset recovery team gets involved before litigation is commenced, or while litigation (sometimes horribly misguided litigation) is ongoing to ensure that, as they identify the path to victory for the victims/creditors, trial counsel also consider a viable post-judgment enforcement strategy. In reality, asset recovery practitioners – whether they be investigators, lawyers, or forensic accountants – are pathfinders, and those paths almost always take us into legal thickets that require legal, investigative, and forensic machetes. One of the first post-COVID-19 challenges we will face as asset recovery practitioners is non-existent or seriously limited personal contact with our clients, colleagues, witnesses, and the actual targets of our investigations and legal proceedings. In actual practice, asset recovery lawyers usually represent individuals or businesses that have been directly victimized by fraudsters, or court-appointed officers (such as trustees, liquidators, or judicial administrators) who are tasked with unraveling a fraud scheme and recovering value for the victims of their estates. Naturally, these clients are keen on avoiding being re-victimized by opportunistic service providers and, as a result, are more reluctant to trust, and ultimately engage, an experienced and vetted asset recovery team. In pre-COVID times, lawyers and other asset recovery professionals would travel across the globe to participate in scoping and tasking meetings with potential clients (including groups of victims, creditors’ committees, and corporate general counsel) to build relationships face to face and establish trust with the potential clients, who are already wary of having been victimized once. Being in the same room makes it easier to gauge a person’s body language, interpret social cues, and build the human capital that enables the asset recovery team to establish a trusting relationship with clients. This is just as true with witnesses, whistle-blowers, and even the suspects themselves who may feel bolder to tell half-truths, obfuscate, and outright lie as they hide behind technology and distance. Face-to-face meetings also enable the asset recovery team to more effectively “whiteboard” the case, engage in the creative brainstorming sessions, and devise a concrete action plan that will lead to meaningful value recovery for fraud victims and creditors. Today, when travel restrictions are mostly still in place and many of us are still working from home, it may be a challenge to develop a trusting relationship with the client, convey your expertise, and even land the case. Although many practitioners have embraced virtual solutions such as Zoom, WebEx, and other such technology, the reality is that nothing can truly substitute for an in-person meeting, especially when you are trying to convince a person who has been victimized by a fraudster that he or she should invest their resources and place their trust in you and your team to pursue their claim, enforce their judgment or otherwise recover the value stolen. Though asset recovery practitioners should accept, use, and master new technologies that enable them to participate in virtual meetings with potential clients, the most successful practitioners will be those who, pre-Cov-id, were able to establish and develop strong cross-border networks of experienced and resourceful asset recovery professionals, who, in turn, will be able to act as connectors and vouch for their colleagues’ reputation and expertise. For example, being a member of ICC FraudNet (recognized by Chambers as the world’s leading asset recovery legal net-work with more than 75 members in over 64 countries) has enabled the writers to quickly deploy an experienced team of financial fraud and asset recovery practitioners where the potential clients are located or, if at a later stage of the case, in almost any jurisdiction where assets may have been secreted. It is critical that the members of any such network be thoroughly vetted for their expertise and their ability to work in a team, which will lessen the need for face-to-face meetings. This aspect of Covid-19 also presents another upside. Courts are becoming more nimble and accessible as they move to technology-driven hearings and solutions. This will lessen response times, as obtaining a hearing date and coordinating schedules is less complicated when everyone’s feet are nailed to the floor. More accessible and responsive courts also mean that the cost of asset recovery will go down, as practitioners can focus more on the case and less on travel, which adds to the cost and stress of these heavily front-loaded and time-intensive cases. As well, fraudsters, Ponzi schemers, and confidence tricksters (con artists) are going to adapt, as they too will be limited in their interpersonal contacts due to the pandemic. So we should assume that more and more of this type of fraud will be internet-based, or at least rely heavily on non-personal con-tact based attempts to build affinity with their victims. This requires asset recovery practitioners to become more adept at computer-based forensics. We will also have to lead the charge to make changes to the legal environment that allows a level of anonymity on the internet, which protects, but also exposes, users. Legal regimes will have to evolve to a more balanced state that can protect privacy, but also recognize exceptions when there is sufficient cause to bring down the “wall” to retrieve evidence of fraud and corruption. Today, electronic communications are capable of being embedded with a level of confidentiality that far exceeds that which is available for the otherwise written word. The coronavirus has also impacted the gathering of intelligence and evidence. In reality, investigations have always, even in pre-COVID times, incorporated a mixture of in-person tactics and electronic data gathering techniques. The current (and future) shutdowns are less impactful when investigators are able to use sophisticated databases. Indeed, investigators continue to make use of personal, financial, real estate, and business-related databases to assess the viability of enforcement strategies. In fact, most clients are now more likely to request comprehensive preliminary asset investigations before deciding whether to commence legal proceedings against a target. After all, without a plan built around value recovery, a plan (or even a judgment for that matter) is just a piece of paper. This situation will hopefully lead to more comprehensive databases now that the economics will favor their creation and upkeep, and will force investigators to use them more creatively to look for intelligence and evidence that assists the goal of the asset recovery plan. Nevertheless, electronic research alone rarely cracks any case by itself but is most effective when combined with intelligence gathered in person, via interviews, surveillance, and conversations with industry leaders. Before, asset recovery practitioners in a cross-border fraud case would likely have had to travel to multiple countries to interview fact witnesses and experts in person. Now, with travel restrictions in place, most fact-gathering interviews have shifted almost seamlessly to virtual spaces and are progressing as strongly as before (at least with respect to non-adversarial witnesses). Surveillance, however, is trickier. Because the circumstances of the pandemic have forced many to self-isolate at home, in some respects, some targets are easy to locate and surveil. Others, after stealing millions of dollars from their victims, are able to hide behind gates, robust security systems, or in off-the-grid remote getaways. Just recently, a fugitive art dealer, who is alleged to have defrauded numerous art collectors in a form of a Ponzi scheme, was arrested on the Pacific island of Vanuatu! One has to believe that he was limited in his escape route options due to the pandemic and, once “stuck” in Vanuatu, literally had nowhere else to run. Therefore, one positive aspect may be that, with less opportunity to travel freely, many fraudsters and targets of investigations are leaving behind a discover-able digital footprint that will later assist the investigators and asset recovery teams in their enforcement and recovery efforts, as well as to locate the fraudster. T he process of gathering evidence, as opposed to intelligence, is also going to have to be streamlined to allow the leveling of the playing field between victim and fraudster. Typically, victims are disadvantaged by a monstrous information deficit. The fraudster knows exactly what happened and where everything (including the evidence) is located. On the other hand, the victims feel as if they have been run over by a truck and then thrown into a dark room, and have first to find the light switch before they can even begin to “get the license plate” of that truck! That has to change, and courts and governments are going to have to lower the bar to obtain information once the appropriate showing is made of the victim’s status and injuries. One example of how evidence gathering has been stream-lined in the United States to assist offshore litigation (this is especially true in asset recovery cases) involves the device colloquially referred to as “Section 1782,” which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Section 1782 allows interested parties to request judicial assistance from US federal courts to obtain US-style discovery for use in foreign proceedings. As well, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”), as codified in Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code, is another powerful tool for use by victims and of-fice holders who are representing them. The Model Law is very useful in all jurisdictions in which it has been adopted and fully enacted—not just the United States. Among other things, Chapter 15 allows a foreign liquidator or trustee to seek recognition as such in the United States, which enables the liquidator to realize and administer the debtor’s assets in the United States and to take broad discovery relating to the debtor. Both of these devices allow victims and officeholders to obtain documentary and testimonial evidence in furtherance of their asset tracking and recovery efforts and, sometimes, those efforts can be sealed and gagged when circumstances permit, to allow stealthy stalking of the fraudster and the proceeds of the fraud. Asset recovery law-yers are still regularly deploying these evidence-gathering tools, and the effectiveness of those tools has not been diminished by the consequences of the pandemic. To the contrary, because most civil courts have closed for in-person business, judges are deciding Section 1782 and Chapter 15 petitions “on the papers,” and hearings, if and when necessary, are conducted virtually, which translates into reduced fees and costs for the clients as well as demonstrably faster action. Subsequently, when courts authorize the issuance of subpoenas, third-party witnesses, such as banks and other professional associations, have put in place systems to receive alternative service (via mail, for example), which further streamlines the discovery process. In the short term, courts have been able to adapt and continue delivering justice to their constituencies, but the physical closure of courts for most in-person business also presents obstacles, particularly when it comes to enforcement of domestic or international orders or judgments. For example, except in criminal cases, most state authorities and the US Marshal’s office stopped carrying out seizure orders and, when they start reopening, they expect to have large backlogs. This may present serious difficulties in cases where urgent relief is needed because there is evidence of the dissipation of assets or other circumstances. On the other hand, a slow-down of the courts’ docket may be the perfect opportunity for savvy asset recovery practitioners to take a step back, reassess the objectives, identify new opportunities and targets, and collaborate with investigators, forensic accountants, insolvency practitioners, and others to achieve a full recovery for their clients. Although uncertainty abounds in the era of the coronavirus, at least one thing is clear: lawyers, forensic accountants, investigators, litigation funders, insolvency practitioners, and other professionals in the asset tracing and recovery field are more likely to achieve substantial recoveries for their clients when they have access to a robust cadre of cross-border professionals and when they (and their clients) are willing to employ tremendous creativity, flexibility, and relentless resolve. While the coronavirus pandemic looks like it is here to stay, and will have an impact on all of our personal and professional lives, we can find solutions, collectively, to limit how fraudsters benefit from the current circumstances, and we can develop new tools to make recoveries more attainable if we creatively apply ourselves as a unified community with an open-minded exchange of ideas. 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 and Christopher Noel analyze how US courts are adopting the Judicial Insolvency Network's framework for cross-border coordination in international insolvency matters. Asset recovery column: Globalisation catches up with the US insolvency courts Open Legal Insights Open September 17, 2019 5 minutes read Sequor Law Shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Christopher Noel from Sequor Law in Miami discuss recent developments in coordination and communication between courts handling cross-border insolvencies. In today’s ever-globalized world, courts are progressively recognizing the need for cross-border coordination and cooperation when dealing with insolvency matters. Earlier this summer, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adopted the Judicial Insolvency Network’s (JIN) Modalities of Court-to-Court Communication (the Modalities ). The Delaware court’s adoption of the Modalities followed its February 2017 promulgation of Part X: Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (the Guidelines ). The Guidelines and Modalities represent an unprecedented attempt at creating a unified framework for coordination and cooperation, and in some cases, joint hearings. In the past, coordination and cooperation among US bankruptcy judges and courts abroad was based on section 1525 of the US Bankruptcy Code (Cooperation and direct communication between the court and foreign courts or foreign representatives), and it was accomplished on an basis, which was ultimately left up to the specific judges handling the cross-border insolvency matter. This article examines the lead-up to the District of Delaware’s adoption of the Modalities, the Modalities’ goals in facilitating cross-border communication in insolvency matters, and forecasts the implications of the Modalities upon – and assuming – their addition to the District of Delaware Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure. The beginnings of global cooperation The District of Delaware and the Supreme Court of Singapore announced the formal implementation of the Guidelines on 1 February 2017. The Guidelines are the result of work by judges around the world – judges in Australia, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, England and Wales, Singapore, and the United States all contributed to their development beginning at the 2016 JIN meeting in Singapore. To date, they have been adopted by some of the busiest bankruptcy and insolvency tribunals around the world (see list at foot of article). The goal of adopting the Guidelines was “to improve in the interests of all stakeholders the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border proceedings relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt opened in more than one jurisdiction by enhancing coordination and cooperation amongst courts”. Ultimately, the Guidelines are meant to benefit all stakeholders in cross-border insolvencies, by improving efficiency in the insolvency process and reducing litigation costs. The Guidelines comprise an introduction setting forth objectives, 14 enumerated guidelines providing guidance on protocols, and an appendix addressing joint hearings. Delaware moves the ball On 25 July 2019, the JIN announced its adoption of the Modalities. On the same day, Judge Christopher Sontchi , chief judge of the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, entered an order adopting the Modalities on an interim basis, pending the District Court’s annual review of its Local Rules. This means the District of Delaware will now follow the Modalities when dealing with cross-border insolvency matters, even before they are formally adopted into the Local Rules. The Modalities include guidance concerning the designation of a so-called facilitator, the initiation of communications between judges, arrangements for those communications, and the actual communications between judges. Each of these areas of guidance will be discussed below. Laying the groundwork The Modalities apply to all direct communications between courts in cross-border insolvency proceedings. They also govern the mechanics of communication between courts in parallel proceedings, such as a Chapter 15 proceeding in the US where there is a simultaneous foreign main proceeding abroad. In general, the Modalities anticipate that a judge in a matter with cross-border elements (the initiating judge) will attempt to communicate with other judges and courts considering the same insolvency matter (the receiving judge). To accomplish this objective, courts are now requested to publish information regarding facilitators so that there is a clear line of communication. Among the information in the facilitator, publication will be the facilitator’s identity (the District of Delaware has identified its clerk of court to act in this role) and the language for the initial communication, as well as what technology is available to facilitate communication. This basic information was not necessarily easily obtained in the past, and a clear designation of with whom to communicate and how those communications should be made, will alone facilitate greater coordination and cooperation among those involved in cross-border insolvencies. Saying hello Once the groundwork for communication is established, and there is a clear line of communication with a court’s facilitator, the judges involved in parallel cross-border insolvency proceedings should exchange relevant information to keep the line of communication open. The initiating judge should provide basic information to the receiving judge, such as the facilitator’s contact information, the initiating judge’s contact information, information concerning the matter before the initiating judge, the nature of the matter, whether the parties before the initiating judge have consented to the communication, and the specific issues upon which communication is sought. Once this initial communication is accomplished, then the facilitator should step in and assist with coordinating between the initiating and the receiving judges. Setting a date After a line of communication is open, the initiating and receiving judges’ facilitators are free to communicate and arrange for the two judges to speak, with or without the presence of counsel or the parties. The initiating and receiving judges have great leeway in how communication is made, and the Modalities provide only that the two judges should be satisfied with the arrangements, including appropriate translation services and protocols to communicate confidential information via a secure method. The first meeting and ongoing discussions. After the necessary protocols are in place, the Modalities suggest that the initiating and receiving judges communicate in accordance with the Guidelines. Additionally, the Modalities provide that, should the two judges so wish, they may discontinue the use of their respective facilitators to allow for an efficient line of direct communication. This may also be done without the presence of counsel or the parties. Ultimately, the Modalities’ goal is to allow easy, efficient, and productive communication between the initiating and receiving judges so as to improve efficiency. A globalized world Now that the District of Delaware has, at least initially, adopted the Modalities, it is foreseeable that other US Bankruptcy courts will follow suit. The number of cross-border insolvency proceedings that could (and will) benefit from increased coordination and cooperation across borders is ever growing. All parties – creditors, debtors, bankruptcy estates, and insolvency tribunals – stand to benefit from the Modalities when handling cross-border insolvencies. Moving forward, the potential impact on cross-border insolvency practice is great. Both insolvency courts and practitioners alike will need to work together to implement the Modalities and Guidelines so that all involved are familiar and comfortable working with this new framework. Additionally, through ongoing efforts, cross-border insolvency matters should become more streamlined and efficient. The free flow of information will take much of the uncertainty out of cross-border situations where multiple parallel proceedings are involved. In sum, the Modalities and Guidelines now facilitate the insolvency practice’s ongoing evolution in an ever-more-globalised world. Courts Adopting the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware The Supreme Court of Singapore The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York The Supreme Court of Bermuda The Chancery Division of England & Wales The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court The Supreme Court of New South Wales The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida The Seoul Bankruptcy Court The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands The Commercial List Users’ Committee of the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario (Commercial List) The District Court Midden-Nederland, in the Netherlands To view the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight 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..

Celebrating Bob Lindquist's 50-year career in forensic financial investigations. Sequor Law's Director of Forensics reflects on his storied journey from auditor to leading fraud investigator. Director of Forensics Bob Lindquist Celebrates 50-Year Career Milestone Open Firm News Open January 18, 2023 4 minutes read Sequor Law As we join Bob Lindquist in celebrating his 50 years in forensic financial investigations, let’s take a look back at his illustrious and storied career. It is one that has been filled with great successes, rewarding experiences and lessons learned along the way. It Started with a Challenge In January 1972, an audit partner at what is now Deloitte challenged Bob to decide whether he wanted to drive rally cars or be a professional auditor. Fun fact: he had won the Ontario Rally Championship the year before! Fast forward to February 1972, and Bob joined their insolvency group with the task to proof-read their draft report on the collapse of a mob-styled bank in Toronto that had captured the public’s attention. Bob was struck with its intrigue even though at the time he had no idea that financial investigations would become his career and forensic accounting, his profession. Read more here . In the early 1970’s, all auditors were auditing, and this allowed Bob to learn from both his good and bad experiences, especially the process of surviving cross-examination. Working with the prosecution taught him how to conduct an investigation and an interview, as well as how to write unbiased memos and reports. Most importantly, Bob learned the key element to any investigation: how to use discernment to find the truth. Lessons Learned and Advice for the Next Generation Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil et al vs. U.S. Fidelity et al, 2000 – Ipanema Beach beckons, but you must dig until all is found out. Regina vs. Steele/Waddilove, 1976 – Be selective and do not become personally involved with a client’s case. Regina vs. Parks, 1974 – Avoid the use of any descriptive words and to state specifically only the information on the face of the documents. Why? Descriptive words are subjective and reflect bias, the number one enemy for an expert witness. IBM, Poughkeepsie, New York, Roger was Too Busy to Chat, 1993 – There are several issues to be addressed by the forensic accountant in a live internal investigation: ‘purity of the company,’ the ‘con versus con’ interview approach, a belief that the human element is at least as important as the accounting for numbers and most importantly among the employees, the forensic accountant must establish credibility otherwise voluntary information may not be forthcoming. London Life and The Anonymous Letter, 1986 – The forensic accountant has a crucial obligation to maintain the purity of a corporation or any operating division while conducting an investigation. It is imperative to limit the number of people who need to know the allegations. The forensic accountant must probe carefully and create the basis in a timely manner for an eventual meeting with the person who is the subject of the allegations. The time frame for the initial assessment is usually measured in days. Cases that Left an Impact One of Bob’s most complex cases involved Dormant Bank Accounts of Victims of the Holocaust, Switzerland , a search for the assets for the victims of the Holocaust in 1996-1998. For the forensic accountant, the human element is at least as important as the accounting for numbers. In this case of such historical tragedy, the human element could never (and we hope) ever be as significant. For Bob, a unique time (1½ years based in Basel) forever remembered, particularly brought home when you interview former management now in their eighties to experience their emotional recollection of the Holocaust. Another case that was perhaps Bob’s most frustrating was Government of Romania vs. former President Nicolai Ceausescu in 1990. He was hired to assist the new government through the Minister of Justice to find the assets of Ceausescu following the summary trial and swift execution of Nicolai Ceausescu and his wife, Elena. Assets were located in Cyprus but despite the promise of the Minister of Justice, the government never commenced legal proceedings as they walked into the shoes of Ceausescu. A Sample of 50 Years Worth of Career Highlights Supreme Court of Ontario and Case Precedent In January 1974, the Park’s case gave Bob the opportunity to sit with Crown Counsel Rod McLeod at the table through a jury trial. The presiding Judge Garth Moore ruled the accounting schedules admissible given what he described as the “veritable blizzard of documents”. As a result of this case ruling and others, in May 1978, the precedent for the admissibility of accounting schedules was recognized by the Supreme Court of Ontario based solely upon Bob’s cases. International Investigations that Result in Financial Recovery Bob enjoys the cultural challenge of international financial investigations. He has conducted many high profile investigations on behalf of corporations and governments in the United States, Antigua, Austria, Brazil, BVI, Canada, Chile, Grenada, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jersey, Netherlands, Malawi, Trinidad, Romania, St. Lucia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Government of Trinidad vs. Minister Johnny O Halloran, Mr. 10% – In the fall of 1988, Bob met Attorney General Selwyn Richardson in Port-of-Spain to determine if there was any merit to support the numerous allegations of bribery. This was the first time that a foreign country had successfully sued a U.S. company for bribery and made a recovery of US$7 million. Government of Antigua vs. Lester Bird et al in the ‘IHI’ Matter – In May 2004, the Attorney General retained Bob to investigate allegations of corruption regarding the former Bird government. In February 2009, the Attorney General issued a statement advising of the recovery of U.S. $12 million from the Rappaport family in Switzerland. Lisa Armoyan, Petitioner/Wife and Vrege Armoyan, Respondent/Husband – Bob conducted a search for the assets of the husband subsequent to the “Armoyan Final Judgment” that was in the amount of some $18 million. The asset search investigation delved into public and private companies of an international nature covering several years and resulted in a recovery of $13 million. Sequor Law is proud to have supported Bob throughout his career and we look forward to seeing all that he continues to accomplish and teach others. If you’d like to learn even more about Bob, visit his bio on our website here . Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

Sequor Law's Leyza B. Florin and Daniel Coyle analyze the emerging minority view on delivering subpoenas under FRCP Rule 45(b)(1) and its impact on cross-border asset recovery. Asset recovery column: emerging minority view on delivery of subpoenas under FRCP 45 Open Legal Insights Open March 25, 2020 5 minutes read Sequor Law Sequor Law shareholder Leyza B. Florin and attorney Daniel Coyle in Miami discuss the emerging trend in US federal and bankruptcy courts regarding service of subpoenas under rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The language of rule 45(b) establishes the method for serving a subpoena upon the subpoena target. Previously, despite differences in the text between rule 45(b) and rule 4, governing service of original process, courts required subpoenas to be served on the subpoena target exclusively by hand delivery under the methods specified in rule 4. However, rule 45(b) jurisprudence is evolving to a more liberal standard that is both more in line with the text of rule 45(b) and more advantageous to the asset recovery practitioner, and client, seeking third-party discovery – especially from discovery targets in cross-border cases who maintain multiple residences or a more transient presence in the United States. Service of a subpoena versus service of process— what is the difference and why is there a difference? First and foremost, service of a subpoena under rule 45 is accomplished by “delivery”, and specifically, “delivering a copy [of the subpoena] to the named person”. Juxtapose this language with the text of rule 4, specifically subsections “e” and “f” specifying the method for service of process of natural persons, which is also applicable for service of process of artificial persons, in and outside of the US and it is clear that the standards are notably different. Noticeably absent from the text of rule 45 are the words “personally”; “hand” delivery; or “abode” service. References to rule 4, and state rules of service of process are also missing. Thus, based upon a plain meaning of the rules, the method of service of a subpoena is not the same as service of process. In the bankruptcy context, construing rule 45 to require personal service or even abode service of a subpoena leads to an even more bizarre result since, under rule 7004(b), service of process of an adversary proceeding may be validly accomplished by first class mail. The distinction between the method of service of a subpoena and service of process was crucial to Judge A. Jay Cristol’s reasoned opinion in the 2008 case of Falcon is not the only case to analyze the distinctions between rule 45(b) and rule (4), but it provides an insightful exposition of several cases from various courts as well as an insightful analysis of the language of both rules to explain why the method of accomplishing service under each rule is different. Judge Cristol analysed several judicial decisions from both inside and outside Florida, each of which determined that the service of a subpoena upon the recipient by a means other than personal service was valid. Moving to a statutory construction analysis, Judge Cristol determined that the term “delivering” was ambiguous and should be considered in the context of other parts of rule 45, “as well as other federal rules.” Judge Cristol stated that a reading of rule 45(b)(1) as requiring the subpoena to be personally served, would render the language of rule 45(b)(4) regarding the “manner of service”, and the language of rule 4(e)(2)(A) and 4(f)(2)(C)(i) requiring the process be delivered “personally”, as “superfluous” and “pure surplusage.” Construing rule 45(b) to require personal service would thus run afoul of the Surplusage Canon (). Dubbing this approach the “better-reasoned, modern, emerging minority position,” Judge Cristol applied it to the facts of the case before him. Other factors are also germane to determining that service is valid. The public policy underlying the service requirement is ensuring the receipt of the subpoena so that the subpoena target has notice of both the subpoena, and what is required/requested from the subpoena target. Thus, the purpose of the service requirement is actual receipt, which the courts accord significant weight to. Courts also focus on equitable considerations when determining validity, such as attempts by subpoena targets to subvert the purpose of the rules by hyper-technically construing them as an artifice to evade service. For instance, in the 2000 case of , the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found rule 45 allows for service of a subpoena by certified mail on a deponent who rebuffed attempts at personal service and whose doorman restricted a process server’s access to a deponent’s apartment. What is “delivery” and what constitutes “delivery” under the emerging minority position? Delivery under this approach was defined in as serving the subpoena in a manner that reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness. Some courts, adopting the emerging minority position, have fleshed out this standard by providing that service may be accomplished by mailing the subpoena to the subpoena target’s known address in the US or abroad. Other courts have established that sending the subpoena by common carrier is sufficient. In the case, the court determined that substitute service on another member of the household constitutes valid service, even though the subpoena target did not reside at the address where the subpoena was delivered. At least one court has ruled that delivering the subpoena to the subpoena target’s agent is sufficient, and other courts have upheld service on domestic workers. Indeed, in a recent ruling in the case of in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Robert Mark held that service of the subpoena by delivering it to a non-resident domestic worker at the address where the subpoena target’s family lived was sufficient. The emerging minority position should continue to gain adherents and traction The so-called emerging minority position is consistent with the text of rule 45(b) and consistent with the canons of statutory construction. It is also consistent with the policy aims of the service rule: ensuring actual receipt. The emerging minority position also establishes a more liberal standard that serves another laudable public policy goal: easing the discovery of information that will increase the likelihood of recovering assets while simultaneously discouraging the corruption of the rules of civil procedure by swindlers as a ruse to avoid valid service and valid discovery. The advantage of this more liberal standard for the asset-recovery attorney seeking discovery from discovery-targets in cross-border cases is clear. A lower threshold for effecting service eases the burden of attempting to serve discovery-targets who maintain a presence both inside and outside of the United States and lowers the likelihood of having to pursue discovery in foreign jurisdictions under the slow and cumbersome procedures of the Hague Convention or through a letter rogatory in a non-member state. References Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 45(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 4 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 celebrates National Pet Day by making a charitable donation to PAWS4you Rescue, a Miami nonprofit dedicated to saving abandoned animals across South Florida. Sequor Law Celebrates National Pet Day with Donation to PAWS4you Rescue Open Firm News Open April 9, 2025 2 minutes read Sequor Law Miami, Florida— In honor of National Pet Day, Sequor Law has made a charitable contribution to PAWS4you Rescue, a Miami-based nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the lives of abandoned and at-risk animals across South Florida. Founded in 2007, PAWS4you provides critical medical care, shelter, and adoption services to dogs in need. The organization relies on community support to carry out its mission of rescue, rehabilitation, and responsible pet ownership. “At Sequor Law, we believe pets are more than companions—they’re family. We’re proud to support PAWS4you’s tireless efforts to rescue and rehome animals in our community,” said Gregory S. Grossman, Founding Shareholder, Sequor Law. Mirta Segredo, Community Outreach Director at PAWS4you, expressed her appreciation: “We depend on the generosity of our donors to continue our mission. This donation from Sequor Law will help us save more lives.” This initiative is part of Sequor Law’s broader commitment to community engagement and philanthropy. The firm invites others to celebrate National Pet Day by adopting, donating, or volunteering. To learn more about PAWS4you or to get involved, visit www.paws4you.org . For a behind-the-scenes look at the furry friends who inspire us daily, visit our Pets of Sequor Law page, https://www.sequorlaw.com/pets . *** Sequor Law is an international law firm focusing on representing victims of financial fraud, including sovereign governments and state-owned enterprises, public and non-public companies, insolvency practitioners, and all manner of clients in the areas of asset recovery, financial fraud, cross-border insolvency, and international litigation and arbitration. www.sequorlaw.com . *** PAWS4you Rescue, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit, volunteer and donor-subsidized animal rescue organization based in Miami, Florida. Founded in 2007, we are a 100% no-kill shelter serving the community by rescuing abandoned and neglected animals, nurturing these animals back to health through love and state-of-the art care, and promoting healthy and enriching relationships between pet owners and their pets. PAWS4you visualizes a world where pets are safe from the threat of euthanasia and live fully in the comfort of loving homes, enhancing the lives of those around them. www.paws4you.org Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

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

Sequor Law's Nyana Abreu Miller and Raul Torrao analyze Brazil's landmark bankruptcy reform implementing UNCITRAL's Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and its impact on distressed companies. Cross-Border Insolvency In Brazil: The UNCITRAL Model Law Dances to A Samba Beat Open Legal Insights Open June 15, 2021 13 minutes read Sequor Law By Nyana Abreu Miller and Raul Torrao After years of debate, Brazil recently enacted legislation amending its bankruptcy statute and modernizing the Brazilian insolvency system. The new legislation provides new domestic tools to rescue distressed companies from disaster, including rules that enable DIP financing and allow creditors to propose a plan when the debtor’s proposal is unsatisfactory. In the cross-border insolvency area, the new law implements the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency . The basic framework of the UNCITRAL Model Law familiar to insolvency practitioners has been road-tested in 48 countries prior to Brazil’s recent legislative change. The Model Law seeks to identify the jurisdiction where the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI) is located, and deems the insolvency proceeding filed in that jurisdiction the “foreign main proceeding.” Under Brazil’s version of the Model Law, an insolvency proceeding filed in a jurisdiction other than the debtor’s COMI and where the debtor engages in non-transitory economic activities or holds property is a “foreign non-main proceeding.” The Model Law’s vision is that a troubled multi-national business will be able to break through the disparate and sometimes contradictory insolvency regimes in different nations. The Model Law promotes cooperation across borders in order to accomplish laudable objectives, such as the rescue of financially troubled businesses. Where Brazil is the debtor’s COMI, the new law is, in many ways, simply a codification of the existing practice. For many years, in cases where Brazil is the debtor’s COMI, Brazilian insolvencies have sought recognition and cooperation through ancillary proceedings abroad. A prominent example is the liquidation of the Brazilian bank Banco Santos, where the Brazilian trustee was able to recover and sell over 90 pieces of valuable artwork with the cooperation of foreign courts and use the repatriated proceeds to pay creditors. However, until now, Brazilian courts could not give reciprocal treatment to foreign main proceedings when the debtor’s COMI was outside of Brazil. Indeed, prior requests to enforce foreign bankruptcy decisions in Brazil through exequatur proceedings were rebuffed. See , e.g. , Gutmen Investiment Corp v. Manacá S A Armazens Gerais e Administração , Case No. SEC 11277 / VG, rapporteur Min. Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, Decision on request for granting exequatur to foreign judgment (Superior Tribunal of Justice Jul. 1, 2016). See also , Antônio Moraes Sarmento Patrício v. Vera Maria Brak Lamy P. Raposo Patkoczy Fonseca , Case No. SEC 1.734/PT, rapporteur Min. Fernando Gonçalves, Decision on request for granting exequatur to foreign judgment (Superior Tribunal of Justice Feb. 16, 2011). Under the new law, Brazil embraces the Model Law’s modified universalism and provides its courts with the basis to recognize and provide assistance to both main and non-main foreign proceedings. In some respects, the new Brazilian legislation deviates from the suggested wording in the Model Law in order to emphasize the broad cooperation available. Opening the Gate: The Request for Recognition To access comity and cooperation from a Brazilian court, the representative of the foreign insolvency proceeding (foreign representative) must pass through the gateway referred to as “recognition” in the Model Law. The foreign representative must file a request for recognition with the court of the place where the debtor has its principal “establishment” in Brazil under the Model Law definition, meaning the place of operations where the debtor carries out a non-transitory economic activity with human means and goods or services. If a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy proceeding of the debtor was previously filed in Brazil, the foreign representative must file the request for recognition with the same court where that plenary proceeding had been filed. The new law sets out the requirements for obtaining recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding. The request is a straightforward document attaching evidence of the existence of the foreign proceeding, the appointment of the foreign representative, and, in practice, information sufficient to provide the context necessary to grant the relief sought. “One of the key objectives of the Model Law is to establish simplified procedures for recognition of qualifying foreign proceedings that would avoid time-consuming legalization or other processes and provide certainty with respect to the decision to recognize.” Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency , ¶29 (the Guide). In practice, this means that filing an application for recognition should not be an onerous process. For a proceeding to qualify for recognition under the Model Law (and Brazil’s enactment thereof), it must be a collective proceeding. A collective proceeding is one in which “substantially all of the assets and liabilities of the debtor are dealt with in the proceeding, subject to local priorities and statutory exceptions, and to local exclusions relating to the rights of secured creditors.” See,Id. at ¶70. This requirement sheds light on the Model Law’s intent “to provide a tool for achieving a coordinated, global solution for all stakeholders of an insolvency proceeding,” and not merely to be used by a single creditor pursuing collection or by a debtor winding up its affairs in a proceeding that does not address claims of creditors. See , Id . at ¶69. As part of the recognition process, the court must determine the debtor’s COMI, and that will directly affect what relief is available to the foreign representative. The court will recognize the foreign proceeding as a “foreign main proceeding” if it was filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor’s COMI is located or alternatively as a “foreign non-main proceeding” if it was filed in any other jurisdiction. Although the concept of COMI is new to Brazilian law and neither the new law nor the Model Law defines it, that concept has been long present in cross-border insolvency practice and discussed by the international insolvency community for many years. (The Model Law’s concept of COMI must not be confused with the concept of the debtor’s “principal establishment,” which is used in the Brazilian bankruptcy statute to determine the appropriate venue for a domestic bankruptcy case. The Brazilian bankruptcy statute does not define “principal establishment,” and at least three different approaches have emerged in the case law. The approach that seems to be gaining favor is the so-called economic approach — that is, the “vital center of the debtor’s main activities” and “where the debtor has the highest business volume” — as the majoritarian theory. However, to identify a debtor’s COMI, Brazilian practitioners should look not to domestic decisions about the debtor’s “principal establishment” but to the text of the new law, to the Guide and to other jurisdictions where the Model Law has been implemented.) As the Guide explains, the concept of COMI originates from the European Union Convention on Insolvency Proceedings, and it should be interpreted homogeneously in furtherance of harmonization of the notion of a “main proceeding.” See , Id . at ¶¶81-82. Determining the debtor’s COMI is one of the most important steps in cross-border insolvency proceedings, and a consistent interpretation of such concept throughout all jurisdictions that adopted the Model Law is key to promote the uniformity prescribed by Article 8 of the Model Law. In short, the definition of debtor’s center of main interests is “the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties.” See,Id . at ¶83. Both the new law and the Model law provide for a rebuttable presumption that the debtor’s COMI is the debtor’s registered office or habitual residence. That legal presumption may be set aside if objective circumstances recognized by third parties indicate that the debtor has its administrative seat in another jurisdiction. The analysis of the objective circumstances may consider different facts, from the location of the debtor’s headquarters or factory where the debtor manufactures its products to the country code of the debtor’s website or phone number. Such interpretation of the COMI enables parties to better calculate legal risks when entering into transactions. When considering potential insolvency as a risk factor, the party may assume that international jurisdiction will be based on a place known to the debtor’s potential creditors. See , Id . at ¶84. Interestingly, the new Brazilian law includes a provision to avoid forum shopping that has no equivalent in the Model Law. In Brazil, the foreign proceeding will be recognized as a “foreign non-main proceeding” if the debtor’s COMI was transferred or manipulated with the intent to transfer the debtor’s “foreign main” jurisdiction to another country. While such a provision is intended to increase legal certainty and reduce forum shopping, it could trigger additional litigation about the debtor’s intent and about the appropriate lookback period, which is not specified in the new law. Types of Relief Available While recognition turns on the strict application of objective criteria, the consequences of recognition (referred to as the “relief” in the Model Law or as “medidas” in the new Brazilian law) are largely discretionary. This arrangement reflects a need for efficiency and predictability in obtaining recognition, but equips the courts with the flexibility to fashion the relief that should result from recognition. The new law makes available to the foreign representative broad discretionary relief both before and after recognition of the foreign proceeding. From the filing of the application for recognition to the court’s ruling on such request, the foreign representative may request any injunctive relief necessary to protect the estate, the efficiency of the administration, or the enforcement of Brazilian bankruptcy law. Upon recognition of the foreign proceeding, either as a “main” or “non-main” proceeding, the foreign representative may request any relief necessary for the protection of the assets of the estate and in the creditor’s interest. The drafter’s intent to provide Brazilian courts with the flexibility to fashion meaningful relief is evident in two provisions in the Brazilian law that differ slightly from those in the Model Law. First, in the list of discretionary relief available after recognition, the Model Law includes a catchall provision allowing the court to grant “additional relief that may be available to [the trustee] under the laws of this State.” See , Model Law, Art. 21 (g). The Brazilian law would allow the court to “grant any additional relief that may be necessary” and is not limited by reference to the powers of a Brazilian trustee. See , Art. 167-N, V – Law 11.101/2005. Second, the new Brazilian law includes a provision with no parallel in the Model Law by clarifying that the relief available under the cross-border insolvency chapter of the new law are “merely exemplary” and that relief available under “other laws” may be sought. See , Art. 167-A §2 – Law 11.101/2005. It is unclear whether this phrase would allow lawsuits, such as claw backs, under non-Brazilian laws, or whether it is limited to “other [Brazilian] laws.” In addition to the permissive relief, the new law provides for automatic relief if the foreign proceeding is recognized as a “foreign main proceeding”: i) the stay of specific lawsuits against the debtor; ii) the toll of the statute of limitations for the enforcement actions against the debtor; and iii) the avoidance of transfers and encumbrances of the debtor’s non-current assets without previous court authorization. It is important to note that under Brazil’s bankruptcy laws the stay of proceedings against the debtor is narrower compared to some other jurisdictions. Brazilian insolvency law provides numerous legal exceptions to the stay or suspension of lawsuits. In broad terms, Brazil’s insolvency laws impose a stay only to non-tax judgment enforcement proceedings and other actions directly related to the debtor’s assets . Ordinary lawsuits and arbitration proceedings at a pre-judgment phase are not stayed either by operation of Brazil’s general insolvency law. Accordingly, obtaining automatic or discretionary stays under Brazil’s adoption of the Model Law imposes a less robust set of prohibitions. Granting Recognition to Foreign Insolvency Proceedings vs. Granting Exequatur to Foreign Judgments Brazilian commentators have expressed some concern that the new law’s recognition of foreign proceedings could be confused with the previously existing mechanisms for international judicial assistance in Brazil, namely exequatur of foreign judgments and letters rogatory. In fact, granting recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings has little or nothing to do with granting exequatur . The Model Law was created as a necessary alternative to the legal systems’ traditional approach to judicial cooperation under the comity doctrine and exequatur . See , Guide, ¶8. While the new law sets forth a streamlined process by which the bankruptcy courts (courts of first instance) shall recognize foreign proceedings, the Brazilian constitution grants to the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) — a centralized court superior to the state and federal courts of appeals — jurisdiction over exequatur of foreign judgments and letters rogatory. Those who understand the purpose and effect of the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings , including those who drafted Brazil’s new law, do not see a conflict with the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction. Acknowledging that recognition under the new law does not encroach upon the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction, the new law expressly submits to the STJ’s constitutional jurisdiction over exequatur “whenever applicable.” See , Art. 167-A§6 – Law 11.101/2005. While this reference to the STJ’s exequatur proceedings has been the source of some debate leading up to the law’s implementation, most Brazilian commentators take the position that such provision does not impede the local bankruptcy courts from recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings. Indeed, recognizing a foreign insolvency proceeding is not tantamount to enforcing an order issued by the judicial authority of a sovereign state. For example, a foreign administrative proceeding in which no court orders whatsoever have been made is eligible for recognition under Brazil’s new law. In addition, the Brazilian legislature implemented a system to recognize foreign insolvency proceedings and expressly granted jurisdiction to the trial court of the place where the debtor has its principal “establishment” to hear such cases. It would be illogical to interpret that, in writing rules with specific provisions on the jurisdiction to process requests for recognition, the legislature, in fact, intended the Superior Tribunal of Justice to have jurisdiction to rule on such petitions. Another context in which the STJ’s exequatur jurisdiction may become relevant is where the Brazilian bankruptcy court is asked to cooperate with a court order entered in the foreign proceeding. The new law requires the bankruptcy court to cooperate “to the maximum possible extent with the foreign authority or with the foreign representative[.]” See, Art. 167-P – Law 11.101/2005. This provision implies that certain deference may be given to orders made in the foreign main proceeding, such as orders confirming a plan of reorganization, orders made in a claim dispute between debtor and creditor, and discovery orders. The cooperation called for in the new law does not require that such orders be enforced directly in Brazil. Cooperation can be achieved by giving deferential treatment to such orders in light of the law’s international origin and objectives. Giving deferential treatment means recognizing the foreign court’s better position to rule on the matter as the court with the main interest and most information on the issue, and to refrain from reviewing the matter de novo . It also means recognizing that when acting as the ancillary court, the Brazilian court cannot impose its own domestic priority scheme or claims process on the debtor. The ancillary court must remain focused on the goals expressly noted in the new law: promotion of international cooperation with foreign courts and representatives, greater legal certainty, and fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies. By giving deferential treatment to an order in the foreign main proceeding, the ancillary court may avoid a conflict and a duplication of efforts that could weigh down efforts to rescue a struggling enterprise. A Plenary Bankruptcy Proceeding A debtor whose foreign main or non-main proceedings have been recognized in Brazil may commence a full liquidation or reorganization case if the relief available in the ancillary case is insufficient to accomplish its purposes. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the distinction between the ancillary proceedings contemplated under the Model Law and the plenary proceedings that may be commenced to reorganize or liquidate a company under Brazilian law. The gateway for ancillary proceedings is through the Model Law’s streamlined recognition process and simple eligibility criteria, embodied in Articles 167-H and 167-J of the new Brazilian law. The reward for entering through this gate is the relief described in Articles 167-L, 167-M, and 167-N of the new law. Ancillary proceedings are an act of comity between nations and thus they are simple proceedings that attempt to avoid duplication of effort. In this vein, the Model Law and Brazil’s enactment of it do not establish a separate claims process or reorganization plan in the ancillary proceeding. Indeed, the Model Law envisions that these should be handled in the foreign main proceeding. A plenary proceeding, on the other hand, is a full liquidation or reorganization case, which in Brazil is governed by the other chapters of Law 11.101/2005. A debtor whose foreign main or non-main proceedings have been recognized in Brazil may commence a liquidation or reorganization case only if the debtor has assets or an establishment in Brazil, and that Brazilian plenary case will apply only to the Brazilian assets or establishment. The new law sets forth measures for cooperation and coordination between the Brazilian plenary case and the foreign main proceeding. It should be noted that even in the absence of a petition for a plenary proceeding, Brazil’s new law allows the court to grant broad discretionary relief to the recognized foreign proceeding. Thus, there may be few instances in which foreign representatives might be interested in filing a plenary proceeding petition with the Brazilian court. This may change if Brazilian courts limit in practice the relief available to ancillary proceedings under their ample discretion. In any event, creditors also may initiate an involuntary plenary proceeding, especially if they are interested in establishing a claims process in Brazil, which is unavailable in the ancillary proceeding. Generally, the party filing for a voluntary or involuntary plenary proceeding must show the petition meets the bankruptcy requirements under Brazilian law. Specifically, the foreign representative will have to show in the reorganization petition that the debtor is in regular business activity for more than two years and meets other requirements of the statute, such as not having been through reorganization in the last five years. See , Art. 48 – Law 11.101/2005. To initiate a liquidation proceeding in Brazil, the requesting party must show the so-called “legal insolvency” of the debtor by meeting one of the three statutory requirements: 1) unjustified default of an obligation over 40 minimum wages; 2) nonpayment of any amount under a judgment enforcement action; or 3) performance of any of the seven acts of bankruptcy listed in the statute ( e.g. , fraudulent transfer of property to avoid creditors or default on an obligation provided for in a reorganization plan). See, Art 94 – Law 11.101/2015. Relevantly, the new law provides that the insolvency of the debtor is presumed if the foreign proceeding was recognized in Brazil as a “foreign main proceeding.” However, it is not clear if such presumption of the debtor’s insolvency is sufficient to show the “legal insolvency” requirement in liquidation petitions. Outbound Cross-Border Insolvency and Communication With Foreign Representative and Courts The new law does not limit its rules to inbound cross-border insolvency proceedings. It also includes rules related to outbound proceedings, which empower the representative of the Brazilian insolvency proceeding and the Brazilian court to seek recognition abroad and to act in that proceeding. Under the new law, the trustee in the Brazilian liquidation and the debtor in the Brazilian reorganization are automatically authorized to act as representatives of the Brazilian proceeding in foreign jurisdictions. The Brazilian court may appoint a different representative for the Brazilian liquidation when necessary. Moreover, the new law abrogates the long-established requirements of formal communication with foreign courts through letters rogatory. It expressly grants broad communication powers to the Brazilian bankruptcy court and trustee with foreign courts, representatives, and authorities. Overall, the new law adheres closely to the Model Law and provides Brazilian bankruptcy courts with the tools to effectively cooperate in cross-border insolvencies. After many years of receiving international assistance for Brazilian insolvency proceedings, Brazilian courts are now ready to reciprocate. The tools for effective cooperation are in place and the Brazilian legal community is eager to usher in a new era. To read the original article, click here. Open Back to all Entries Share this article Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Copy link Latest News & Insights Open Open Attorney Spotlight Aug 17, 2026 3 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Carolina M. Rosso “Pour faire de grandes choses, il ne faut pas être un si grand génie... Firm News Jun 23, 2026 3 minutes Sequor Law Welcomes Attorney Carolina M. Rosso to Its Expanding International Litigation and Asset Recovery Team Sequor Law is pleased to announce that Carolina M. Rosso has joined the firm as an Attorney. Attorney Spotlight May 19, 2026 1 minute read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Noah Rosenblum 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was drawn to law because I've always enjoyed solving complicated problems and thinking.. Attorney Spotlight May 9, 2026 2 minutes read Attorney Spotlight – Get to Know Michael Hanlon 1. What inspired you to pursue a law career? I was less drawn to law in the abstract and more..

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