Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
*May exclude premium content
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.
By Michael L. Cook
A review of recent cases shows that poor billing judgment and unreasonable billing have been with us for decades.
By Francis J. Lawall and Kenneth A. Listwak
The Third Circuit recently examined whether the content of a debtor’s bar date notice satisfied due process, so as to discharge unknown litigation creditors’ claims against the company after confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
By Jonathan P. Friedland, Mark Melickian & Hajar Jouglaf
A large number of reported decisions interpreting Sub V have mostly addressed the eligibility threshold for a debtor to proceed under the new law. And legitimate questions will continue to present themselves. Such is the nature of most new (and even not-so-new) statutes.