Insolvencies—An Overview of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code
Over the last decade, cross-border trade and investment opportunities have increased, and Georgia stands as a great example of such opportunities. Although the increase in international trade and investment has created more business opportunities, it has also increased the need and importance of coordinated cross-border insolvency proceedings.
October 02, 2017 at 12:32 AM
6 minute read
Over the last decade, cross-border trade and investment opportunities have increased, and Georgia stands as a great example of such opportunities. In 2016, businesses in Georgia traded with 223 countries and territories, and international trade exceeded $121 billion, growing 45 percent since 2008. Although the increase in international trade and investment has created more business opportunities, it has also increased the need and importance of coordinated cross-border insolvency proceedings. When companies around the globe become financially distressed, they may need to file an insolvency proceeding in their home country and then seek additional assistance from courts in countries where they have assets or other business connections.
Companies that require such assistance in the U.S. must seek relief in U.S. bankruptcy courts under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. This article provides an overview of the objectives, procedures, and beneficial uses of Chapter 15.
Chapter 15 was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Chapter 15 adopts most of the provisions of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency verbatim. The Model Law was adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1997 to coordinate cross-border insolvencies throughout the world. To date, 43 countries have adopted legislation based on the Model Law. The main objectives of the Model Law and Chapter 15 are to: encourage cooperation between foreign courts, create greater legal certainty for trade and investment, promote efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies, protect the interests of creditors and other entities, maximize the value of the debtor's assets, and facilitate the rehabilitation of financially distressed businesses.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readLongtime Kilpatrick Lawyer Exits to Help Lead Eversheds' Restructuring Team
3 minute readRudy Giuliani's Bankruptcy Dismissal Finalized Following Fee Dispute
Et Tu, EDVA? Why Big Law Is Dodging a Once-Favorable Bankruptcy Venue
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250