ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Bankruptcy Blogs -> Credit Slips

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Bankruptcy

: Credit Slips

The Forum Shopping Debate Heats Up for In-Bound Cross-Border Cases?

By Jason Kilborn

ADVERTISEMENTS

Thanks so much to Bob and the rest of the Credit Slips crew for having me back!  For my first post, I thought I'd draw some attention to what seems to be the latest in the forum shopping (corruption?) wars in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts (which also ties in my new Arabic study a bit).  Many people, including myself, have written on the seemingly foreign-insolvency unfriendly decisions out of the Southern District of New York involving the Bear Stearns and Basis Yield collapsed hedge funds.  Relatively few people seem to have picked up the latest, a decision from traditionally more friendly Delaware in a case involving a Saudi-owned, Cayman-registered hedge fund called Saad Investments Finance Co. (No. 5) Ltd. (Case No. 09-13985) ("SIFCO").  Ironically, SIFCO's name (sa'd) means, in Arabic, ?good luck? or ?good fortune.?  As it turns out, the liquidators? choice of the District of Delaware to seek cooperation in this cross-boder bankruptcy case was, indeed, fortunate.  Not only did the Delaware court not go out of its way sua sponte to find reasons to reject SIFCO's liquidators' petition for recognition (as the New York court had done), it seems to have almost glibly concluded that SIFCO's "center of main interests" was in the Cayman Islands, despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary (as discussed in the Bear Stearns and Basis Yield cases) and without citing either the controlling law or any particular fact that supported this crucial finding (see p. 2, finding "I").  This decision, in stark contrast to the New York holdings, seems rather transparently based on public policy and comity, rather than (and perhaps in derogation of) the new governing statute, Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  While a few commentators have tried to rationalize this case by contrasting SIFCO with the Bears Stearns and Basis Yield hedge funds, the only explanation that seems at all persuasive to me is that the Delaware court has once again positioned itself as the "debtor-friendly" (or now, foreign-representative-of-the-debtor friendly) forum for U.S. bankruptcy proceedings.  I'll leave it to those who are both more expert (see also here and here) and much braver than I to conclude whether this is in fact the meaning of the latest Delaware decision and, if so, whether that represents a good or not-so-good development for U.S. cross-border bankruptcy policy.  I'll have more to say about this decision in the next issue of the Cayman Financial Review, for which I have been invited to write a bankruptcy column this year (thanks so much to Andy Morriss for the invitation).  Thanks once again to Credit Slips for having me back!

Full post as published by Credit Slips on June 21, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0145 secs (new cache)