11th Circuit Upholds SD Fla Bankr Decision Allowing 304 Case for Italian Debtor

On June 29, 2007, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision in In re Rosacometta, S.R.L., 2007 WL 1875646 (C.A.11(Fla.)) upheld the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida’s decision below. The bankruptcy court had allowed an ancillary petition under section 304 (pre-BAPCPA) and enjoined the creditor from collecting on a writ of garnishment in the state court against the Italian company that had filed for bankruptcy relief in Italy. The 11th Circuit rejected the creditor’s arguments that the bankruptcy court had acted outside of its jurisdiction, that it had erred in granting comity to a foreign proceeding, and that it had failed to give full faith and credit to a state court decision refusing to dissolve the writ of garnishment. The 11th Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the section 304(c) factors and granting section 304(b) relief. The 11th Circuit held that prejudice to the creditor was just one of the five factors for the court to consider per section 304(c) and is not even the “ultimate” factor. The 11th Circuit found that the other factors set forth in section 304(c), including comity, weighed in favor of granting the relief. The 11th Circuit further held that the bankruptcy court is granted broad powers under section 304(b) to grant relief to a foreign debtor.

The bankruptcy court had previously issued its decision dated December 19, 2005 in In re Rosacometta, SrL, 336 B.R. 557 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2005)(Mark C.J.). In this case, the Italian trustee of an Italian corporation that was a debtor in a bankruptcy case in Italy filed an ancillary case under section 304 (pre-BAPCPA) seeking to enjoin all creditor collection activity in the United States nunc pro tunc to the date of the filing of the bankruptcy in Italy. At issue were certain funds owed to the the debtor in the U.S. that a U.S. creditor was attempting to garnish. The court recognized the effect of the Italian automatic stay and found the creditor action in violation of the stay was void, including the attempted garnishment.

This case came before the court under section 304 as a case ancillary to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. The case was allowed to proceed under 304 as there was a foreign proceeding and the petitioner was the foreign representative. 11 U.S.C. 304(a). The court explained that section 304 enables United States courts to aid foreign bankruptcy proceedings and to accommodate the extraterritorial effect of these proceeding within the U.S. The primary purpose of section 304 is to prevent piecemeal distribution of a foreign debtor’s assets in the U.S. by means of legal proceedings in U.S. courts and to afford the foreign court an opportunity to assess where and when claims should be liquidated in order to conserve resources and to maximize distributions to creditors.

The court found that the creditor was not a secured creditor as the writ of garnishment was served after the commencement of the Italian bankruptcy and was therefore void as in violation of the Italian automatic stay. The court found that recognition of the Italian automatic stay was “other appropriate relief” under section 304(b)(3) and consistent with the overall purpose of section 304 and the specific criteria of 304(c). The court held that the claimed funds should be returned to Italy where the creditor may pursue its claim.

The bankruptcy court found the reasoning of Artimm , 278 B.R. 832, 840 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2002) as persuasive and found that the Italian automatic stay applied extra territorially. The Artimm court concluded that the Italian automatic stay has worldwide effect as Italian law provides for a stay of all creditor collection activities and claims worldwide jurisdiction over the property of the debtor. Id. at 840. The Artimm court also found that provisions of Italian law indicate movement in Itlian law towards handling international insolvencies under the “universal” approach, which advocates treating an international bankruptcy as a single case in which assets and creditor are treated equally wherever they may be located. Id. at 841.

The bankruptcy court stated that many courts have noted that comity is the ultimate factor in determining whether section 304 relief is appropriate. The Supreme Court described comity as “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of tis own citizens…” Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895). Comity is extended to a foreign court if that court is a court of competent jurisdiction and if the laws and public policy of the forum state and the rights of its residents will not be violated. Cunard S.S. Co., Ltd. v. Salen Reefer Services AB, 773 F.2d at 452 (2d Cir.1985). Comity should not be withheld unless its extension would be inimical to the interest of the United States. Cunard, 773 F.2d at 457. The interest of the United States in granting comity is to ensure that “the assets of a debtor are dispersed in an equitable, orderly, and systematic manner, rather than in a haphazard, erratic, or piecemeal fashion.” Cunard, 773 F.2d at 458. United States courts, therefore, have “consistently recognized the interest of foreign courts in liquidating or winding up the affairs of their own domestic business entities.” Id. at 458. Moreover, “every person who deals with a foreign corporation impliedly subjects himself to such laws of the foreign government, affecting the powers and obligations of the corporation with which he voluntarily contracts, as the known and established policy of that government authorizes.” Id. Therefore, U.S. creditors of a bankrupt foreign corporation may be required to assert their claims against the foreign debtor before a foreign court. Cunard, 773 F.2d at 458-59.

The Florida bankruptcy court found that extending comity to the Italian bankruptcy case and the laws of Italy was appropriate as the bankruptcy in Italy was proceeding under the aegis of a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws and policies of Italy. It further found that extending comity would result in an orderly and fair distribution to all creditors on a worldwide basis. Furthermore, the laws governing the Italian bankruptcy case comported with U.S. standards of procedural fairness and are not inimical to the law or policy of the U.S. The court noted that at least two U.S. court have previously extended comity to Italian bankruptcy proceedings.

Furthermore, the bankruptcy court found that the statutory factors of 304(c) were met, including the just treatment of all holders of claims against or interest in the estate, protection of claim holders in the U.S. against prejudice and inconvenience in processing of claim in the foreign proceeding, prevention of preferential or fraudulent dispositions of property of the estate, and distribution of proceeds of the estate are substantially in accordance with the order prescribed in the bankruptcy code.

Jordan E. Bublick, Attorney at Law, Practice Limited to Bankruptcy Law, Board Certified Specialist in Consumer Bankruptcy Law (American Board of Certification), Member of the Florida Bar since 1983

Foreign Creditor May Be Sanctioned for Violating Court Injunction

The issue before the court in the pre-BAPCPA case of In re Simon, 153 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 114 (US 1999) was whether a foreign creditor is subject to U.S. bankruptcy court sanction for pursuing foreign collection of a debt discharged in a U.S. bankruptcy case in which the foreign creditor participated. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court may sanction the foreign creditor for violating a court injunction.

The Debtor William N. Simon filed for chapter 7 relief in the U.S. and obtained his discharge of debt. Pursuant to section 524, the discharge order operates as an injunction against the collection of certain debt against the debtor. Simon scheduled Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. (“HSBC”) as a creditor in his case and HSBC filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. HSBC filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief from the bankruptcy court that the bankruptcy discharge injunction was not effective outside of the U.S.

The court found that Congress has the unquestioned authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the U.S., but whether Congress has exercised that authority in a particular case is a matter of statutory construction. Unless a contrary intent appears, there is a presumption that the legislation of Congress is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

The court concluded that as to actions against the bankruptcy estate, Congress clearly intended extraterritorial application of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court obtains exclusive in rem jurisdiction over all of the property of the estate including property located outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. The court concluded that Congress intended extraterritorial application of the Bankruptcy Code as its applies to property of the estate. The court further noted that as a matter of general principle, protection of in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction is a sufficient basis for a court to restrain another court’s proceedings and that this rationale extends to foreign proceedings.

The court noted that the more difficult question was whether a bankruptcy court may enjoin a foreign collection action against the debtor personally or as to non-estate assets if the creditor was not a party to the U.S. bankruptcy proceedings. But the court was not required to reach this question as HSBC fully participated in Simon’s U.S. bankruptcy case and thereby surrendered to U.S. jurisdiction. In this instance, the presumption against the extraterritorial effect of a statute would not apply. Therefore, Simon’s chapter 7 discharge injunction enjoins HSBC, but not the courts in Hong Kong. If HSBC chooses to commence collection proceedings in Hong Kong against Simon, it does so at the risk of U.S. bankruptcy court sanction.

The court rejected HSBC’s argument that it only submitted itself to limited bankruptcy court jurisdiction as the proof of claim it submitted in Simon’s case was for a different debt than the one it sought to pursue in Hong Kong. The court noted that HSBC failed to assert its position in the bankruptcy court by requesting abstention, to move to lift the automatic stay, to move for adequate protection, or to file an objection to discharge of Simon’s debts.

The court noted that it did not decide whether discharge injunction of section 524 itself applies extraterritorially in all cases either as to non-estate assets or as to the debtor’s personal liability.

The court also rejected HSBC’s arguement that international comity requires the court to vacate the bankruptcy court’s injunction forbidding debt collection against Simon for pre-petition debt. The court noted that the international comity concerns underlying Maxwell Communications Corp., 93 F.3d 1036, 1050 (2d Cir. 1996) were not present in this case.

The court noted that the Bankruptcy Code does not codify either the “territorial theory” or the “universalist philosphy” but provides for a flexible approach to international insolvencies dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case. Under the territorial theory or “grab” rule, courts in each national jurisdiction are responsible for seizing and controlling assets within their geographic reach. The universalist philosophy contemplates one plenary transnational proceeding governing the administration of assets world-wide. The court noted in this pre-BAPCPA case, that if the Bankruptcy Code contains any philosophy it is of deference to the country where the primary insolvency proceeding is located and flexible cooperation in administration of assets. e.g. Sections 304 and 305.

In summary, the court held that the lower court’s order did not involve an improper extrterritorial application of the discharge injunction as to estate property becaus section 541 expressly includes all of the debtor’s property regardless of geographic location. The discharge injunction was also validly applied to HSBC as to Simon’s non-estate property because HSBC participated in Simon’s bankruptcy case and thereby subjected itself to the otherwise valid orders of the bankruptcy court. Finally, international comity did not compel a contrary result because there was no conflicting proceeding in a foreign nation.

Jordan E. Bublick, Attorney at Law, Practice Limited to Bankruptcy Law, Board Certified Specialist in Consumer Bankruptcy Law (American Board of Certification), Member of the Florida Bar since 1983