Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which adopts the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s (“UNCITRAL”) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, provides a streamlined process for recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding and enforcement of related orders. In adopting the Model Law, the legislative history makes clear that Chapter 15 was intended to&nbsp;be the “exclusive door to ancillary assistance to foreign proceedings,” with the goal of controlling such cases in a single court. Despite this clear intention, U.S. courts continue to grant recognition to foreign bankruptcy court orders as a matter of comity, without the commencement of a Chapter 15 proceeding.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

While it is tempting choice for a bankruptcy estate representative to seek a quick dismissal of U.S. litigation, without the commencement of a Chapter 15 case, it is not always the most efficient path.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> First, because an ad hoc approach to comity requires a single judge to craft complex remedies from dated federal common law, there is a significant risk that such strategy will fail (and the estate representative will subsequently need Chapter 15 relief), increasing litigation/appellate risk and thus, the foreign debtor’s overall transaction costs in administering the case.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Second, the ad hoc informal comity approach is of little use to foreign debtors, who need to subject a large U.S. collective of claims and rights to a foreign collective remedy in the United States because it does not give the foreign representative the specific statutory tools available in Chapter 15—the ability to turn over foreign debtor assets to the debtor’s representative; to enforce foreign restructuring orders, schemes, plans, and arrangements; to generally stay U.S. litigation against a foreign debtor in an efficient, predictable manner; to sell assets in the United States free and clear of claims and liens and anti-assignment provisions in contracts; etc.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>

Wayne Burt Pte. Ltd. (“Wayne Burt”), a Singaporean company, has battled to recognize a Singaporean liquidation proceeding (the “Singapore Liquidation Proceeding”) (and related judgments) in the United States, highlighting the inherent risks in seeking recognition outside of a Chapter 15 case. The unusually litigious and expensive pathway Wayne Burt followed to enforce certain judgments shows how Chapter 15 provides an effective streamlined process for seeking relief.

First, Wayne Burt sought dismissal, as a matter of comity, of a pending lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey (the “District Court”). On appeal, after years of litigation, the Third Circuit concluded that the District Court did not fully apply the appropriate comity test and remanded the case for further analysis. Thereafter, the liquidator sought, and obtained, recognition of Wayne Burt’s insolvency proceeding under Chapter 15 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Bankruptcy Court”), including staying District Court litigation that had been in dispute for five years in the United States and ordering the enforcement of a Singaporean turnover order that had been the subject of complex litigation as well within two months of the commencement of the Chapter 15 case.&nbsp;

The Dispute Before the District Court

core/heading

The Wayne Burt case originated, almost exactly five years ago, as a simple breach of contract claim and evolved into a complex legal battle between Vertiv, Inc., Vertiv Capital, Inc., and Gnaritis, Inc. (together “Vertiv”), Delaware corporations, and Wayne Burt. The litigation began in January 2020, when Vertiv sued Wayne Burt in District Court, seeking to enforce a $29 million consent judgment entered in its favor. At the time the consent judgment was entered, however, Wayne Burt was already in&nbsp;liquidation proceedings in Singapore. Thus, a year after the entry of judgment, the liquidator moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds of comity.&nbsp;

On November 30, 2022, the District Court granted Wayne Burt’s motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> The District Court based its decision on a finding that Singapore shares the United States’ policy of equal distribution of assets and authorizes a stay or dismissal of Vertiv’s civil action against Wayne Burt. Vertiv appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit Establishes a New Adjudicatory Comity Test

In February 2024, the Third Circuit, in its opinion, set forth in detail a complex multifactor test for determining when comity will allow a U.S. court to enjoin or dismiss a case, based on a pending foreign insolvency proceeding, without seeking Chapter 15 relief.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> This form of comity is known as “adjudicatory comity.” “Adjudicatory comity” acts as a type of abstention and requires a determination as to whether a court should “decline to exercise jurisdiction over matters more appropriately adjudged elsewhere.”<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>

As a threshold matter, adjudicatory comity arises only when a matter before a United States court is pending in, or has resulted in a final judgment from, a foreign court—that is, when there is, or was, “parallel” foreign proceeding. In determining whether a proceeding is “parallel,” the Third Circuit found that simply looking to whether the same parties and claims are involved in the foreign proceeding is insufficient. That is because it does not address foreign bankruptcy matters that bear little resemblance to a standard civil action in the United States. Instead, drawing on precedent examining whether a non-core proceeding is related to a U.S. Bankruptcy proceeding, the Third Circuit created a flexible and context specific two-part test. A parallel proceeding exists when (1) a foreign proceeding is ongoing in a duly authorized tribunal while the civil action is before a U.S. Court, and (2) the outcome of the U.S. civil action could affect the debtor’s estate.&nbsp;

Once the court is satisfied that the foreign bankruptcy proceeding is parallel, the party seeking extension of comity must then make a prima facie case by showing that (1) the foreign bankruptcy law shares U.S. policy of equal distribution of assets, and (2) the foreign law mandates the issuance or at least authorizes the request for the stay.

Upon a finding of a prima facie case for comity, the court then must make additional inquiries into fairness to the parties and compatibility with U.S. public policy under the Third Circuit Philadelphia Gear<a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> test. This test considers whether (1) the foreign bankruptcy proceeding is taking place in a duly authorized tribunal, (2) the foreign bankruptcy court provides for equal treatment of creditors, (3) extending comity would be in some manner inimical to the country’s policy of equality, and (4) the party opposing comity would be prejudiced.&nbsp;

The first requirement is already satisfied if the proceeding is parallel.<a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a> The second requirement of equal treatment of creditors is similar to the prima facie requirement regarding equal distribution but goes further into assessing whether any plan of reorganization is fair and equitable as between classes of creditors that hold claims of differing priority or secured status.<a href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> For the third and fourth part of the four-part inquiry—ensuring that the foreign proceedings’ actions are consistent with the U.S. policy of equality and would not prejudice an opposing party—the court provided eight factors used as indicia of procedural fairness, noting that certain factors were duplicative of considerations already discussed. The court emphasized that foreign bankruptcy proceedings need not function identically to similar proceedings in the United States to be consistent with the policy of equality.

In the Wayne Burt appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order finding that although there was a parallel proceeding, the District Court failed to apply the four-part test to consider the fairness of the parallel proceeding.&nbsp;

The Chapter 15 Case&nbsp;

On remand to the District Court, Wayne Burt’s liquidator renewed his motion to dismiss. Following his renewed motion, protracted discovery ensued, delaying a District Court ruling on comity.&nbsp;

Additionally, during the pendency of the appeal, Wayne Burt’s liquidator commenced an action in Singapore seeking that Vertiv turn over certain stock in Cetex Petrochemicals Ltd. that Wayne Burt pledged as security for a loan from Vertiv (the “Singapore Turnover Litigation”). Wayne Burt’s liquidator contended that the pledge was void against the liquidator. Vertiv did not appear in the Singapore proceedings and the High Court of Singapore entered an order requiring the turnover of the shares (the “Singapore Turnover Order”).

As a result, Wayne Burt’s liquidator shifted his strategy to obtain broader relief than what adjudicatory comity could afford in the pending U.S. litigation—recognition and enforcement of the Singapore Turnover Order. The only way to accomplish both the goal of dismissal of the U.S. litigation and enforcement of the Singapore Turnover Order is through a Chapter 15 proceeding.&nbsp;

On October 8, 2024, Wayne Burt’s liquidator commenced the Chapter 15 case (the “Chapter 15 Case”) by filing a petition along with the Motion for Recognition of Foreign Proceedings and Motion to Compel Turnover of Cetex Shares&nbsp;(the “Motion”). Vertiv opposed the Motion, contending that, under the new test laid out by the Third Circuit, the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding should not be considered the main proceeding because it may harm Vertiv.<a href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> Vertiv further contended that even if the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding was considered the main proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court should not “blindly” enforce the Singapore Turnover Order and should itself review the transaction to the extent it impacts assets in the United States.<a href="#_ftn11">[11]</a>

Less than two months after the Chapter 15 Case was commenced, the Bankruptcy Court overruled Vertiv’s objection, finding that recognition and enforcement of a turnover action was appropriate.<a href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> In so ruling, the Bankruptcy Court applied the new adjudicatory comity requirements set forth by the Third Circuit, in addition to Chapter 15 requirements.

The Bankruptcy Court began its analysis with finding that recognition and enforcement of the Singapore Turnover Order is appropriate under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1521 and 1507. Under Section 1521, upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, a bankruptcy court may grant any additional relief that may be available to a U.S. trustee (with limited exceptions) where necessary to effectuate the purposes of Chapter 15 and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of creditors. Courts have exceedingly broad discretion in determining what additional relief may be granted. Here, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Singapore insolvency system was sufficiently similar to the United States bankruptcy process.

Under Section 1507, a court may provide additional assistance in aid of a foreign proceeding as along as the court considers whether such assistance is consistent with principles of comity and will reasonably assure the fair treatment of creditors, protect claim holders in the United States from prejudice in the foreign proceeding, prevent preferential or fraudulent disposition of estate property, and distribution of proceeds occurs substantially in accordance with the order under U.S. bankruptcy law. Here, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Singapore Turnover Litigation was an effort to marshal an asset of the Wayne Burt insolvency estate for the benefit of all of Wayne Burt’s creditors and that enforcement of the Singapore Turnover Order specifically would allow for the equal treatment of all of Wayne Burt’s creditors.&nbsp;

Finally, the Bankruptcy Court found that recognition and enforcement of the Singapore Turnover Order was appropriate under the Third Circuit’s comity analysis. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Singapore Turnover Litigation is parallel to the Motion, relying on the facts that: (1) Wayne Burt is a debtor in a foreign insolvency proceeding before a duly authorized tribunal, the Singapore High Court, (2) Vertiv has not challenged the Singapore High Court’s jurisdiction over the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding, and (3) the outcome of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling would have a direct impact on the estate within the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding as it relates to ownership of the Cetex shares. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding and the Chapter 15 Case are parallel.&nbsp;

The Bankruptcy Court’s analysis primarily focused on the third and fourth factors of the Philadelphia Gear test, determining that it was clear that the first factor was met because the Singapore Liquidation Proceeding is parallel to the Chapter 15 Case and that the second factor did not apply as there was no pending plan. The third inquiry was also satisfied for the same reasons detailed above for the Singapore insolvency laws being substantially similar to U.S. insolvency laws. The fourth inquiry—whether the party opposing comity is prejudiced by being required to participate in the foreign proceeding—was satisfied for the same reasons stated for Section 1507.

In recognizing and enforcing the Singapore Turnover Order, the Bankruptcy Court overruled Vertiv’s opposition finding it rests on an “unacceptable premise” that the Bankruptcy Court should stand in appellate review of a foreign court. Such an act would directly conflict with principles of comity and the objectives of Chapter 15. The Bankruptcy Court noted that this is especially true where the party maintains the capacity to pursue appeals and other necessary relief from the foreign court.

Vertiv appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to the District Court, and the appeal is still pending.&nbsp;

Adjudicatory comity and Chapter 15 both aim to facilitate cooperation and coordination in cross-border insolvency cases. Indeed, Chapter 15 specifically incorporates comity and international cooperation into a court’s analysis, as Chapter 15 requires that a “court shall cooperate to the maximum extent possible with a foreign court.” In deciding whether to use adjudicatory comity and/or Chapter 15 it is important to consider the ultimate objective and the cost-benefit analysis of each approach. While seeking comity defensively in a U.S. litigation, without Chapter 15 relief, is possible, it can lead to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes. Additionally, the multiple factors involved in applying adjudicatory comity can led to protracted discovery and, concomitantly, delaying recognition. By contrast, the Bankruptcy Court’s recent analysis demonstrates that the existing Chapter 15 framework, along with the well-established case law interpreting Chapter 15, provides an effective, reliable, and efficient tool for recognition and enforcement of foreign orders. That is particularly true, whereas here, a party seeks multiple forms of relief. &nbsp;

This article is one in a series of articles written for Blank Rome’s <a href="/news-and-events/mainbrace-march-2025/" id="26009">MAINBRACE: March 2025</a> edition.

core/separator

<a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Michael B. Schaedle &amp; Evan J. Zucker, District Court Enforces German Stay, Ignoring Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 15, 138 The Banking Law Journal 483 (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt 2021).&nbsp;

<a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a>Vertiv, Inc. v. Wayne Burt Pte, Ltd., No. 3:20-CV-00363, 2022 WL 17352457 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2022), vacated and remanded, 92 F.4th 169 (3d Cir. 2024).

<a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a>Vertiv, Inc. v. Wayne Burt PTE, Ltd., 92 F.4th 169 (3d Cir. 2024).

<a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a>Id.&nbsp;at 176.

<a href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. Philadelphia Gear de Mexico, S.A., 44 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1994)).

<a href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a>Wayne Burt PTE, Ltd., 92 F.4th at 180.

<a href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>See Vertiv’s Brief in Opposition to Motion for Recognition of Foreign Proceedings and Motion to Compel Turnover of Cetex Shares, Case No.: 24-196-MBK, Doc. No. 29, at 10-14 (D.N.J October 29, 2024).

<a href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>Id. at 13.

<a href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> In Re: Wayne Burt Pte. Ltd. (In Liquidation), Debtor., No. 24-19956 (MBK), 2024 WL 5003229 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2024).

This article was published in the <a href="https://admin.blankrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Journal-of-Bankruptcy-Law-Vol-21-No-5-2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Journal of Bankruptcy Law</a>, Volume 21 Number 5, on July 17, 2025.

Chapter 15: A More Efficient Path for Recognition of Foreign Judgments as Compared with Adjudicatory Comity

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Chapter 15: A More Efficient Path for Recognition of Foreign Judgments as Compared with Adjudicatory Comity

Offices

Stay Connected