• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

  • Blog
  • About Us
  • Coverage-in-Depth
    • Crypto-Bankruptcy
    • Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy
    • Texas Two-Step and the Future of Mass Tort Bankruptcy
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Recent Rulings Deepen the Divide on Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s Avoidance Provisions Apply Extraterritorially

By Charles M. Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas (Jones Day)

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets.

Several bankruptcy courts have addressed this issue in recent years, with inconsistent results. For example, in In re Ampal-Am. Israel Corp., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the avoidance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply outside the U.S, disagreeing with other courts both within and outside its own district. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, however, held to the contrary in In re FAH Liquidating Corp., where it held that the presumption against territoriality did not prevent a trustee from avoiding an overseas transfer.

More recently, in a pair of adversary proceedings commenced in the chapter 11 case of Arcapita Bank, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the “presumption against extraterritoriality” did not defeat claims against foreign banks under sections 362 and 542 (while also ruling it need not decide whether sections 547 and 550 apply extraterritorially because it concluded that the challenged transfers occurred within the U.S.).

Taken together, these recent decisions further muddy the waters on an issue that has become increasingly prominent as the volume of cross-border bankruptcy cases continues to grow.

The article is available here.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
November 28, 2017

Categories: Bankruptcy Roundtable UpdatesTags: Avoidance, Charles M. Oellermann, Cross-Border, extraterritorial Avoidance, Jones Day, Mark G. Douglas

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Do Rights Offerings Reduce Bargaining Complexity in Chapter 11? May 6, 2025
  • Rockville Centre Case Offers a Framework for Settling Mass Tort Bankruptcy Claims Post-Purdue April 29, 2025
  • False Venue Claims Signed Under Penalty of Perjury April 22, 2025

View by Subject Matter

363 sales Anthony Casey Bankruptcy Bankruptcy administration Bankruptcy Courts Bankruptcy Reform Chapter 11 Chapter 15 Claims Trading Cleary Gottlieb Comparative Law Corporate Governance COVID-19 cramdown David Skeel Derivatives DIP Financing Empirical FIBA Financial Crisis fraudulent transfer Jared A. Ellias Jevic Johnson & Johnson Jones Day Mark G. Douglas Mark Roe plan confirmation Priority Purdue Pharma Purdue Pharma bankruptcy restructuring Safe Harbors Schulte Roth & Zabel Sovereign Debt SPOE Stephen Lubben Structured Dismissals Supreme Court syndicated Texas Two-Step Trust Indenture Act Valuation Weil Gotshal Workouts

Footer

Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable

1563 Massachusetts Ave,
Cambridge, MA 02138
Accessibility | Digital Accessibility | Harvard Law School

Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Copyright © 2025 · Navigation Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in