• 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

Debate Intensifies as to 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.

In a recent example, in In re CIL Limited, 582 B.R. 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, disagreeing with other courts both within and outside its own district, ruled that the “transfer of an equity interest in a U.K. entity to a Marshall Islands entity was a foreign transfer” and that the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions do not apply extraterritorially because “[n]othing in the language of sections 544, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code suggests that Congress intended those provisions to apply to foreign transfers.”

The decision further muddies the waters on an issue that has become increasingly prominent as the volume of cross-border bankruptcy cases continues to grow and cross-border transactions become ubiquitous. The split on this issue exists not merely between courts in different jurisdictions, but also among courts in the Southern District of New York, where the majority of cross-border bankruptcy cases have traditionally been filed.

The full article is available here.

Written by:
Editor
Published on:
June 26, 2018

Categories: Avoidance, Bankruptcy Administration and JurisdictionTags: Charles M. Oellermann, extraterritorial Avoidance, fraudulent transfer, In re CIL Limited, Jones Day, Mark G. Douglas

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Bankruptcy Law’s Doctrinal Evolution: An Empirical Study July 1, 2025
  • Judge Goldblatt Reconsiders What Constitutes“Consent” Post Purdue Pharma June 24, 2025
  • The Backstop Party June 17, 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