contrary to the public policy of the United 11 U.S.C. § 1506; see also In re Ashapura States.” No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 5. Thus the court focused its attention on Minechem Ltd., whether recognition would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States. The the SICA statute. The court observed that the court’s analysis centered around version of the SICA statute applicable to the Ashapura SICA proceeding had been repealed, but implementing legislation for a replacement statute had not been formally enacted. See In re No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 2-3. It therefore noted Ashapura Minechem Ltd., “[t]he anomaly here is that the foreign insolvency law applicable to this case is suspect and has been openly criticized as deficient and subject to abuse by thoughtful observers of Indian commercial Id. law.” The court, relying on testimony by an Indian lawyer who testified on behalf of the foreign representative, recognized that although unsecured creditors are not as involved in a SICA proceeding as they would be in a chapter 11 case in the United States, they are, in practice, given a voice in the discretion of the BIFR. at 6. Moreover, unsecured creditors may receive Id. distributions under an arrangement with creditors and have the ability to appeal adverse determinations made by the BIFR. The court therefore decided that a SICA proceeding is a Id. collective administrative proceeding as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(23). That is, it the “considers rights and obligations of all (quoting 400 B.R. 266, 281 Id. In re Betacorp. Ltd., creditors.” (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009) (additional citation omitted). The court concluded that none of the evidence offered by Eitzen and Armada at the recognition hearing proved that it would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States to recognize the petition. Thus, on November 22, 2011, the court granted the petition, but did so the admonition that periodic “with status conferences shall be held approximately once every 60 days, regarding the progress of the
contrary to the public policy of the United States.” 11 U.S.C. § 1506; see also In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd., No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 5. Thus the court focused its attention on whether recognition would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States. The court’s analysis centered around the SICA statute. The court observed that the version of the SICA statute applicable to the Ashapura SICA proceeding had been repealed, but implementing legislation for a replacement statute had not been formally enacted. See In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd., No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 2-3. It therefore noted “[t]he anomaly here is that the foreign insolvency law applicable to this case is suspect and has been openly criticized as deficient and subject to abuse by thoughtful observers of Indian commercial law.” Id. The court, relying on testimony by an Indian lawyer who testified on behalf of the foreign representative, recognized that although unsecured creditors are not as involved in a SICA proceeding as they would be in a chapter 11 case in the United States, they are, in practice, given a voice in the discretion of the BIFR. Id. at 6. Moreover, unsecured creditors may receive distributions under an arrangement with creditors and have the ability to appeal adverse determinations made by the BIFR. Id. The court therefore decided that a SICA proceeding is a collective administrative proceeding as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(23). That is, it “considers the rights and obligations of all creditors.” Id. (quoting In re Betacorp. Ltd., 400 B.R. 266, 281 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009) (additional citation omitted). The court concluded that none of the evidence offered by Eitzen and Armada at the recognition hearing proved that it would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States to recognize the petition. Thus, on November 22, 2011, the court granted the petition, but did so “with the admonition that periodic status conferences shall be held approximately once every 60 days, regarding the progress of the
18222296v1%20-%20Use%20of%20Arbitration%20Procedures%20in%20International%20Insolvency%20Cases%20-%20Stacy%20Lutkus.DOCX