Relief under section 304 of the bankruptcy code: Clarifying the principal role of comity in transnational insolvencies

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 2591-2611

  Krause, Stuart A ^a   Janovsky, Peter ^a   Lebowitz, Marc A ^a  

^a Zeichner Ellman and Krause ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030559663     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (170)

1. 11 U.S.C. § 304 (1994).
2. For a detailed discussion and analysis of the conflicting approaches applied by courts addressing transnational insolvencies prior to 1978, see Charles D. Booth, Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcies: An Analysis and Critique of the Inconsistent Approaches of United States Courts, 66 Am. Bankr. L.J. 135, 135-47 (1992); Melissa S. Rimel, Comment, American Recognition of International Insolvency Proceedings: Deciphering Section 304(c), 9 Bankr. Dev. J. 453, 457-61 (1992).
3. For a detailed discussion and analysis of the conflicting approaches applied by courts addressing transnational insolvencies prior to 1978, see Charles D. Booth, Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcies: An Analysis and Critique of the Inconsistent Approaches of United States Courts, 66 Am. Bankr. L.J. 135, 135-47 (1992); Melissa S. Rimel, Comment, American Recognition of International Insolvency Proceedings: Deciphering Section 304(c), 9 Bankr. Dev. J. 453, 457-61 (1992).
4. See Rimel, supra note 2, at 461, 476.
5. 159 U.S. 113 (1895).
6. Id. at 163-64.
7. Rimel, supra note 2, at 457.
8. Hilton, 159 U.S. at 163-64.
9. The Bankruptcy Act, ch. 541, 30 Stat. 544 (1898) (codified as amended in 11 U.S.C. §§ 1-1103 (1976)) (repealed 1978).
10. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 119 (1974).
11. Pub. L. No. 87-681, § 2, 76 Stat. 570 (1962) (amending 11 U.S.C. § 11 (a)(22) (1958)). The amendment provided that a court may "[e]xercise, withhold, or suspend the exercise of jurisdiction, having regard to the rights or convenience of local creditors and to all other relevant circumstances, where a bankrupt has been adjudged bankrupt by a court of competent jurisdiction without the United States." Id.
12. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 119 (1974).
13. 208 U.S. 570 (1908).
14. Id. at 579-80.
15. 231 F. 529 (S.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 238 F. 797 (2d Cir. 1916).
16. See Teresa P. Finister, Comment, 1988 Developments and the Conflicts Arising Under Section 304, 6 Bankr. Dev. J. 345, 345 (1989); Rimel, supra note 2, at 459.
17. See Teresa P. Finister, Comment, 1988 Developments and the Conflicts Arising Under Section 304, 6 Bankr. Dev. J. 345, 345 (1989); Rimel, supra note 2, at 459.
18. The court did not reach the issue of whether the attachment would have been unconstitutional under the Supreme Court standard in Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972).
19. For a detailed discussion on Herstatt and its importance, see Joseph D. Becker, International Insolvency: The Case of Herstatt, 62 A.B.A. J. 1290 (1976). The question of whether a foreign bank not doing business in the United States could be the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding under the Act, in light of the exclusion of foreign banks from the jurisdiction of the Act, was ultimately resolved by § 109(b)(3) of the Code, which provides that a person may be a debtor only if such person is not "a foreign insurance company, bank, savings bank, cooperative bank, savings and loan association, building and loan association, homestead association, or credit union, engaged in such business in the United States." 11 U.S.C. § 109(b)(3) (1994).
20. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549 (codified at 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330 (1994)).
21. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c) (1994).
22. See infra notes 21-26 and accompanying text.
23. This addition was the codification of the legislative statement directing that "Section 304(c) is modified to indicate that the court shall be guided by considerations of comity in addition to the other factors specified therein." 124 Cong. Rec. 32,394 (1978) [hereinafter Legislative Statement].
24. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(1)-(4), (6) (1994).
25. H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 325 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6281; S. Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 35 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5821; see also Rimel, supra note 2, at 461 (discussing the same House and Senate reports).
26. H.R. Rep. No. 595, supra note 23, at 324, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6281; S. Rep. No. 989, supra note 23, at 35, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5821.
27. The full text of 11 U.S.C. § 304 provides: § 304. Cases ancillary to foreign proceedings (a) A case ancillary to a foreign proceeding is commenced by the filing with the bankruptcy court of a petition under this section by a foreign representative. (b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, if a party in interest does not timely controvert the petition, or after trial, the court may-(1) enjoin the commencement or continuation of-(A) any action against-(i) a debtor with respect to property involved in such foreign proceeding; or (ii) such property; or (B) the enforcement of any judgment against the debtor with respect to such property, or any act or the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceeding to create or enforce a lien against the property of such estate; (2) order turnover of the property of such estate, or the proceeds of such property, to such foreign representative; or (3) order other appropriate relief. (c) In determining whether to grant relief under subsection (b) of this section, the court shall be guided by what will best assure an economical and expeditious administration of such estate, consistent with-(1) just treatment of all holders of claims against or interests in such estate; (2) protection of claim holders in the United States against prejudice and inconvenience in the processing of claims in such foreign proceeding; (3) prevention of preferential or fraudulent dispositions of property of such estate; (4) distribution of proceeds of such estate substantially in accordance with the order prescribed by this title; (5) comity; and (6) if appropriate, the provision of an opportunity for a fresh start for the individual that such foreign proceeding concerns. 11 U.S.C. § 304 (1994).
28. Interpool, Ltd. v. Certain Freights of the M/V Venture Star, 102 B.R. 373, 377 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988).
29. 92 B.R. 584 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988).
30. Id. at 594.
31. See 11 U.S.C. § 303 (1994).
32. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1010.
33. Id.
34. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1011(a).
35. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1011(b).
36. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1011(e).
37. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1018.
38. See supra part I.B.1.
39. See In re Hourani, 180 B.R. 58, 63-64, 70 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995).
40. Where issues of material fact are in dispute, a motion to dismiss an action on the basis of international comity should not be granted without an evidentiary hearing. See Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Galadari, 777 F.2d 877, 881 (2d Cir. 1985); Papaioannoiu v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 569 F. Supp. 724, 730 (E.D. Pa. 1983); cf. Petrol Shipping Corp. v. Kingdom of Greece, 332 F.2d 370 (2d Cir. 1964) (en banc) (per curiam) (instructing the district court to decide the issue of sovereign immunity only after a full evidentiary hearing); Fed. Republic of Germany v. Elicofon, 358 F. Supp. 747, 752-53 (E.D.N.Y. 1970) (ordering a hearing to determine whether an East German museum is sufficiently independent of the unrecognized East German government to sue in United States courts), supp. op. 358 F. Supp. 753 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), aff'd sub nom. Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon, 478 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 931, and reh'g denied, 416 U.S. 952 (1974).
41. 25 B.R. 621 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982). Culmer and its importance vis-à-vis § 304 case law and the universality approach are discussed in detail in Booth, supra note 2, at 172-84, and Rimel, supra note 2, at 464-70.
42. Culmer, 25 B.R. at 623.
43. Id. at 628.
44. Id.
45. Id. at 629 (citing Cornfeld v. Investors Overseas Servs., 471 F. Supp. 1255, 1259 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (quoting Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v. Golden, 203 N.E.2d 210, 212 (N.Y. 1964))).
46. Id. at 633-34.
47. See, e.g., Banca Emiliana v. Farinacci (In re Enercons Va., Inc.), 812 F.2d 1469, 1472-73 (4th Cir. 1987) (affirming a district court's extension of comity to an Italian court and explicitly following the Cunard decision); Cunard S.S. Co. v. Salen Reefer Servs., 773 F.2d 452, 457-58 (2d Cir. 1985) (concluding that granting a § 304 petition is the "granting of comity to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding"); In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 130 B.R. 705, 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (stating that the court was "compelled to follow the lead of" Culmer and Gee and finding that "[c]omity is inevitably the more significant factor since the other factors . . . are inherently taken into account when considering comity"), vacated on other grounds, Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assocs. (In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A.), 961 F.2d 341, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 865 (1992); In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce, 88 B.R. 597, 608-10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (following the ruling in Culmer that § 304(c) is a codification of the principle of comity), aff'd, 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), appeal dismissed, Chemical Bank v. Togut (In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce), 924 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1991); Universal Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Gee (In re Gee), 53 B.R. 891, 901 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) (noting that comity is often the most significant factor and following case law cited in Culmer noting the strict exceptions to the comity doctrine).
48. See, e.g., Victrix S.S. Co., v. Salen Dry Cargo, 825 F.2d 709, 716 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing Swedish bankruptcy proceedings); Cunard, 773 F.2d at 461 (granting comity to a Swedish bankruptcy proceeding and vacating an attachment in the U.S.); Pravin Banker Assocs. v. Banco Popular del Peru, 165 B.R. 379, 385-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (recognizing a Peruvian bank liquidation); In re Rubin, 160 B.R. 269, 283 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1993) (recognizing an Israeli liquidation of a reinsurance company); Allstate Life Ins. v. Linter Group Ltd., 994 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1992) (recognizing an Australian proceeding and finding that comity is warranted), aff'd, 994 F.2d 996 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 386 (1993); In re Brierley, 145 B.R. 151, 163-68 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992) (recognizing an English bankruptcy proceeding); Lindner Fund, Inc. v. Polly Peck Int'l PLC, 143 B.R. 807, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (extending comity to an English reorganization proceeding); Koreag, 130 B.R. at 716 (recognizing a Swiss bankruptcy proceeding); Axona, 88 B.R. 613 (granting comity to a Hong Kong winding-up proceeding of a wholesale bank).
49. See Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. v. Galadari, 777 F.2d 877, 881 (2d Cir. 1985).
50. See supra note 43 and accompanying text.
51. 773 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1985) (granting comity to a Swedish bankruptcy proceeding and vacating an attachment in the United States).
52. 825 F.2d 709 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing Swedish bankruptcy proceedings).
53. These cases were initiated in the district court and were not first decided in a § 304 ancillary proceeding in bankruptcy court. The Cunard court held that although such an ancillary proceeding would have been a preferred remedy, it would not reverse the district court for deciding the matter without having referred the case to the bankruptcy court. Cunard, 773 F.2d at 455. In any case, the courts, particularly in Cunard, applied a comity analysis similar to that of § 304. See id. at 456-60; Victrix, 825 F.2d at 713-16.
54. Cunard, 773 F.2d at 454.
55. Id.
56. Id. at 459.
57. Id.
58. Id. at 460. The court found that evidence was inconclusive as to whether Sweden would grant comity to a United States proceeding. Id.
59. Victrix S.S. Co. v. Salen Dry Cargo, 825 F.2d 709, 714 (2d Cir. 1987).
60. Id. at 714-15. According to the court, N.Y. Civ. Practice L. & R. § 5304(b)(4) would permit denial of enforcement of the foreign judgment because it would conflict with the public policy of deference to foreign proceedings. Id. at 715.
61. Id.
62. 145 B.R. 151 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 1992).
63. Id. at 164.
64. Id. at 164-66.
65. Id. at 166.
66. 130 B.R. 705 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991), vacated on other grounds, Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assocs. (In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A.), 961 F.2d 341 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 865 (1992).
67. Id. at 712.
68. Id. at 713 (citing Cunard S.S. Co. v. Salen Reefer Servs., 773 F.2d 452, 458 (2d Cir. 1985)); see also Victrix S.S. Co. v. Salen Dry Cargo, 825 F.2d 709, 714 (2d Cir. 1987) (noting public policy for orderly distribution of assets in foreign bankruptcies).
69. Koreag, 130 B.R. at 716.
70. Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assocs. (In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A.), 961 F.2d 341, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 865 (1992).
71. Id.; see infra part ILB (discussing recent cases that treat comity as only a sixth, equal factor for § 304 analysis).
72. Koreag, 961 F.2d at 359. The court noted that the creditor opposing § 304 relief would be an unsecured creditor in the Swiss proceeding. Thus, it would not be deprived of any rights enjoyed by secured creditors in the United States that might be absent in Switzerland. Accordingly, because no party contested the fundamental fairness of Swiss insolvency laws, it would be proper to extend comity. Id.
73. See In re Papeleras Reunidas, S.A., 92 B.R. 584, 589-95 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988); Interpool, Ltd. v. Certain Freights of M/V Venture Star, 102 B.R. 373, 377-81 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988); In re Toga Mfg. Ltd., 28 B.R. 165, 168-70 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1983); In re Lineas Areas de Nicaragua, S.A., 13 B.R. 779, 780 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981).
74. 13 B.R. 779 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981).
75. In re Lineas Aereas S.A., 10 B.R. 790, 791 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1981). This turnover was extremely limited, however, perhaps not even a turnover at all, because it prohibited the Nicaraguan representative from "encumbering, assigning or abandoning the debtor's known assets located in the United States . . . as well as any additional assets discovered in this country." Id.
76. Lineas Areas de Nicaragua, 13 B.R. at 780.
77. See id. at 780-81.
78. Id.
79. See Booth, supra note 2, at 190-92.
80. 28 B.R. 165 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1983).
81. Id. at 167-68.
82. Booth, supra note 2, at 187.
83. Toga, 28 B.R. at 168-69.
84. 11 U.S.C. § 507 (1994).
85. Toga, 28 B.R. at 168 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 507 (1994)).
86. Id. at 168 & n.6.
87. Id. at 169.
88. See supra part I.B.1 (discussing the legislative intent behind the § 304(c) factors).
89. Toga, 28 B.R. at 169-70.
90. Id. at 170.
91. 92 B.R. 584 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988).
92. Id. at 594.
93. 25 B.R. 621 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982).
94. 53 B.R. 891 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985).
95. Papeleras, 92 B.R. at 594.
96. Id. (citing Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895)). The Papeleras court noted that, as described in part I.B.1, supra, the legislative history specifically states that "'Section 304(c) is modified to indicate that the court shall be guided by considerations of comity in addition to the other factors specified therein.'" Id. (quoting The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978: Introduction of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 8200, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.A.A.N. 6436, 6442 (statement by the Hon. Don Edwards, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary) (emphasis added)). Thus, according to the court, "it is best to equally consider all of the variables of § 304(c) in determining the appropriate relief in an ancillary proceeding." Id.
97. 102 B.R. 373 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988).
98. Id. at 377.
99. Id. at 380.
100. Id. at 379.
101. Booth, supra note 2, at 212.
102. See In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 130 B.R. 705, 714 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991), vacated on other grounds, Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assocs. (In re Koreag, Controle et Revision), 961 F.2d 341 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 865 (1992); In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 611 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), appeal dismissed, Chemical Bank v. Togut (In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce), 924 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1991).
103. See, e.g., In re Hourani, 180 B.R. 58 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (denying § 304 relief to a Jordanian proceeding).
104. Id. at 69-70.
105. Zeichner Ellman & Krause represented A.I. Trade in the Southern District of New York Action and in related litigation arising out of the forfaiting transaction described below.
106. Id. at 70.
107. Id. at 64-66.
108. A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 1991 WL 33296 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
109. For a detailed discussion of forfaiting transactions and the legal effect of a bank's "aval," see id. at *1.
110. Id.; Hourani, 180 B.R. at 61.
111. Petra Bank, 1991 WL 33296, at *4.
112. A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 81 (2d Cir. 1993).
113. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 62.
114. Id. at 61-62 (citing Economic Security Committee Res. No. 4/9, as amended by Res. No. 7/90, Sept. 20, 1990).
115. Id.
116. The Special Resolutions provide in pertinent part: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Companies Law and any other law or regulation: (7) A lawsuit for declaring the bankruptcy or insolvency of Petra Bank shall not be considered and the provisions of bankruptcy or insolvency provided for under the Commercial Law or Civil Law or any other law shall not be applicable thereto. Id. at 71.
117. Id. at 62.
118. A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 84 (2d Cir. 1993).
119. The full relief sought by the Committee requested an order (1) approving of the petition recognizing the Liquidation Committee as a "foreign representative" within the meaning of the Code, and recognizing the Jordanian Liquidation as a "foreign proceeding" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(23) and 304(a) of the Bankruptcy Code; (2) authorizing the Liquidation Committee to "assume dominion and control" of the Funds, "for the purposes of administering and disposing of Petra Bank's assets"; (3) directing the turnover of the Funds; (4) enjoining anyone from exerting "control or dominion" over the Funds; and (5) staying all other proceedings against Petra Bank. See Petition in a Case Ancillary to a Foreign Proceeding at 11-12, In re Hourani, 180 B.R. 58 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (No. 93-B-43765) (July 21, 1993).
120. 180 B.R. 58 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995).
121. Id. at 63 & n.9.
122. Id. at 63-64 & n.10.
123. In re Culmer, 25 B.R. 621, 628-29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982).
124. See In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 609-10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), appeal dismissed, Chemical Bank v. Togut (In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce), 924 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1991); Finister, supra note 15, at 358.
125. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 64 (citing Culmer, 25 B.R. at 624).
126. Id. The court also noted that there exists a modified universality approach with characteristics of both regimes. Id.
127. Id.
128. Id. at 64-65.
129. Id. at 65.
130. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(4) (1994). "This title" presumably refers to the Bankruptcy Code as § 304 is in the Bankruptcy Code.
131. For example, the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules have extensive notice provisions for many different stages of a bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d), 363(b), 364(b), 502(b), 503(b), 1112(b) (1994); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002. FIRREA's notice provisions, however, are primarily limited to notice by mail and publication for the filing of claims. See 12 U.S.C. § 212(s)(3)(B) (1994). Further, the Bankruptcy Code requires a meeting of creditors, see 11 U.S.C. § 341, under FIRREA, that determination is first made by the FDIC, see 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(11)(B)(iii). Only after an FDIA determination may a creditor seek judicial review. See Id.; 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(7).
132. The court noted that "it would be ironic if section 304 were interpreted to refuse comity to another country's liquidation of a bank under provisions identical to FIRREA. It would be akin to finding that FIRREA is repugnant to this country's notions of justice." Hourani, 180 B.R. at 65 n.12.
133. Id. at 65.
134. Id.
135. Id. at 66.
136. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(1) (1994).
137. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 65.
138. In re Culmer, 25 B.R. 621, 630 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982).
139. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 67.
140. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(1) (1994).
141. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 68.
142. Id.
143. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(3) (1994) (requiring consideration of the "prevention of preferential or fraudulent transfers").
144. Hourani 180 B.R. at 65-66.
145. Id. at 69.
146. Id.
147. Id. at 71.
148. Id. at 69.
149. Id. at 68-69 (citing paragraph 19 of the Special Resolutions, which give the Liquidation Committee discretion to supplement the Special Resolutions as it "deems fit").
150. Id. at 69.
151. 11 U.S.C. § 304(c)(4) (1994) (listing "distribution of proceeds . . . substantially in accordance with the order prescribed by this title" as a relevant factor in determining whether to defer to a foreign jurisdiction).
152. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 69.
153. Id. at 70.
154. Id.
155. See supra part I.B.1 (discussing the legislative history of § 304).
156. In re Culmer, 25 B.R. 621, 629 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982) (citing Cornfeld v. Investors Overseas Servs., Ltd., 471 F. Supp. 1255, 1259 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)).
157. Hourani, 180 B.R. at 69-70. As United States courts have developed a body of case law addressing the issues transnational insolvencies raise, the International Bar Association has drafted the Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat, "a framework for harmonizing cross-border insolvency proceedings." Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat 1 (Draft, Int'l Bar Assoc. Sept. 1995). The Concordat is a set of 10 principles that embrace universality. Id. at 5-8. Although its practical utility may be limited, the Concordat's real significance is its codification of the principle of universality by a respected organization of international insolvency professionals. It will prove useful if courts widely adopt its principles, or if it leads to an international treaty drafted in the same spirit. Indeed, at least one published United States opinion has mentioned the Concordat. See In re Hackett, 184 B.R. 656, 658 & n.3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (noting that the case's holding is not inconsistent with the principles of the Concordat, but not relying on it as authority).
158. Culmer, 25 B.R. at 629 (emphasis added).
159. Hourani, 180 B.R. 65 n.12 (emphasis added).
160. 773 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1985).
161. Id. at 458 (emphasis added).
162. 102 B.R. 373 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988).
163. Id. at 377 (emphasis added).
164. 88 B.R. 597 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff'd, 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), appeal dismissed, Chemical Bank v. Togut (In re Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce), 924 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1991).
165. Id. at 609.
166. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895).
167. See, e.g., Rimel, supra note 2, at 461-62, 464-66 (using comity and universality as interchangeable terms).
168. See supra part I.B.1 (discussing legislative history of § 304(c)); see also H.R. Rep. No. 595, supra note 23, at 6281 (focusing on comity and flexibility in the § 304 analysis); S. Rep. No. 989, supra note 23, at 5821 (same).
169. In this proposed amendment underlined language is an addition and bracketed language is a deletion. See supra note 25 (giving full text of 11 U.S.C. § 304 (1994)).
170. See discussion supra part I.B.1 (discussing the legislative history of § 304(c)).