In Re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd. (2006)
green
· 117 citation events
across 21 courts.
Showing the 40 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Michael Jaffe v. Samsung Electronics Company (2013)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 637 (Bankr.
green
Ad Hoc Grp of Vitro Noteholder v. Vitro SAB de CV (2013)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Fintech Investments, Limited v. Ad Hoc Group of Vi (2013)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Vitro SAB de CV v. Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Notehold (2013)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Fintech Investments, Limited v. Ad Hoc Group of Vi (2012)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Ad Hoc Grp of Vitro Noteholder v. Vitro SAB de CV (2012)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Vitro SAB de CV v. Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Notehold (2012)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Vitro SAB de CV v. Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Notehold (2012)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
green
Ad Hoc Grp of Vitro Noteholder v. Vitro SAB de CV (2012)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 632 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
Lavie v. Ran (In Re Ran) (2010)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 633-34 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (2013)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 634 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
News 2005, p. 88; In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd,., 349 B.R. 627, 631-32 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A. (2017)
Cal. 2006)). “[I]f the foreign proceeding is in the country of the registered office, and if there is evidence that the center of main interests might be elsewhere, then the foreign representative must prove that the center of main interest is in the same country as the registered office.” Id. at 128 (quoting In re TriContinental Exch., 349 B.R. at 635 ); see also id. (“[The] presumption is not a preferred alternative where there is a separation between a corporation’s juris…
“[The] presumption is not a preferred alternative where there is a separation between a corporation’s jurisdiction of incorporation and its real seat.”
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 638 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006). .
green
In Re Toft (2011)
In addition, the European Insolvency Regulation, which served in some respects as a model for the UNCITRAL Model Law, see In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 633-34 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006), has a similar public policy exception that permits a member state to refuse to enforce a judgment in an insolvency proceeding if “enforcement would be manifestly contrary to that state's public policy, in particular its fundamental principles or the constitutional rights and l…
green
In Re International Banking Corp. B.S.C. (2010)
Rather, under section 1521(b), the foreign representative may be entrusted with “the distribution of all or part of the debtor’s assets located in the United States ... provided that the court is satisfied that the interests of creditors in the United States are sufficiently protected.” 11 U.S.C. § 1521 (b); accord Atlas, 404 B.R. at 740 ; In re Tri-Cont’l Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 636 (Bankr.
Only one reported decision addresses the meaning of the § 1522(a) statutory requirement that the relevant parties’ interests be “sufficiently protected.” In In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., the bankruptcy court stated in dicta, while reviewing generally the tools available to bankruptcy courts administering Chapter 15 proceedings, that [standards that inform the analysis of § 1522 protective measures in connection with discretionary relief emphasize the need to tailor re…
See also Tri-Continental, 349 B.R. at 635 (“[I]f the foreign proceeding is in the country of the registered office, and if there is evidence that the center of main interests might be elsewhere, then the foreign representative must prove that the center of main interests is in the same country as the registered office.”); House Report at 112 (“Although sections 1515 and 1516 are designed to make recognition as simple and expedient as possible, the court may hear proof on any…
“[I]f the foreign proceeding is in the country of the registered office, and if there is evidence that the center of main interests might be elsewhere, then the foreign representative must prove that the center of main interests is in the same country as the registered office.”
Id. (citing In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 637 (Bankr.
green
In re Ace Track Co. (2016)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 635-38 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006), a concern expressly raised by USCO.
green
In re Bluberi Gaming Technologies, Inc. (2016)
Cf. In re Qimonda AG Bankr.Litig., 433 B.R. 547, 557 (E.D.Va.2010) and In re TriContinental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 637 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In re Sivec SRL (2012)
In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd.., 349 B.R. 627, 637 (Bankr.E.D.Calif.2006) (quoting H.R.Rep.
The Court observed in In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 634 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006), that the term center of main interests “generally equates with the concept of ‘principal place of business’ in United States law.” The decision quotes the explanation of Professor Westbrook, one of the drafters of the UNCITRAL Model Law and chapter 15, as to why the term “center of main interests” was substituted: Chapter 15 was drafted to follow the Model Law as closely as pos…
green
In Re British American Isle of Venice (BVI), Ltd. (2010)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 635 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In Re Grant Forest Products, Inc. (2010)
No. 109-31(1), at 109, as reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 172); In re Tri-Continental Exchange, Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 638 (Bankr.E.D.Ca.2006).
green
In Re British American Ins. Co. Ltd. (2010)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 635 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In Re Gold & Honey, Ltd. (2009)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 631-32 (Bankr.E.D.Cal. 2006); United States v. J.A.
green
In Re Ran (2008)
In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 635 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In Re Ernst & Young, Inc. (2008)
No. 109-31 at 105-07 (2005), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin .News (2005 p. 88)); In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 631-32 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
In Re Basis Yield Alphs Fund (Master) (2008)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 631-32 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006) ("Tri-Continental Exchange"); H.R.Rep.
green
Iida v. Kitahara (In Re Iida) (2007)
Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 631-32 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006); H.R.Rep.
green
In Re Abc Learning Centres Ltd. (2011)
Section 1516(c) provides that “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, the debtor’s registered office ... is presumed to be the center of the debtor’s main interests.” 11 U.S.C. § 1516 (c); See In re TriContinental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 635 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006) (recognizing the winding up proceedings of insurance companies in St.
See In re Tri–Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 637 (Bankr.
green
In re Serviços de Petróleo Constellation S.A. (2019)
Report No. 109-31, 112-13 (2005); see also In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd. , 349 B.R. 627 , 635 (Bankr.
green
In re Gerova Financial Group, Ltd. (2012)
See In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd.., 349 B.R. 627, 633 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006), quoting Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Chapter 15 at Last, 79 Am.
green
O'Sullivan v. Loy (2010)
See, e.g., In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 633 (Bankr.E.D.Ca. 2006) (considering other Model Law-based statutes in interpreting “center of main interests,” a phrase in Chapter 15 adopted from the Model Law).
considering other Model Law-based statutes in interpreting “center of main interests,” a phrase in Chapter 15 adopted from the Model Law
green
In Re Atlas Shipping A/S (2009)
Section 1522(b) provides that the court may impose conditions on discretionary relief, such as the posting of security or a bond. 11 U.S.C. § 1522 (b); see also In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 349 B.R. 627, 636 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2006).
green
Lavie v. Ran (2009)
See In re Tri-Continental, 349 B.R. at 634 .
green
In Re Betcorp Ltd. (2009)
In re Bear Steams High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 389 B.R. 325, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (quoting House Report, supra, at 112-13); Tradex Swiss, 384 B.R. at 43 ; see Fed.R.Evid. 301 (explaining that a party’s rebuttal of a presumption does not shift the burden of proof; rather, the risk of nonpersuasion remains upon the party on whom it was originally cast-in this case, the joint liquidators of Betcorp); see also In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd., 3…