11 U.S.C. § 1506
Public policy exception
Nothing in this chapter prevents the court from refusing to take an action governed by this chapter if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys, 714 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2013).
Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys, 714 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2013). “public policy, and was therefore barred by 11 U.S.C. § 1506 , because the court records in the BVI liquidation were sealed.”
In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A., 578 B.R. 169 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1506 . The exception is read narrowly, with legislative history stating that “the word ‘manifestly1 in international usage restricts the public policy exception to the most fundamental policies of the United States.”
In Re SPhinX, Ltd., 351 B.R. 103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006). “" 11 U.S.C. § 1506 . According to the legislative history, this provision in similar Model Law contexts “has been narrowly interpreted on a consistent basis in courts around the world.”
Michael Jaffe v. Samsung Elec. Co., 737 F.3d 14 (4th Cir. 2013). “The bankruptcy court also concluded, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1506 , that allowing Jaffé to cancel unilaterally Qimonda’s licenses of U.”
In Re Tri-Cont'l Exch. Ltd., 349 B.R. 627 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2006). “11 U.S.C. § 1506 . 15 Congress has indicated, with its use of the phrase “manifestly contrary,” that this exception is to be narrowly construed, which view is consistent with the explication in the Guide.”
Micron Tech., Inc. v. Qimonda AG (In Re Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig.), 433 B.R. 547 (E.D. Va. 2010). “” 28 11 U.S.C. § 1506 . *566 B. In resolving whether the § 1506 public policy exception applies here, it is necessary to discuss the history of § 365(n), which begins with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc.”
In re Ennia Caribe Holding N.V., 594 B.R. 631 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018). “" Parman also argues that even if the Curaçao proceeding would satisfy the requirements to be a "foreign proceeding," this Court should nevertheless refuse to recognize the Curaçao proceeding because, in Parman's view, it is "manifestly contrary to the public policy of the…”
Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V. v. ACP Master, Ltd. (In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V.), 473 B.R. 117 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1506 . The parties spent much of their time on this issue.”
In Re Toft, 453 B.R. 186 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1506 ; In re Ephedra Prods. Liability Litig.”
In re Rede Energia S.A., 515 B.R. 69 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). “at 198 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1506 ). However, the public policy exception is clearly drafted in narrow terms and “the few reported cases that have analyzed [section] 1506 at length recognize that it is to be applied sparingly.”
In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 570 B.R. 687 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017). “Recognition of the Cayman Proceedings Would Not Be Manifestly Contrary to United States Policy Section 1506 provides that a bankruptcy court may decline to grant relief requested if the action would be “manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States.”
in Asi, Inc. v. Liquidators (In re Manley Toys Ltd.), 597 B.R. 578 (D.N.J. 2019). “" 11 U.S.C. § 1506 . A. Collective in nature Among other requirements, a foreign liquidation must be "collective in nature" to be recognized under Chapter 15.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.