11 U.S.C. § 306
Limited appearance
An appearance in a bankruptcy court by a foreign representative in connection with a petition or request under section 303 or 305 of this title does not submit such foreign representative to the jurisdiction of any court in the United States for any other purpose, but the bankruptcy court may condition any order under section 303 or 305 of this title on compliance by such foreign representative with the orders of such bankruptcy court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1981–2003 · leading case: Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984).
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984). “References to state and federal courts together as courts "in" or "within" the United States are found in the Supremacy Clause ("Judges in every state"); 11 U. S. C. § 306 (1982 ed.); 22 U. S. C.”
In Re Cenargo Int'l, PLC, 294 B.R. 571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003). “1 See 11 U.S.C. § 306 (“[T]he bankruptcy court may condition any order under section .”
In Re William Neil Simon, Debtor. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. v. William Neil Simon, 153 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1998). “This argument misapprehends bankruptcy law and the effect of the proceedings in this case.”
Diversified Mortg. Investors, Inc. v. Lake Tahoe Land Co. (In Re Lake Tahoe Land Co.), 12 B.R. 479 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1981). “Erroneously referred to as 11 U.S.C. § 306 in the order of dismissal.”
State v. Pierson (In Re Pierson), 17 B.R. 822 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1982). “The above entitled bankruptcy case was commenced on August 17,1981 by the debtors filing a voluntary petition under 11 U.S.C. § 306 . Notice of First Meeting was mailed to all scheduled creditors on August 18, 1981.”
Matter of Kingscroft Ins. Co., Ltd., 138 B.R. 121 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1992). “11 U.S.C.A. § 306 (West 1991). In the Matter of Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce Ltd.”
In re Kingscroft Ins., 138 B.R. 121 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1992). “11 U.S.C.A. § 306 (West 1991). In the Matter of Axona Int'l Credit & Commerce Ltd.”
In Re Pennino, 291 B.R. 842 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2003). “In weighing these factors, the Court is convinced that abstention under 11 U.S.C. § 306 is appropriate. Not only is reorganization remote and patently not feasible, there is no valid purpose under these facts for a chapter 13 reorganization.”
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.