The Finality of Bankruptcy Court Orders Recognizing Foreign Proceedings
In In re Al Zawawi, the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court order recognizing a foreign proceeding is final and thus appealable.
The Proceedings in Al Zawawi
Al Zawawi involved a debtor who had been adjudged bankrupt by a court in the United Kingdom. His creditors then sought recognition of this foreign judgment in a U.S. bankruptcy court. Recognition of the judgment would subject the debtor’s assets in the United States to an automatic stay and permit discovery and other relief concerning those assets.
The bankruptcy court granted the request and recognized the judgment. The debtor then appealed. But bankruptcy proceedings were not yet over. Indeed, they had only just begun. The Eleventh Circuit thus had to determine its jurisdiction.
Finality in Bankruptcy
Finality in the bankruptcy context can get complicated. A single bankruptcy action can involve a variety of proceedings that, outside of the bankruptcy context, would have been separate actions. And some decisions bankruptcy courts make in the course of their proceedings can have an immense influence on all future proceedings.
In 2020’s Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the Supreme Court laid out guidelines for determining finality in the bankruptcy context. The Court explained that a bankruptcy court order is final if “(1) it involves ‘a discrete procedural sequence, including notice and a hearing,’’ as set forth by statute, and (2) it ‘occurs before and apart from the proceedings on the merits of creditors’ claims.’” (For more on Ritzen Group, see my post Ritzen Group Holds that Denials of Relief from Bankruptcy’s Automatic Stay are Appealable.)
The Finality of Recognizing a Foreign Judgment
The resolution of a petition to recognize a foreign proceeding satisfied both Ritzen Group requirements:
Petitions for recognition trigger a discrete procedural sequence that includes notice and a hearing. And although the adjudication of a petition for recognition does not occur before the proceedings on the merits, i.e., the foreign proceeding, it occurs apart from those proceedings in the sense that it introduces for the first time and fully occurs in a new legal system, i.e., the federal courts of the United States.
(Cleaned up.)
The Eleventh Circuit added that delayed appeals from recognition orders could risk unraveling later bankruptcy proceedings that relied on the recognition. And the dispute was not minor—it would “determine[] whether the parties to a foreign proceeding will have access to the judicial resources and power of the United States,” which “can have significant implications for enormous amounts of property held in the United States and abroad.”
In re Al Zawawi, 2024 WL 1423871 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases can be tricky. The rules governing finality are different. And there’s an an extra tier of intermediate appellate review, with cases first going to a district court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel before they can reach the courts of appeals. Litigants can skip this extra tier of review and proceed straight […]
Continue reading....
Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases can get complicated. The rules of finality are different in bankruptcy. And bankruptcy involves an extra tier of intermediate appellate review: litigants initially appeal bankruptcy court decisions to either a district court or a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Litigants can then seek further review in the courts of appeals. As a […]
Continue reading....
In In re Tennial, the Sixth Circuit held that bankruptcy’s 14-day deadline for filing an appeal is not jurisdictional. In doing so, the court split with every other court of appeals to address this issue. The Supreme Court has drawn a fairly clear line between deadlines found in statutes—which are jurisdictional—and those found only in […]
Continue reading....
In In re Marino, the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision that remanded the dispute back to the bankruptcy court. The opinion provides a nice summary of the Ninth Circuit’s law on appealing bankruptcy remands. These remands mean further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. And the parties […]
Continue reading....
In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the Supreme Court held that litigants must immediately appeal the conclusive denial of relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings.” The Supreme Court reasoned […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....