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
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....