11 U.S.C. § 1529 : Bankruptcy — Ancillary And Other Cross-Border Cases — Concurrent Proceedings — Coordination Of A Case Under This Title And A Foreign Proceeding

If a foreign proceeding and a case under another chapter of this title are pending concurrently regarding the same debtor, the court shall seek cooperation and coordination under sections 1525, 1526, and 1527, and the following shall apply:

(1)

If the case in the United States is pending at the time the petition for recognition of such foreign proceeding is filed—

(A) any relief granted under section 1519 or 1521 must be consistent with the relief granted in the case in the United States; and

(B) section 1520 does not apply even if such foreign proceeding is recognized as a foreign main proceeding.

(2)

If a case in the United States under this title commences after recognition, or after the date of the filing of the petition for recognition, of such foreign proceeding—

(A) any relief in effect under section 1519 or 1521 shall be reviewed by the court and shall be modified or terminated if inconsistent with the case in the United States; and

(B) if such foreign proceeding is a foreign main proceeding, the stay and suspension referred to in section 1520(a) shall be modified or terminated if inconsistent with the relief granted in the case in the United States.

(3) In granting, extending, or modifying relief granted to a representative of a foreign nonmain proceeding, the court must be satisfied that the relief relates to assets that, under the laws of the United States, should be administered in the foreign nonmain proceeding or concerns information required in that proceeding.

(4) In achieving cooperation and coordination under sections 1528 and 1529, the court may grant any of the relief authorized under section 305.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title VIII, § 801(a), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 144; amended Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(a)(48), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3562.)

Amendments

2010—Par. (1). Pub. L. 111–327, which directed amendment of par. (1) by inserting “is” after “States”, was executed by making the insertion only in introductory provisions to reflect the probable intent of Congress.