Is There a Common-Law Alternative to Chapter 15? A Response to Rochelle's Daily Wire and Prof. Jay Westbrook.

This article examines the Third Circuit's ruling in Vertiv Inc. v. Wayne Burt PTE Ltd. and its impact on chapter 15 of the bankruptcy code. The authors disagree with the argument that the Third Circuit's decision makes chapter 15 irrelevant, asserting that the court's test for adjudicative comity complements chapter 15 in civil litigation. The article delves into the legislative history of section 1509 of the bankruptcy code and the ongoing debate surrounding a foreign representative's access to courts. The authors conclude that the Third Circuit's decision does not provide an alternative to chapter 15, but rather clarifies the test for abstention in deference to foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The text also explores the concept of adjudicative comity in international insolvency cases, emphasizing the exclusive access granted by chapter 15 for foreign representatives to seek relief in U.S. courts. However, there is ongoing discussion about the jurisdictional scope of chapter 15 and its relationship with adjudicative comity. The recent Supreme Court ruling in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC suggests that a clear jurisdictional statement is necessary to limit a court's jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases. Ultimately, courts should evaluate requests for comity and chapter 15 based on the specific circumstances of each case. [Extracted from the article]