1 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov 

In re:

 

SÃO FERNANDO AÇÚCAR E ÁLCOOL 

LTDA., SÃO FERNANDO ENERGIA I 

LTDA., SÃO FERNANDO ENERGIA II 

LTDA., SÃO MARCOS ENERGIA E 

PARTICIPAÇÕES LTDA., AND SÃO PIO 

EMPREENDIMENTOS E PARTICIPAÇÕES 

LTDA.

Case No.: 19-21256-AJC

Chapter 15 

Debtors in a Foreign Proceeding. 

 / 

EXPEDITED MOTION FOR ORDER RECOGNIZING THE PRELIMINARY 

ASSET FREEZE ENTERED BY THE BRAZILIAN BANKRUPTCY COURT

(EXPEDITED HEARING REQUESTED – Injunctive Relief Sought) 

The Foreign Representative seeks the recognition of a freeze order entered in the foreign main 

proceeding. Expedited consideration of this Motion is sought to avoid dissipation of assets and 

irreparable harm to the Debtors’ bankruptcy estate. 

Vinicius Coutinho Consultoria e Perícia S/S Ltda. (the “Foreign Representative”), the duly 

appointed judicial administrator of the estates in bankruptcy of São Fernando Açúcar e Álcool 

Ltda. (“SF A&A”), São Fernando Energia I Ltda. (“SF Energia I”), São Fernando Energia II Ltda. 

(“SF Energia II”), São Marcos Energia e Participações Ltda. (“São Marcos”) and São Pio 

Empreendimentos e Participações Ltda. (“São Pio”) (collectively, the “Debtors” or the “São 

Fernando Group”), files this Motion for Order Recognizing the Preliminary Asset Freeze Entered 

by the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court (the “Motion”). The Motion seeks entry of an Order pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 1507 and 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code recognizing and enforcing orders 

entered by the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court (as defined below) in an incident proceeding relating 

to the Debtors’ bankruptcy proceeding pending in the 5th Civil Court of the City of Dourados, in 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 27
2 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil (the “Brazilian Bankruptcy Court”) under case no. 

0802789-69.2013.8.12.0002 (the “Brazilian Bankruptcy Case”). 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Foreign Representative filed an action in the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court to pierce the 

Debtors’ corporate veil and extend the effects of the Debtors’ bankruptcy to seven Respondents 

(as defined below) related to the Debtors. In connection with that action, the Brazilian Bankruptcy 

Court granted a prejudgment asset freeze against the Respondents, enjoining the Respondents from 

transferring or otherwise dissipating their assets, including assets located in the United States. 

After five of the Respondents filed separate appeals, the Brazilian Appellate Court (as defined 

below) slightly modified the scope of the prejudgment asset freeze as to those Respondents, only 

to permit the management and use of the assets and the disposal of the proceeds of the assets. 

To give effect to and enforce the freeze order as to the Respondents’ assets in the United 

States, the Foreign Representative seeks the recognition and enforcement of the Brazilian orders 

pursuant to Chapter 15, which embody principles of comity and deference to foreign bankruptcy 

judgments. As described in detail below, the recognition of the freeze order is warranted under 

sections 1507 and 1521(a)(7) because (i) the Brazilian proceeding was fair and comported with 

American notions of due process, (ii) the prejudgment asset freeze obtained in support of the 

Brazilian proceeding is the type of relief that may be obtained by a trustee in the United States in 

support of an action for substantive consolidation, (iii) the interests of the Debtors, their creditors 

and the Respondents are protected, and (iv) there is no indication that this relief violates U.S. 

public policy. Alternatively, the Court should enter an order under section 1521(a)(3) in 

substantially the same form as the Brazilian asset freeze as the prejudgment asset freeze entered 

by the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court satisfies the applicable injunction standards. 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 27
3 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 

and sections 109 and 1501 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

2. This is a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O) & (P), and the 

Court may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution. 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1410. 

RELEVANT FACTS

A. Procedural History

4. The Sao Fernando Group filed for a reorganization proceeding under Brazilian law 

on April 13, 2013 and, after its creditors approved its reorganization plan, the Brazilian Bankruptcy 

Court approved the reorganization plan and granted the reorganization petition. D.E. 2. 

5. The Sao Fernando Group’s reorganization efforts were not successful, and on June 

8, 2017, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court entered an order declaring the Sao Fernando Group 

bankrupt (the “Bankruptcy Order”). D.E. 2. 

6. The Sao Fernando Group’s bankruptcy was in part due to mismanagement and 

abuse of the companies by its owners and controllers. At all relevant times prior to the Bankruptcy 

Order, the Sao Fernando Group was owned and operated by Jose Carlos da Costa Marques Bumlai 

(“Jose Bumlai”), Guilherme de Barros da Costa Marques Bumlai (“Guilherme Bumlai”), and 

Mauricio de Barros Bumlai (“Mauricio Bumlai”). These individuals, along with other members of 

the Bumlai family, used the Sao Fernando Group for their own benefit, enriching themselves to 

the detriment of the Debtors. 

7. On September 20, 2019, this Court entered an Order (the “Recognition Order”) 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 27
4 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

recognizing the Debtors’ Brazilian Bankruptcy Case as a foreign main proceeding under Chapter 

15. D.E. 6. The Recognition Order also recognized the Judicial Administrator as the foreign 

representative of the Brazilian Bankruptcy Case. D.E. 6. 

B. The Brazilian Bankruptcy Court Enters Freeze Orders

8. On August 25, 2020, the Foreign Representative filed a procedural incident motion 

under Case No. 0810455-77.2020.8.12.0002 (the “Veil Piercing Action”) in the Brazilian 

Bankruptcy Court seeking to pierce the Debtors’ corporate veil to extend the effects of the Debtors’ 

bankruptcy to members of the Bumlai family and their companies: Jose Bumlai, Guilherme 

Bumlai, Mauricio Bumlai, Cristiane de Barros Costa Marques Bumlai Pagnonceli (“Cristiane 

Bumlai”), Fernando de Barros Bumlai (“Fernando Bumlai”), Agropecuaria CF Ltda. 

(“Agropecuaria”), and Donex Participacoes e Empreendimentos OSJC Ltda. (“Donex”, and 

collectively, the “Respondents”). See Declaration of Marcelo Lucidi, attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A”, at ¶ 8.. The incident motion was accompanied with a request for urgent provisional relief to 

attach the Respondents’ assets in Brazil and abroad, up to the limit of the Debtors’ liabilities 

totaling 2,202,722,644.51 Brazilian Reals. Id., at ¶ 11.

9. On September 15, 2020, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the 

“Freeze Order”) partially granting the urgent provisional relief requested, ordering the attachment 

of all the Respondents’ assets up to the aforesaid limit, except money and bank accounts. Id., at ¶ 

12. The Brazilian Bankruptcy Court deferred attachment on freezing the Respondents liquid assets 

upon a showing by the Foreign Representative that the real properties were not sufficient to satisfy 

the Debtors’ debts. Id., at ¶ 12-13. 

10. In the Freeze Order, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court found that the Respondents 

abused their control of the Debtors for their own benefit, exercising control of the Debtors in 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 27
5 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

deviation of their corporate purpose. Ex. A, at Ex. 1. In so doing, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court 

cited the following transactions, which it found to be “supported by detailed evidence”: 

(a) On March 1, 2014, the Bumlai family caused Debtor SF A&A to 

enter into a lease agreement with Agropecuaria, which was owned by Fernando 

Bumlai and Cristiane Bumlai, to lease an aircraft purchased by Agropecuaria in 

October 2013. SF A&A had no commercial reason for entering the lease. The lease 

required monthly payments of US$130,000.00, virtually the same amount as the 

monthly payment of US$131,305.80 owed by Agropecuaria to the seller of the 

aircraft. 

(b) In 2013, Debtor SF A&A transferred approximately 1.5 million

Brazilian Reals (“Reals”) to Jose Bumlai by issuing checks to two companies 

owned by Fernando Bumlai and the wife of Mauricio Bumlai. Though the checks 

were purportedly issued to pay for services rendered, the companies did not provide 

any services in connection with the invoices. Upon receiving the checks, the 

companies endorsed the checks to Jose Bumlai, who cashed the checks at Banco do 

Brasil. In effect, Jose Bumlai withdrew cash from Sao Fernando`s bank account for 

his own personal benefit.

(c) In 2011, Jose Bumlai caused Debtor SF A&A to transfer 2 million 

Reals to Legend Engenheiros Associadoes Ltda., a company used by “professional 

money launderer” Adir Assad as part of his money laundering scheme. When 

investigated in connection with a criminal case against Mr. Assad, SF A&A 

provided “fraudulent explanations” for the transactions.

(d) In 2012, after Debtor SF A&A merged with TSF Logistica Ltda., a 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 27
6 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

company owned by Cristiane Bumlai and Fernando Bumlai, SF A&A discharged a 

debt of 18 million Reals previously owed by Jose Bumlai to TSF Logistica Ltda. 

Jose Bumlai never repaid the loan. 

(e) During 2011 and 2012, Debtors SF A&A and SF Energia II made 

payments of 27,385,141.10 Reals to Banco do Brasil and 4,297,920.61 Reals to 

Banco Daycoval to pay debts owed by Immbrax Industria e Comercio Ltda., a 

company owned by the Bumlais and their associates. 

(f) In 2016, while in reorganization, Debtor SF A&A entered into a 

lease agreement with B9 Logistica Eirelli, a company owned by the Bumlais to 

lease 68 pieces of equipment. Contrary to the agreement, however, 39 pieces of the 

leased equipment—overflow wagons leased at a rate of 100,000 Reals per month—

were actually owned by SF A&A. Further, 20 of the wagons owned by SF A&A 

were subsequently written off as unserviceable and then misappropriated by the 

Bumlais. 

(g) In 2007, SF A&A entered into a “partnership” with Jose Bumlai for 

the planting, growing, and harvesting of sugarcane whereby SF A&A would pay 

for the costs and pay Jose Bumlai a portion of any profit made. The agreement was 

amended in 2013 changing Jose Bumlai’s compensation to a set amount. Despite 

the agreement, however, all of the sugarcane produced by SF A&A under the 

“partnership” during 2013 and 2017 was sold by the Bumlais to SF A&A. Thus, in

addition to bearing the costs of planting, growing, and harvesting its sugarcane, 

Debtor SF A&A paid Jose Bumlai for its own production. During the period of 

2015 until the Debtors’ liquidation in 2017, SF A&A paid the Bumlais 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 27
7 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

approximately 47 million Reals for 58,000 metric tons of its own production. In 

addition, SF A&A was forced to pay rates well above the market price. 

(h) In 2015, while in reorganization, SF A&A transferred 15 million

Reals to Faccilytho Capital e Rentabilidade Ltda., a company that acquired various 

debts of the Bumlai Respondents. The transfers paid off various debts owed by the 

Bumlais, preferring the company over other creditors and, once again, acting for 

the benefit of the Respondents for no consideration in return. 

11. Though the Freeze Order did not grant the Foreign Representative’s request to 

freeze the Respondents’ liquid assets, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court reconsidered its decision

specifically for moneys held in bank accounts abroad. Ex. A, at ¶ 13. On September 21, 2020, the 

Brazilian Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the “Reconsideration Order”) granting the Foreign 

Representative’s request for reconsideration of the scope of the Freeze Order’s freeze of the 

Respondents assets to include their liquid assets, in particular their financial assets held abroad. Id.

The Brazilian Bankruptcy Court reasoned that “since there is the narrative of money in accounts 

abroad ... with the possible intention of concealing assets, it is necessary to block [ ] financial 

assets, accounts, money of any kind, shares, debentures in any foreign country, especially in the 

Bahamas and in the United States of America.” Ex. A, at Ex. 2. Accordingly, the Court ordered 

the “blocking of all financial assets of the defendants abroad, especially in the Bahamas and in the 

United States of America, up to the amount of R$2,202,722,644.51.” Ex. A, at Ex. 2. To enforce 

its order abroad, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court directed that “[f]or that purpose, a letter rogatory 

or other instrument shall be issued, as soon as possible, for compliance with the 

[“Reconsideration Order”].” Ex. A, at Ex. 2 (emphasis added). 

12. Following Brazilian procedure, the Brazilian Court issued service of the Freeze

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 7 of 27
8 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Order and the Reconsideration Order to each Respondent via postage mail. Ex. A, at ¶ 14. Shortly 

thereafter, Respondents Cristiane Bumlai, Fernando Bumlai, Agropecuaria, and Donex appeared 

in the Veil Piercing Action represented by counsel and filed defenses to the Veil Piercing Action. 

Id. 

13. As Mauricio Bumlai, Guilherme Bumlai and José Carlos Bumlai were not found at 

the mailing addresses indicated for service, the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court ordered their service 

through personal service to be effected by an officer of the Court. See Ex. A, at ¶ 36. 

14. On April 14, 2021, Mauricio Bumlai and Guilherme Bumlai voluntarily appeared 

in the proceedings and filed their defenses to the Veil Piercing Action. Ex. A, at ¶ 15. On May 28, 

2021, Jose Bumlai voluntarily appeared in the Veil Piercing Action and presented his defense to 

the Veil Piercing Action. Id. Accordingly, all Respondents have appeared and presented defenses 

in the Veil Piercing Action.

C. The Appellate Court Denies Respondents’ Stay Pending Appeal

15. Shortly after presenting their defense to the Veil Piercing Action, Fernando Bumlai, 

Cristiane Bumlai and Agropecuaria filed interlocutory appeals against the Freeze Order (as 

modified by the Reconsideration Order) to the Mato Grosso do Sul State Court of Appeals (the 

“Appellate Court”). 

16. Fernando Bumlai challenged the Freeze Order before the Appellate Court under 

Interlocutory Appeal No. 1413886-76.2020.8.12.0000. On October 23, 2020, the Judge 

Rapporteur entered an order (the “Fernando Appellate Order”) rejecting Fernando Bumlai’s 

application to stay the Freeze Order. Ex. A, at Ex. 3. In so doing, the Appellate Court concluded 

that Fernando Bumlai committed several actions “that ultimately caused huge losses to the 

bankrupt business group, apparently qualifying as commingling of assets and abusive and willful 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 8 of 27
9 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

use of the corporate veil of legal entities.” Ex. A, at Ex. 3. 

17. The Appellate Court added: 

Thus, for purposes of review of the request for preliminary injunction, considering, on one 

hand, the complexity of the case and the severe effects of the potential release of the assets 

already at this early moment, and, on the other hand, the need to ensure, before making 

any decision with potentially irreversible effects, prior and effective adversary proceeding, 

in favor of respondents/appellees, i.e. [the Debtors’ estates], that it is necessary to uphold 

the freezing of assets ordered against appellant Fernando de Barros Bumlai, except with 

regard to the management and use/disposal of the proceeds from his assets, a total freezing 

of which could pose a risk to his and his family’s proper support. 

Ex. A, at Ex. 3. The Appellate Court therefore narrowly modified the asset freeze entered in the 

Reconsideration Order for the limited purpose of permitting Fernando Bumlai’s “management and 

use” of his assets and “disposal of the proceeds from the assets,” to avoid the risk to his family and 

his family’s proper support. Ex. A, at ¶ 17 & Ex. 3. 

18. Cristiane Bumlai and Agropecuaria also filed appeals against the Freeze and 

Reconsideration Orders before the Appellate Court, which were docketed as Interlocutory Appeals 

No. 1415037-77.2020.8.12.0000 and No. 1415142-54.2020.8.12.0000, respectively. On 

November 17, 2020 and November 20, 2020, the Judge Rapporteur entered orders rejecting the 

their arguments to stay the Freeze Order. The appellate orders, and translations thereof, are 

attached to the Declaration as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. 

19. More recently, shortly after appearing in the Veil Piercing Action, Guilherme 

Bumlai and Mauricio Bumlai jointly filed an interlocutory appeal against the Freeze and 

Reconsideration Orders before the Appellate Court, which was docketed as Interlocutory Appeal 

No. 1405509-82.2021.8.12.0000. On May 6, 2021, the Judge Rapporteur entered an order rejecting 

their arguments to stay the Freeze Order. The appellate order, and translation thereof, is attached 

to the Declaration as Exhibit 6. 

20. The orders entered by the Judge Rapporteur on the appeals by Cristiane Bumlai, 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 9 of 27
10 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Agropecuaria, Mauricio Bumlai and Guilherme Bumlai are similar to the Fernando Appellate 

Order and only modified the Freeze Order (as amended by the Reconsideration Order) to permit 

the continued “management and use” of their assets and “disposal of the proceeds from the assets,” 

to avoid the risk to the Bumlai’s family proper support, and to avoid risk to Agropecuaria’s 

business activity. Ex. A, at Exs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. The appellate orders rejecting the applications to 

stay the Freeze Order by Fernando Bumlai, Cristiane Bumlai, Mauricio Bumlai, Guilherme Bumlai

and Agropecuaria are hereinafter referred to as the “Orders Rejecting Stay Applications.” The 

interlocutory appeals filed by these Respondents will be resolved by a panel of three judges of the 

Appellate Court, which have the authority to ratify or modify the Orders Rejecting Stay 

Application. 

21. The Freeze Order, the Reconsideration Order and the Orders Rejecting Stay 

Applications are attached hereto as the “Brazilian Orders.” 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

22. By this Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order 

pursuant to sections 105(a), 1507 and 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code, substantially in the form of 

the Proposed Order, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, recognizing the Brazilian Orders to institute 

an asset freeze of the Respondents in the United States. 

BASIS FOR RELIEF

I. The Chapter 15 Statutory Scheme Provides the Court with Authority to Afford 

Comity to the Brazilian Orders

23. Chapter 15 incorporates the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to provide an 

effective mechanism to deal with cross-border insolvency cases. 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a). Its 

objectives include (i) fostering the cooperation between United States courts and interested parties 

and foreign courts in cross-border insolvency cases; (ii) promoting greater legal certainty for trade 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 10 of 27
11 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

and investment; and (iii) the fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvency cases that 

protect the interests of creditors, the debtor, and other interested parties. Id.

24. “Chapter 15 directs courts to be guided by principles of comity.” SNP Boat Service 

S.A. v. Hotel Le St. James, 483 B.R. 776, 785 (S.D. Fla. 2012); see Ad Hoc Group of Vitro 

Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de CV (In re Vitro S.A.B. de CV), 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 (5th Cir.2012) 

(“Central to Chapter 15 is comity.”); In re British American Ins. Co., 488 B.R. 205, 239 (Bankr. 

S.D. Fla. 2013) (“Central to Chapter 15 is comity.”). These principles are embedded in the relief 

available under Chapter 15, which “provides courts with broad, flexible rules to fashion relief that 

is appropriate to effectuate the objectives in the chapter in accordance with comity.” In re Rede 

Energia, S.A., 515 B.R. 69, 91 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014). 

25. Accordingly, “[a]fter recognition, chapter 15 specifically contemplates that the 

court will exercise its discretion consistent with principles of comity.” In re British American, 488 

B.R. at 239 (quoting In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726, 738 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009)); see 

also In re Agrokor, 591 B.R. 163, 186 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Once a case is recognized as a 

foreign main proceeding, as has already occurred here, Chapter 15 specifically contemplates that 

the court will exercise its discretion consistent with principles of comity.”); In re Oi S.A., 587 B.R. 

253, 264 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Chapter 15 ... provides courts with broad, flexible rules to 

fashion relief that is appropriate to effectuate the objectives of the chapter in accordance with 

comity”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, section 1509(b)(3) expressly states 

that upon the foreign representative’s recognition, the Court “must grant comity or cooperation to 

the foreign representative.” 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b)(3). 

26. This is also evident in Chapter 15’s legislative history, as Congress has stated that 

“comity is raised to the introductory language [of Chapter 15] to make clear that it is the central 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 11 of 27
12 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

concept to be addressed.” In re Oi, 587 B.R. at 264 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 109 

(2005), as reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88, 172). 

27. In Hilton v. Guyot, the United States Supreme Court defined comity as follows: 

‘Comity’ in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one 

hand, nor mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition 

which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial 

acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and 

convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under 

the protection of its laws.

159 U.S. 113, at 141. “Comity is a common law rule by which courts in the United States give 

deference to foreign judgments.” In re Neves, 570 B.R. 420, 426 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2017) (J. 

Isicoff).

28. Importantly, “[i]n matters concerning bankruptcy the extension of comity enables 

the assets of a debtor to be dispersed in an equitable, orderly, and systematic manner, rather than 

in a haphazard, erratic or piecemeal fashion.” Daewoo Motor America, Inc. v. General Motors 

Corp., 459 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted); Finanz AG Zurich v. 

Banco Economico S.A., 192 F.3d 240, 247 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[W]e have also recognized—as we 

previously noted—the ‘particular need to extend comity to foreign bankruptcy proceedings.”) 

(internal quotations omitted).

29. The proponent of comity bears the initial burden to satisfy the comity 

considerations set forth Hilton v. Guyot, which considers the following: 

(a) whether the foreign court was competent and used proceedings consistent with 

civilized jurisprudence; 

(b) whether the judgment was rendered by fraud; and

(c) whether the foreign judgment was prejudicial because it violated American 

public policy notions of what is decent and just. 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 12 of 27
13 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Daewoo Motor America, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 459 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004)). 

30. The first factor requires the proponent of comity to “describe the process by which 

the [foreign order] was obtained, why that process is not unfair, and why it does not offend the 

United States’ notions of justice.” In re Neves, 570 B.R. at 426. Once the proponent of comity 

satisfies this burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing comity to show that the foreign order 

“violates American public policy notions of what is decent and just.” In re Neves, 570 B.R. at 427; 

see also Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (a foreign judgment may not be 

recognized on comity if its recognition would be “repugnant to fundamental notices of what is 

decent and just”). This burden is “high and unfrequently met” and is applicable only in “clear-cut 

cases.” Ackerman v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 841 (2d Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 

31. Further, all relief under Chapter 15 is subject to the public policy exception set forth 

in section 1506. Under section 1506, the Court may refuse “to take an action governed by [Chapter 

15] if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States.” 11 U.S.C. 

§ 1506. This public policy exception is narrow and “is intended to be invoked only under 

exceptional circumstances concerning matters of fundamental importance to the United States.” In 

re Petroforte Brasileiro de Petroleo Ltda., 530 B.R. 503, 507 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2015) (quoting In 

re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d 1031, 1069 (5th Cir. 2012)); In re Rede Energia S.A., 515 B.R. 

69, 91-92 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[T]he public policy exception is clearly drafted in narrow 

terms and the few reported cases that have analyzed section 1506 at length recognize that it is to 

be applied sparingly.”) (internal quotations omitted)). 

32. In considering comity, the relief granted in the foreign proceeding need not be 

identical to the relief that is available in the United States to be entitled to comity. In re Rede 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 13 of 27
14 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Energia S.A., 515 B.R. 69. 

II. Recognition of the Brazilian Orders is Warranted Under Sections 1521(a)(7) & 1507

A. Legal Standard for Relief Under Sections 1521(a)(7) and 1507 

33. The Court has authority under sections 1521(a)(7) and 1507 to recognize and 

enforce the Brazilian Orders. 

34. Section 1521(a) authorizes the Court to enter “any appropriate relief” “[u]pon 

recognition of a foreign proceeding ... where necessary to effectuate the purposes of [Chapter 15]

and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors.” 11 U.S.C. 1521(a). It also 

lists a non-exhaustive list of “appropriate relief” that may be granted to a foreign representative 

after recognition, including “granting any additional relief that may be available to the trustee, 

except for relief available under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550 and 724(a).” 11 U.S.C. § 

1521(a)(7); see In re Cell C Proprietary Ltd., 571 B.R. 542, 554 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting 

that the list of “appropriate relief” under section 1521(a) is “non-exhaustive”). 

35. The Court has “exceedingly broad” discretion to grant relief under section 1521(a). 

In re Markus, 610 B.R. 64, 76 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc., 571 B.R. 

600, 609 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citation omitted). However, such relief may be granted “only if 

the interests of the creditors and other interested entities, including the debtor, are sufficiently 

protected.” 11 U.S.C. § 1522(a). An analysis under section 1522 requires a balancing test of the 

respective interests. See In re Oi, 587 B.R. at 265 (citing various cases). 

36. In addition to the relief available under section 1521, section 1507 empowers the 

Court to provide “additional assistance” to the Foreign Representative under the Bankruptcy Code 

or under other laws of the United States after recognition. 11 U.S.C. § 1507(a). Though the 

“interplay between the relief available under sections 1507 and 1521 is far from clear,” some courts 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 14 of 27
15 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

analyze relief under these sections in a two-step approach: first considering relief under section 

1521 and, if such relief is not available, then the Court may consider the relief requested under 

section 1507. In re Olinda Star, Ltd., 614 B.R. 28, 47 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing various 

cases).

37. To grant “additional assistance” under section 1507, the Court shall consider 

whether the additional assistance is consistent with principles of comity and whether it satisfies 

the following fairness considerations set forth in section 1507(b): 

(1) just treatment of all holders of claims against or interests in the debtor's property;

(2) protection of claim holders in the United States against prejudice and inconvenience in 

the processing of claims in such foreign proceeding; 

(3) prevention of preferential or fraudulent dispositions of property of the debtor; 

(4) distribution of proceeds of the debtor's property substantially in accordance with the 

order prescribed by this title; and 

(5) if appropriate, the provision of an opportunity for a fresh start for the individual that 

such foreign proceeding concerns. 

11 U.S.C. § 1507(b); In re Agrokor, 591 B.R. 163, 188-89 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018). 

38. In evaluating whether to award relief under sections 1521(a)(7) and 1507 to 

Brazilian bankruptcy orders, courts have determined that “Brazilian bankruptcy law meets our 

fundamental standards of fairness and accords with the course of civilized jurisprudence.” In re 

Rede Energia, 515 B.R. 98; see also In re OAS S.A., 533 B.R. 83, 103-04 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) 

(noting that “Brazil has a comprehensive bankruptcy law that in many ways mirrors our own” and 

listing various similarities with the U.S. bankruptcy law).

39. Further, courts have also held that Brazil’s practice of entering ex parte orders, such 

as the Brazilian Orders, does not preclude recognition or otherwise affect the comity analysis. In 

In re OAS, the court recognized a Brazilian order consolidating the bankruptcy estates of three 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 15 of 27
16 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

affiliate companies. 533 B.R. at 104-05. In evaluating objections to the recognition of the 

consolidation order, the court found that “the practice in Brazil of the different sides meeting ex 

parte with the Brazilian judge, is not manifestly contrary to United States public policy” and that 

“[e]ven United States recognizes exceptions to the general rule forbidding ex parte 

communications and procedures.” Id. at 105. Importantly, in In re OAS reasoned that “[d]ue 

process is satisfied because these ex parte proceedings and orders are subject to ex post review, 

just as the consolidation order has been subject to ex post review in Brazil.” Id. 

40. Similarly, in In re Petroforte Brasileiro de Petroleo Ltda., the Brazilian court 

entered extended the effects of the debtor’s bankruptcy over two related third parties. 542 B.R. 

899 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2015) (J. Mark). After the foreign representative obtained recognition of the 

Brazilian bankruptcy, he sought discovery of various entities, including the third parties to whom 

the effects of the bankruptcy were extended to. Id. The third parties filed a motion to dismiss based 

on, among other things, that the extension order ran afoul of American due process notions because 

it was entered ex parte. Id. at 907. Relying on the reasoning in In re OAS, Judge Mark rejected this 

argument on the basis that the third parties were afforded the opportunity to present both argument 

and evidence on appeal, which they did, albeit unsuccessfully. Id. at 907-08. 

41. Courts have recognized and enforced foreign orders under sections 1521 and 1507 

to give effect and ensure compliance with the foreign order. Such is the case with foreign 

confirmation order or orders to facilitate their implementation. In re Olinda Star, Ltd., 614 B.R. 

28, 47-48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020) (recognizing BVI scheme of arrangement and entering a 

permanent injunction against acts that would interference with the scheme); In re Avanti Comms. 

Grp. PLC, 582 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (recognizing and enforcing UK schemes of 

arrangement which, among other things, granted third party releases); In re Cell C Proprietary 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 16 of 27
17 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Ltd., 571 B.R. 542, 551 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (recognizing South African arrangement 

sanctioned by South African court); In re Rede Energia S.A., 515 B.R. 69, 93-94 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 

2014) (recognizing Brazilian reorganization and confirmation decision and enjoining actions in 

the United States in contravention of the decision). 

42. Further, Courts have also recognized foreign bankruptcy orders under section 1521 

“even if notice may not have been perfect.” In re Energy Coal S.P.A., 582 B.R. 619, 631 (Bankr. 

S.D.N.Y. 2018). In Energy Coal, the parties objected to the recognition of an Italian order 

approving the reorganization plan on the basis that they did not receive notice of relevant court 

documents, including dates to file objections. Id. at 625. However, despite their objections, the 

court approved recognition of the Italian order because, among other things, service was attempted 

under Italian law, which seemed sufficient under Italian law, and service was attempted at the 

email address previously used by the objectors when communicating with the foreign 

representative. Id. at 630-31. 

43. American courts have also afforded comity to ex parte interim injunctions. For 

instance, in Gorsoan Ltd. v. Bullock, No. 2020-020803-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Feb. 17, 2021), 

the court recognized an ex parte interim injunction order issued by a Cypriot court freezing 

Bullock’s assets worldwide. In so doing, the court noted that Florida courts have a rich history of 

affording comity to foreign interim injunctions. Id. at p. 3 (citing Amezcua v. Cortez, No. 3D20-

1649, at 6 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 13, 2021); Cermesoni v. Maneiro, 144 So. 3d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2014); Nahar v. Nahar, 656 So. 2d 225, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). 

B. The Brazilian Orders Should be Afforded Comity Under Sections 1521(a)(7) 

& 1507

44. The Brazilian Orders should be recognized under sections 1521(a)(7) and 1507 

because the orders (i) comport with the principles of comity, (ii) the prejudgment asset freeze 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 17 of 27
18 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

provided under the Brazilian Order is also relief that is available to the trustee under US law, (iii) 

the interests of the Debtors, creditors and Respondents are sufficiently protected, and (iv) the relief 

requested satisfies the fairness consideration set forth in section 1507(b). 

i. The Brazilian Orders Are Consistent with American Notions of Due 

Process and Effectuates the Purposes of Chapter 15

45. The Brazilian Orders satisfy the due process considerations outlined in Hilton v. 

Guyot as the Veil Piercing Action was not an unfair process and does not offend the United States’ 

notions of justice. 

46. As described by Mr. Lucidi, under Brazilian bankruptcy law, the Foreign 

Representative, as the judicial administrator of the Debtors’ estate, has the duty to investigate and 

pursue any causes of action on behalf of the estate. See Ex. A., at ¶ 24. Accordingly, the Foreign 

Representative, as the judicial administrator, may commence an action, such as the Veil Piercing 

Action, to pierce the Debtors’ corporate veil and hold the Respondents liable for the Debtors 

liabilities under Article 50 of the Brazilian Civil Code. See id., at ¶ 25. 

47. The ex parte interlocutory relief in the Veil Piercing Action is a fair process as it 

affords the Respondents notice and the opportunity for a hearing. As indicated by Mr. Lucidi, to 

obtain provisional relief, Brazilian law requires a showing that the plaintiff has a likely probability 

of success on the merits of the underlying claim, that the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the relief 

is not granted, and that there is no risk that the provisional relief would cause irreversible damage. 

Id., at ¶ 31-32. To obtain provisional relief on an ex parte basis, Brazilian law requires that the 

plaintiff satisfy a higher standard of proof. Id., at ¶ 33. Following these considerations, the 

Brazilian Bankruptcy Court determined that an asset freeze of the Respondents assets was 

warranted as set forth in the Freeze and Reconsideration Orders. 

48. The Brazilian Orders also afforded the Respondents due process. As indicated by 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 18 of 27
19 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Mr. Lucidi, under Brazilian law, the parties affected by ex parte proceedings are subsequently 

notified of any order entered in the proceeding by mail and, if unsuccessful, by personal service 

by an officer of the court. Id., at ¶ 35-36. Such notification affords the party affected by an ex parte 

order the opportunity to challenge such order. Id. This procedure was followed in the Veil Piercing 

Action, in which the Court issued service to the Respondents, which resulted in the appearance of 

all of them in defense of the Veil Piercing Action and the appeal by five of them of the Freeze

Order. Id., at ¶ 14-15. Accordingly, Respondents ability to obtain ex post review of the Freeze and 

Reconsideration Orders satisfies due process. See In re OAS, 533 B.R. at 104-05 (noting that the 

ex post review of ex parte proceedings is enough to satisfy the due process requirement); In re 

Petroforte, 542 B.R. 907-08 (recognizing ex parte Brazilian order on the basis that the defendants 

affect by the ex parte order had ability to appeal the order). 

49. The Brazilian Orders were not rendered by fraud. None of the appellate orders 

address any allegations of fraud or otherwise suggest any wrongdoing. 

50. Further, the requested relief also effectuates the purposes of Chapter 15, 

particularly, fostering the cooperation between the United States bankruptcy court and its 

counterpart in Brazil, as the failure to recognize the Brazilian Orders will preclude enforcement of 

the orders in connection with the Respondents’ assets in the United States. In turn, this relief 

preserve the status quo until the adjudication of the Veil Piercing Action. 

ii. The Prejudgment Asset Freeze in Support of the Veil Piercing Action is 

Similar to Relief that Could be Obtained by a Trustee

51. Further, the prejudgment asset freeze requested in support of a motion to extend the 

effects of a bankruptcy is relief that is available to a bankruptcy trustee. 

52. The relief requested in the Veil Piercing Action—to extend the effects of the 

Debtor’s bankruptcy to others—is similar in nature to a claim for substantive consolidation. As 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 19 of 27
20 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

indicated by Mr. Lucidi’s Declaration, an action to pierce the debtors’ corporate veil under Article 

50 of the Civil Code has the effect of holding a non-debtor liable for the debtor’s liabilities. Ex. A, 

at ¶ 26. Similar to the relief sought in the Veil Piercing Action, “under the principle of substantive 

consolidation, the assets of two or more related entities may be pooled together and the liabilities 

may then be satisfied from this common pool of assets.” In re S&G Financial Servs. of South 

Florida, Inc., 451 B.R. 573, 579 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Eastgroup Properties v. Southern 

Motel Ass’n, Ltd., 935 F.2d 245, 248 (11th Cir. 1991)). Similar to the Foreign Representative 

seeking an asset freeze in support of the Veil Piercing Action under Brazilian law, a U.S. trustee 

may commence an action against non-debtors for substantive consolidation. Id. at 581-82; see also

Bonham v. Compton (In re Bonham), 229 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a court may order 

substantive consolidation of debtor and non-debtors); Roberts v. J. Howard Bass & Asscs. Inc. (In 

re Bass), No. 10-01101-CAG, 2011 WL 722384, *6 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2011) (same); In 

re Alico Mining, Inc., 278 B.R. 586 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002) (same). 

53. Further, the Bankruptcy Code also expressly authorizes substantive consolidation 

in the context of Chapter 11 under section 1123(a)(5), which provides that a plan must provide for 

an adequate means of implementation, including “the merger or consolidation of the debtor with 

one or more persons.” 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(5). 

54. Courts have also instituted preliminary injunctions in support of actions for 

substantive consolidation. See, e.g. In re SK Foods, L.P., 2010 WL 9476207, *19-20 (Bankr. E.D. 

Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) (granting a preliminary injunction in support of an action for substantive 

consolidation as well as for fraudulent transfer). Further, courts granted preliminary asset freeze 

orders in support of actions based on the alter ego theories, which is similar to substantive 

consolidation. Seidel v. Warner (In re Atlas Financial Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 13-03233, D.E. 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 20 of 27
21 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

36 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2014) (granting asset freeze injunction under section 105); O’Toole 

v. Wrobel (In re Roman Sledziejowski), Case No. 13-08317, D.E. 38 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 

2013) (same). 

iii. The Relief Requested Sufficiently Protects the Interests of the Debtors, 

the Creditors and Respondents 

55. The concerns addressed by section 1522 are not present here as the interests of the 

Debtors, creditors and the Respondents are sufficiently protected if relief is granted under section 

1521. 

56. Recognition of the Brazilian Orders are in the best interests of the creditors as it 

would permit enforcement of the asset freeze instituted by the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court to 

preserve the status quo until resolution of the Veil Piercing Action. The Brazilian Bankruptcy 

Court expressly stated that the “[t]he danger of delay is clear” and that relief is granted in part to 

prevent dissipation of the assets deviated from the Debtors’ estates. Ex. A, at Ex. 3. As the 

Respondents are believed to possess assets in the United States, recognition of the Brazilian Orders 

is necessary and essential to give effect to the Brazilian Orders. In other words, failure to recognize 

the Brazilian Orders would render them meaningless as to the Respondents’ assets in the United 

States, as the Foreign Representative would not be able to enforce the Brazilian Orders to preclude 

the transfer of Respondents’ assets in the United States. In this regard, the relief requested here is 

no different than the relief granted by various bankruptcy courts recognizing foreign 

reorganization plans and enforcing injunctions to implement them and give them effect in the 

United States. See In re Olinda Star, 614 B.R. 28 (recognizing BVI’s scheme of arrangement and 

issuing permanent injunction against acts that would interfere with scheme because if injunction 

was not instituted, one or more entities may take actions inconsistent or in contravention of 

scheme); In re Oi, 587 B.R. at 265-66 (recognizing Brazilian reorganization plan and enjoining 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 21 of 27
22 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

acts in the United States that would interfere with the plan or the accompanying confirmation order 

because such relief was “essential to the implementation of the restructuring and complete 

distributions and therefore consummation of the [plan]”). 

57. The Respondents’ interests are also protected because the recognition of the freeze 

orders merely implements the orders entered by the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court, thereby 

maintaining the status quo. Further, the Brazilian Orders authorize the Respondents to manage and 

use of their assets, as well as the proceeds from their assets, to ensure their family’s support. 

58. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its “exceedingly broad” discretion to 

recognize the Brazilian Orders under section 1521. 

iv. The Recognition of the Brazilian Orders Constitutes “Additional 

Assistance” Under Section 1507 

59. The relief requested also constitutes “additional assistance” under section 1507(a)

as it is consistent with comity and satisfies the fairness considerations set forth in section 1507(b) 

to the extent they apply. 

60. Only one of the fairness considerations is implicated by the requested recognition 

of the Brazilian Orders1

—whether the additional assistance will reasonable assure “prevention of 

preferential or fraudulent dispositions of property of the debtor.” The recognition of the Brazilian 

 

1

 The other considerations are factors are not implicated by the relief requested in this Motion. 

The recognition of the prejudgment asset freeze established by the Brazilian Orders does not 

implicate: (i) the just treatment of all holders of claims against or interests in the debtor’s 

property, 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b)(1), because the relief requested merely seeks to preserve the status 

quo pending the adjudication of the Veil Piercing Action; (ii) the protection of claim holders in 

the United States against prejudice and inconvenience, 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b)(2), because there are 

no known US creditors; or (iii) the Debtors’ opportunity for a fresh start, 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b)(5), 

because the purpose of the Debtor’s Brazilian Bankruptcy Case is liquidation, not reorganization. 

Further, the factor addressing whether the distribution of proceeds of the debtor’s property 

substantially in accordance with the U.S. bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b)(4), has already 

been addressed by other bankruptcy courts, which have held that the distribution scheme under 

Brazilian law is similar to that of the United States. See In re Oi, 587 B.R. at 268-69. 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 22 of 27
23 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Orders would give effect to the asset freeze in the United States, thereby ensuring that the 

Respondents do not transfer or otherwise dissipate assets obtained from the Debtors. 

III. Recognition of the Brazilian Orders is Warranted Under 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3)

61. Alternative to recognition pursuant to sections 1521(a)(7) and 1507, the Court 

should enter an order consistent with the terms of the Brazilian Orders pursuant to section 

1521(a)(3) as the Veil Piercing Action satisfies the standards applicable to an injunction. 

62. Under section 1521(a)(3), the Court may “suspend[ ] the right to transfer, encumber 

or otherwise dispose of any assets of the debtor to the extent the right has not been suspended 

under section 1520(a).” 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(3).

A. The Respondents Are Debtors Under Section 1521(a)(3)

63. The Court may award relief against the Respondents under section 1521(a)(3) as

the Respondents are “debtors” under that section.

64. The definition of “debtor” in a Chapter 15 case “means an entity that is the subject 

of a foreign proceeding.” 11 U.S.C. § 1502(1). In turn, a “foreign proceeding” is defined as a 

“collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a foreign country, including an interim 

proceeding, under a law relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt in which proceeding the assets 

and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purpose of 

reorganization or liquidation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(23) (emphasis added).

65. The Veil Piercing Action constitutes an interim proceeding under section 15021(a). 

In interpreting Chapter 15, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border 

Insolvency (the “Model Law”), courts have relied on the Guide to Enactment to the UNCITRAL 

Model on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997, as amended) (the “Guide to Enactment”) for guidance. 

British Am. Ins. Co. v. Fullerton (In re British Am. Ins. Co.), 488 B.R. 205, 212 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 23 of 27
24 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

2013) (noting that “[i]nternationally uniformity is a primary goal of the Model Law and thus of 

chapter 15” and that the “House Report contemplates courts looking to the Guide to Enactment 

and the Reports cited therein to aid the courts in achieving a uniform interpretation of chapter 15”); 

see also In re Ace Track Co., 556 B.R. 887, 897 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2016) (noting that legislative 

history of BAPCPA “makes clear that Congress expected the Guide to Enactment of the Model 

Law ... to be consulted” when interpreting Chapter 15). The spirit of uniformity is also reflected 

in the statute, as section 1508 provides that “[i]n interpreting this chapter, the court shall consider 

its international original, and the need to promote an application of this chapter that is consistent 

with the application of similar statutes adopted by foreign jurisdictions.” 11 U.S.C. § 1508.

66. Paragraph 79 of the Guide to Enactment provides direction as to whether an action 

is an “interim proceeding” as follows: 

Such proceedings are often conducted for weeks or months as “interim” 

proceedings under the administration of persons appointed on an “interim” basis, 

and only some time later would the court issue an order confirming the continuation 

of the proceedings on a non-interim basis. The objectives of the Model Law apply 

fully to such “interim proceedings” (provided the requisites of subparagraphs (a) 

and (d) are met); therefore, these proceedings should not be distinguished from 

other insolvency proceedings merely because they are described as being of an 

interim nature. 

Guide to Enactment, ¶ 79. The Guide to Enactment suggests that the inclusion of “interim 

proceeding” is intended to cover the practice of many countries of opening insolvency proceedings 

on an interim or provisional basis. 

67. This is consistent with the practice and procedure under Brazilian law to pierce a 

debtor’s corporate veil to extend the effects of its bankruptcy to a third parties. Though the remedy 

sought is the consolidation of the third parties with the debtor’s estate, resulting in the addition of 

the third parties as debtors, the judicial administrator may obtain provisional relief in aid of his 

action. The Veil Piercing Action followed this process. After the Foreign Representative filed the 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 24 of 27
25 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

Veil Piercing Action seeking to extend the Debtors’ bankruptcy upon the Respondents, the 

Brazilian Bankruptcy Court entered the asset freeze orders to preserve the potential assets for the 

benefit of the Debtors’ creditors. 

68. Further, as the assets of the Respondents are subject to the control of the Brazilian 

Bankruptcy Court under the Veil Piercing Action for the purpose of the Debtors’ liquidation, the 

Veil Piercing Action is an interim proceeding that satisfies the requirements of “foreign 

proceeding” under section 101(23). Accordingly, the Respondents are “debtors” under section 

1502(1). 

B. An Asset Freeze in Support of the Veil Piercing Action is Warranted 

69. The Court should enter an asset freeze injunction in the form of the Brazilian Orders 

as the preliminary asset freeze entered in the Veil Piercing Action satisfy the elements for the 

imposition of an injunction. See 1521(a)(3) & (e). 

70. To obtain relief under section 1521(a)(3) & (e), the Foreign Representative must 

demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be 

suffered unless the injunction is issued; (3) the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs 

whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause the non-moving party; and (4) if issued, 

that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 968 (11th Cir. 2005).

71. The likelihood of success on the merits. The Brazilian Bankruptcy Court has 

assessed this initial element as it reviewed the complaint in the Veil Piercing Action and the 

documentary evidence provided in granting the preliminary asset freeze order. Further, as stated 

by Mr. Lucidi, the standard to obtain provisional injunctive relief is similar to that in the US as it 

requires a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying claim, the 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 25 of 27
26 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

plaintiff would be prejudiced if the relief is not granted, and that the relief does not cause 

irreversible damage. The Brazilian Bankruptcy Court held that “[h]aving reviewed the facts, we 

find that the allegations are verisimilar and supported by detailed evidence and, at this first stage, 

a demonstration of acts that led to the misuse of the corporate entity to, in principle, defraud 

creditors.” Ex. A, at Ex. 1. The court also held, in connection with the Respondent companies, that 

“[t]he satisfaction of the requirements for a comprehensive reverse disregard of the ostensible and 

dormant partners of other legal entities has been evidenced, as well as the need to ensure the 

amount stated in the complaint as that deviated from the corporate [R]espondents.” Ex. A, at Ex. 

1. 

72. Irreparable Injury. The Debtors’ estate would suffer irreparable injury if the 

provisional asset freezes are not implemented in the United States. The Foreign Representative 

would be unable to enforce the Brazilian Orders in the United States unless this Court enters an 

order restricting the Respondents’ ability to transfer their assets located in the United States. Given 

the Respondents’ history of looting the Debtors while the Debtor’s reorganization cases were 

ongoing, as the Brazilian Bankruptcy Court indicated, the “danger of delay is clear” because the 

Respondents “may conceal assets once again to the detriment of the community of creditors.” Ex. 

A, at Ex. 1. 

73. The Balancing of the Harms. As indicated, the Debtors’ estate runs the risk that 

the Respondents will not abide by the terms of the Brazilian Orders and may transfer away their 

US assets, leaving the Foreign Representative without a mechanism to enforce the Brazilian Orders 

in the United States. On the other hand, the Respondents are likely not harmed by the proposed 

asset freeze as it (i) is consistent with the terms of the Brazilian Orders and therefore preserve the 

status quo; (ii) is preliminary until the resolution of the Veil Piercing Action; and (iii) provides for 

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 26 of 27
27 

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

the management and use of the assets as well as the disposal of the proceeds of the assets. 

74. Public Interest. As indicated above, the injunction is not adverse to public interests 

as it is consistent with the aims of Chapter 15 and, more importantly, it is relief that is also available 

to a trustee in the United States. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the Foreign Representative respectfully requests that the Court enter an 

Order (i) recognizing and giving effect to the Brazilian Orders in the United States, (ii) 

implementing an asset freeze of the Respondents’ assets located in the United States, and (iii) 

granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on 

June 22, 2021 upon all interested parties registered to receive notice via this Court’s CM/ECF 

electronic notification system.

Dated: June 22, 2021. Respectfully submitted,

SEQUOR LAW, P.A.

 1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 1250 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 372-8282 

 Facsimile: (305) 372-8202 

lblanco@sequorlaw.com 

 jmendoza@sequorlaw.com 

 By: /s/ Leyza F. Blanco 

Leyza F. Blanco

Florida Bar No. 104639

Juan J. Mendoza 

Florida Bar No.: 113587

Case 19-21256-CLC Doc 50 Filed 06/22/21 Page 27 of 27