objected to the debtor’s petition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code seeking recognition of the foreign proceeding. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. (“Ashapura”) is a mining and industrial corporation headquartered in Mumbai, India. In May 2011, Ashapura voluntarily filed a reference petition before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (the “BIFR”), an agency authorized to function as an administrative tribunal under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (“SICA”). On October 4, 201, Chetan Shah, in his capacity as foreign representative of Ashapura, filed a petition seeking recognition of Ashapura’s proceeding under SICA to be recognized as a foreign main proceeding under Section 1502(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. Opposition to Recognition The petition was opposed by two of Ashapura’s largest creditors, Armada (Singapore) Pte. Limited (“Armada”) and Eitzen Bulk A/S (“Eitzen”). The underlying dispute between Eitzen, a Danish shipping company, and Ashapura arose under a Contract of Affreightment dated January 18, 2008 (a “COA”), which included an express contractual arbitration/jurisdiction clause providing for London arbitration with English law to apply. Under the COA, the parties agreed that Eitzen would provide a number of “liftings” of Ashapura’s cargo (i.e., bauxite) to and from various ports. Ashapura, however, consistently declared to the government of Gujarat (the state in India where the bauxite was mined) that the bauxite it was exporting was being sold locally, so as to pay a lower rate of royalties to the government. When the Gujarat government learned of Ashapura’s false declarations, it blocked Ashapura from making further exports until Ashapura paid past due royalties. This led to Ashapura’s breach of the COA, since it had no bauxite to ship. On October 23, 2008, in accordance with the provisions of the COA, Eitzen
contrary to the public policy of the United States.” 11 U.S.C. § 1506; see also In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd., No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 5. Thus the court focused its attention on whether recognition would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States. The court’s analysis centered around the SICA statute. The court observed that the version of the SICA statute applicable to the Ashapura SICA proceeding had been repealed, but implementing legislation for a replacement statute had not been formally enacted. See In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd., No. 11-14668 (JMP), ECF No. 36 at 2-3. It therefore noted “[t]he anomaly here is that the foreign insolvency law applicable to this case is suspect and has been openly criticized as deficient and subject to abuse by thoughtful observers of Indian commercial law.” Id. The court, relying on testimony by an Indian lawyer who testified on behalf of the foreign representative, recognized that although unsecured creditors are not as involved in a SICA proceeding as they would be in a chapter 11 case in the United States, they are, in practice, given a voice in the discretion of the BIFR. Id. at 6. Moreover, unsecured creditors may receive distributions under an arrangement with creditors and have the ability to appeal adverse determinations made by the BIFR. Id. The court therefore decided that a SICA proceeding is a collective administrative proceeding as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(23). That is, it “considers the rights and obligations of all creditors.” Id. (quoting In re Betacorp. Ltd., 400 B.R. 266, 281 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009) (additional citation omitted). The court concluded that none of the evidence offered by Eitzen and Armada at the recognition hearing proved that it would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States to recognize the petition. Thus, on November 22, 2011, the court granted the petition, but did so “with the admonition that periodic status conferences shall be held approximately once every 60 days, regarding the progress of the