Beyond the Debtor: Third-Party Releases in Chapter 15

Building on the prior articles in this series,^1,2 this article focuses on another critical element of non-U.S. restructurings and chapter 15: third-party releases. In complex restructurings, certainty and finality are critical to any debtor’s ability to emerge from bankruptcy, and releases for nondebtor parties or “third parties” often play a central role in achieving these objectives. Despite the crucial utility of these third-party releases, in 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma that a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan may not bar third-party claims against a nondebtor without the consent of each affected claimant.³  However, as discussed further below, bankruptcy courts have declined to extend the Purdue ruling to the chapter 15 context and instead have by and large approved non-U.S. restructuring plans containing nonconsensual third-party releases (NCTP Releases). Accordingly, the comity-driven framework in chapter 15 remains viable for global debtors seeking to implement financial restructurings that bind hold-out creditors and may provide increasing flexibility and optionality for other potential use cases.

I. DIVERGENT POLICY OBJECTIVES: WHY CHAPTER 15 ACCOMMODATES NONCONSENSUAL THIRD-PARTY RELEASES

As a refresher, chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code) provides generally for the preservation of a company as a going concern and a reorganization of the company’s operations and finances, subject to the control and supervision of the bankruptcy court.⁴  It was in this context that Purdue Pharma’s bar against NCTP Releases was rooted.⁵  In contrast, a proceeding pursuant to chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for legal recognition in the U.S. of a “foreign proceeding” of reorganization or liquidation.⁶  The chapter 15 framework is generally designed to facilitate U.S. cooperation with non-U.S. courts and give practical effect to non-U.S. proceedings rather than provide for a U.S. court to reconsider the merits of the relief approved abroad.⁷

• When a U.S. court grants recognition under chapter 15, it formally acknowledges the non-U.S. proceeding and enables the petitioning entity’s representative to access U.S. courts in cooperation with that non-U.S. proceeding. In doing so, the U.S. court may provide “any appropriate relief” so long as it is “necessary” to effectuate the purposes of chapter 15 — in particular protecting the debtor’s assets or creditors’ interests.⁸
• U.S. courts are also empowered to provide “additional assistance, consistent with the principles of comity”⁹  that will reasonably assure just treatment and protection of parties to the case. These protective provisions are limited by the requirement that any relief provided is not “manifestly contrary to public policy.”¹⁰

Because the comity-based framework of chapter 15 so significantly differs from the structure and purpose of plenary chapter 11 cases,¹¹  it stands to reason that a chapter 15 court may enforce relief available outside the U.S. that would not be available to a debtor proceeding under chapter 11. Indeed, recent cases have confirmed that in particular, NCTP Releases are enforceable in the U.S. as part of a non-U.S. proceeding recognized under chapter 15, where they may not have been had the company been reorganized under chapter 11.

II. EARLY POST-PURDUE CASES: NARROWING THE SCOPE OF NCTP RELEASES OR WITHHOLDING EXPLICIT U.S. ENFORCEMENT: MEGA NEWCO AND YUZHOU

In the first few cases following the Purdue ruling, including Mega Newco and Yuzhou, foreign representatives moved cautiously and sought limited relief compared with the relief received overseas: Mega Newco’s recognition order limited NCTP Releases to the debtor’s nondebtor parent and note-related liabilities compared with much wider releases contained in the underlying restructuring plan, while Yuzhou’s recognition order fully carved out any NCTP Release, subject to a reservation of rights as to what actually constituted an NCTP Release. The cases’ procedural history also indicates a desire to minimize the potential for a direct dispute on the issue with the Office of the United States Trustee (the UST), with the initially requested relief limited by consent prior to the entry of the final orders by the courts.

a. In re Mega Newco

In In re Mega Newco, Operadora de Servicios Mega, S.A. de C.V. (Mega Mexico), a Mexican financial services company, sought to restructure a series of New York law–governed notes that it had issued in 2020.¹²  Because the indenture required the unanimous consent of the noteholders to modify the notes out of court, and Mega Mexico could not obtain such consent, Mega Mexico formed Mega Newco Limited (Mega Newco), a wholly owned English subsidiary, for the sole purpose of restructuring those notes. Mega Mexico assigned the notes to Mega Newco and guaranteed the restructured debt in exchange for broad releases. Mega Newco then restructured through an English scheme of arrangement. After the scheme was approved by the English court, Mega Newco petitioned for chapter 15 recognition and enforcement of the English order in the Southern District of New York.

The English scheme contained broad NCTP Releases covering all claims arising from the existing notes, the scheme of arrangement, and the restructuring process, in favor of all “Released Parties,” including Mega Mexico (the debtor’s parent), the notes trustee, the Depository Trust Company and its nominee, the settlement and information agents, Scheme Creditors, Ad Hoc Group members, advisers, and their “Connected Parties.”¹³  In the initial recognition motion and proposed order, the foreign representative sought full recognition of these releases.¹⁴

During negotiations prior to the final recognition hearing, the UST expressed concerns that claims unrelated to the restructuring would be vitiated if the NCTP Releases were enforced in their original form. To mitigate these concerns, the foreign representative sought entry of a revised recognition order that would recognize and enforce the NCTP Releases only for Mega Mexico and only as to liability arising out of or relating to the U.S. notes. At the recognition hearing, Mega Newco’s counsel emphasized that the revised “exceptionally narrow” release sought in the chapter 15 proceedings guarded against the UST’s concerns while preventing a “particularly perverse outcome” where the parent, which had provided “economic consideration for the entire restructuring” and held a right of contribution against the debtor, could face successful claims “necessarily giv[ing] rise” to claims against the debtor.¹⁵

Despite the consensual resolution between the foreign representative and the UST, the Court expressed apprehension during the hearing that if the strategy taken by Mega Mexico were “routinely allowed,” the “ordinary predicates for Chapter 15 relief could be stripped of meaning.” The Court nevertheless enforced the plan primarily on the basis of meeting creditor expectations, stating it saw nothing that “amount[ed] to a trick hoisted upon creditors.”¹⁶

 b. In re Yuzhou

Shortly after In re Mega Newco, a similar outcome followed in In re Yuzhou. Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited (Yuzhou), a Cayman Islands–incorporated holding company for a Chinese property developer, restructured its offshore notes through parallel schemes of arrangement in Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands, and its foreign representative petitioned for chapter 15 recognition of the Hong Kong proceeding, as a foreign main proceeding, in the Southern District of New York.¹⁷

The foreign representative initially proposed a recognition order that sought to enforce the scheme’s nondebtor NCTP Releases — covering claims relating to the negotiation, preparation, implementation, and consummation of the restructuring and benefiting Yuzhou, members of its corporate group, directors and advisers, administrative parties, the ad hoc group, and other participants in the restructuring — which would have bound all scheme creditors, whether they voted against the schemes or did not vote at all. Because the creditors had no opportunity to affirmatively consent to NCTP Releases, the UST objected, arguing further that, notwithstanding principles of comity, the releases in the scheme were manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

To resolve the UST’s concerns, the foreign representative proposed a revised recognition order that provided that the “Order does not recognize or enforce … any nonconsensual Third-Party Release … provided, however, that nothing herein shall constitute a finding or determination as to whether any Third-Party Release was consensual or nonconsensual.”¹⁸  This compromise avoided a ruling on the extent to which the releases could be enforced in the U.S. To date, the open question has not been tested.

III. LITIGATED RESULTS AND ENFORCING FOREIGN-PLAN NCTP RELEASES OVER OBJECTION: CRÉDITO REAL

The In re Crédito Real case marked a shift from the consensual strategy of Mega Newco and Yuzhou and tested whether NCTP Releases could withstand a public policy objection under § 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code.

a. In re Crédito Real

In In re Crédito Real, Crédito Real, S.A.B. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R. (Crédito Real), one of Mexico’s largest nonbank lenders, sought to restructure its U.S.- and Swiss-law–governed notes after defaulting on its debt. Crédito Real commenced an insolvency process in Mexico.¹⁹  The Mexican court approved a concurso plan that wound down Crédito Real’s remaining assets through a trust and incorporated broad releases barring any action against the debtor’s directors and officers, shareholders, former general manager, liquidator, indenture trustee, and other related parties “for any act or omission … during the Bankruptcy Proceeding and at any time prior to the execution of [the plan].”²⁰  Because the plan bound every creditor, including those who did not consent, it operated as an NCTP Release. After the plan was approved by the Mexican court, Crédito Real petitioned for chapter 15 recognition and enforcement of the concurso plan, including the NCTP Releases, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

There, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), a claimant in the Mexican proceeding, objected to recognition and enforcement of the NCTP Releases, arguing that Purdue should guide the interpretation of “any appropriate relief” under § 1521(a), “additional assistance” under § 1507, and the “manifestly contrary to public policy” exception under § 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code so as to render the releases impermissible.²¹

Applying a textual analysis, the Court rejected the DFC’s arguments. In so doing, the Court emphasized the policy objectives of chapter 15, noting: “Chapter 15 has a much different purpose and context [than Chapter 11] — mainly to promote comity and international cooperation — thus entailing different limitations when compared to the Bankruptcy Code at large.”²²  The Court also reasoned that the public policy exception must be read narrowly and that because Congress has authorized NCTP Releases in the asbestos context under § 524(g), such releases cannot be manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy, even after Purdue, which the Court read as confined by its terms to chapter 11.²³

The DFC subsequently appealed the order.²⁴  The district court upheld the releases and concluded: “It is well settled that U.S. bankruptcy courts can give effect to foreign orders in recognized foreign proceedings pursuant to … Chapter 15, even when those orders contain relief unavailable under U.S. law. The DFC’s arguments misconstrue the Supreme Court’s narrow holding in Purdue, applicable in Chapter 11 cases, as well as the statutory framework of Chapter 15 and its core policy objectives.”²⁵

With both the bankruptcy and district courts rejecting the § 1506 challenge, Crédito Real served as an early signal that Purdue would not travel into chapter 15 — a distinction on which the viability of these structures would increasingly come to rest.

IV. RELIEF BEYOND THE FOREIGN PLAN: ODEBRECHT

a. In re Odebrecht

 Building on the ruling in In re Crédito Real, In re Odebrecht reached the same result under a materially different posture.²⁶  Odebrecht Engenharia e Construção S.A., a Brazilian construction company, restructured its debt through a recuperação judicial (RJ) proceeding in Brazil, and its foreign representative petitioned for chapter 15 recognition of that proceeding and enforcement of the related plan in the Southern District of New York. Unlike the concurso plan in Crédito Real, the Brazilian RJ plan contained no third-party release; the release language appeared only in the proposed U.S. recognition order, which enjoined “all persons and entities” from taking any action in the United States that would “interfere [with] or impede” the RJ plan’s implementation. The UST objected, arguing that this language created an impermissible NCTP Release that exceeded anything the Brazilian court had approved.²⁷

At the recognition hearing, the Court overruled the objection. Following Crédito Real, the Court held that §§ 1507 and 1521(a) of the Bankruptcy Code empower a chapter 15 court to grant relief beyond what the non-U.S. court ordered and that there is “no meaningful difference” between enforcing a non-U.S. plan that itself contains a release and entering an order that supplies one not found in the non-U.S. plan.²⁸  Even assuming the order created an NCTP Release, the Court held it permissible: recognition courts, it explained, “are not obligated to grant only that relief which is similar or parallel to that granted abroad or specified in the plan at issue.”²⁹

Taken together, Crédito Real and Odebrecht marked a shift from the earlier cases. Both courts held that Purdue is confined to chapter 11 and does not limit a court’s authority under chapter 15, and both were willing to give effect to releases broader than the narrowed relief that Mega Newco and Yuzhou had secured by compromise.

V. RECOGNITION WITHOUT OBJECTION … AND EMERGING GUARDRAILS: FOSSIL, KAISA, AND NFE GLOBAL

Recent chapter 15 decisions, including In re Fossil, In re Kaisa Group Holdings, and In re NFE Global Holdings Limited, have recognized and enforced broad NCTP Releases without objection from the UST or sustained creditor opposition, continuing to demonstrate the trend of approval. The In re NFE Global Holdings Limited case, however, adds an important qualification to this trend. Although the Court granted the requested relief, its published opinion emphasized that chapter 15 recognition is not automatic, and it cautioned against abusive use of foreign restructuring proceedings.

a. In re Fossil

In In re Fossil, Fossil Group, Inc. (Fossil), a Texas-based accessories company, sought to restructure a series of New York law–governed notes.³⁰  Because a consensual exchange offer failed to reach the participation threshold needed to bind every noteholder, Fossil formed Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd. (Fossil UK), an English subsidiary. Fossil UK in turn issued a guarantee of the notes and, with majority noteholder consent, the notes’ governing law was changed from New York to English law. Fossil UK then carried out the restructuring through an English restructuring plan. The plan included NCTP Releases for Fossil UK’s directors and advisers and its nondebtor parent, Fossil.³¹  After the plan was approved by the English court, Fossil UK then petitioned for chapter 15 recognition and enforcement of the English order, including the NCTP Releases, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Court recognized the scheme, including granting enforcement of the releases. The Court nevertheless was careful to caution that its ruling should not be read as precedent, indicating wariness with the strategy and a potential for future challenges.³²

b. In re Kaisa

In In re Kaisa Group Holdings, Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd. (Kaisa), a Cayman Islands–incorporated holding company for a Chinese property developer, sought to restructure roughly $14 billion of offshore debt.³³   Kaisa and its subsidiary, Rui Jing Investment Company Limited, restructured that debt through parallel schemes of arrangement in Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands. After the Hong Kong court sanctioned the scheme, the foreign representative petitioned for chapter 15 recognition of the proceeding, and enforcement of the scheme’s expansive NCTP Releases, in the Southern District of New York.³⁴

Prior to final recognition and approval of the scheme and associated releases, Kaisa received emergency relief through a preliminary injunction staying litigation in the New York Supreme Court concerning a set of notes that had been restructured in the foreign scheme, with effect on not just the petitioning debtors but also their related nondebtor parties. This ruling was made over the objection of the UST that section 1519 does not authorize the court to impose the section 362 automatic stay before recognition.

Following the grant of provisional relief, and in the absence of any further objections, the Court granted recognition of the Hong Kong schemes, including broad NCTP Releases.³⁵

c. In re NFE Global Holdings Limited

Most recently, in In re NFE Global Holdings Limited, two U.K.-incorporated affiliates, NFE Global Holdings Limited and NFE Brazil Newco Limited, pursued English restructuring schemes as part of a broader restructuring of New Fortress Energy, Inc. (NFE).³⁶ Similar to the releases in Kaisa, the schemes included broad NCTP Releases benefiting not only the plan companies and other NFE entities but also plan creditors, restructuring parties and advisers, their affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, employees, executives, and agents.³⁷ After English court approval, the debtors sought chapter 15 recognition and enforcement of their schemes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. …

Absent any objection and with nearly unanimous creditor support, the Court gave full force and effect to the plans and their NCTP Releases, but the structure still prompted scrutiny due to one of the debtors’ having been incorporated in the U.K. shortly before the English proceeding, similar to Mega Newco. In a memorandum opinion, the Court explained that, although chapter 15 does not prohibit such restructurings, its broad recognition powers are subject to important constraints. In particular, it described § 1522(a)’s requirement that creditors and other interested parties be sufficiently protected as a “helpful guardrail” and explained that courts should closely scrutinize both the center of main interests (COMI) and the provisions of a non-U.S. plan for potential prejudice or conflicts with U.S. law.³⁸

NFE Global thus reinforces both sides of the developing chapter 15 framework: broad NCTP Releases remain enforceable notwithstanding Purdue, but their recognition is subject to meaningful scrutiny where the use of a non-U.S. restructuring could threaten creditor protections. That said, obtaining chapter 15 relief has never been a “rubber stamping” exercise, so this type of scrutiny is not groundbreaking.

VI. CONCLUSION

Taken together, these cases indicate broad, though not limitless, support from bankruptcy courts for enforcement of NCTP Releases pursuant to chapter 15. The strongest cases for recognition appear to be those in which the releases are approved by the non-U.S. court, tied to implementation of the non-U.S. restructuring, supported by substantial creditor consent, and consistent with chapter 15’s comity-based framework.

The caution expressed in Mega Newco and, more recently, NFE Global demonstrates that recognition and enforcement are not without guardrails: courts remain attentive to COMI manipulation and creditor expectations and protections. Even where courts have voiced caution, chapter 15’s objectives of comity and international cooperation have continued to carry substantial weight in favor of giving effect to non-U.S. restructuring relief. These decisions, therefore, provide additional flexibility and optionality for debtors. In addition to chapter 11, such debtors now have the option of a non-U.S. restructuring proceeding followed by chapter 15 recognition. Whether this offers a more effective path to achieving finality for debtors and related nondebtor parties will depend on a number of factors to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

These issues continue to evolve. Most recently, in In re Grupo Antolin-Irausa, S.A.U., the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted provisional chapter 15 relief extending to proceedings in the U.K., raising further questions regarding the territorial reach of chapter 15 and the scope of relief available before recognition. In the next article in this series, we will examine Grupo Antolin and what the case developments may signal for provisional relief, increased UST scrutiny, and the continuing use of chapter 15 in increasingly complex cross-border restructurings.

Summary of Chapter 15 Release Precedent
Case	Third-Party Release Language	Objections to Release	Court Response
In re Mega Newco	The debtor’s parent company was released from claims arising out of the existing notes being restructured and was exculpated from liability for actions related to the English restructuring scheme.	The debtor negotiated with the UST to limit the releases solely to the parent company and the notes being restructured.	The Court approved the plan mostly on the basis of creditor consent but expressed concerns that it elevated form over substance.
In re Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited	The releases covered claims related to the negotiation, preparation, implementation, and consummation of the restructuring. The parties included the debtor, members of the debtor’s corporate group, the advisers, directors, administrative parties, the ad hoc group, and any creditors and affiliates involved in the proceeding. The releases binded Yuzhou’s creditors regardless of whether they voted in favor of them.	The UST objected to the scope of the requested authority and argued that the request was premature and that the releases are contrary to public policy.	The debtor and the UST negotiated the language of the releases to state, “this Order does not recognize or enforce … any nonconsensual Third-Party Release … provided, however, that nothing herein shall constitute a finding or determination as to whether any Third-Party Release was consensual or nonconsensual.”
In re Crédito Real	The releases barred any action against the debtor’s directors and officers, shareholders, former general manager, liquidator, indenture trustee, and other related parties “for any act or omission … during the Bankruptcy Proceeding and at any time prior to the execution of [the plan].”	The DFC argued that Purdue serves as an interpretive guide to the terms “any appropriate relief” in § 1521(a), “additional assistance” in § 1507 and “manifestly contrary to public policy of the [U.S.]” in § 1506, and under these sections, nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible.	The Court overruled the objections, emphasizing the key policy objective of chapter 15 and the unique influence that this policy should have on guiding court decisions. The district court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court on appeal and upheld the releases.
In re Odebrecht	The proposed language ordered that “all entities … are permanently enjoined” from taking any action “that is in contravention with or would interfere with” the foreign plan.	The UST argued that this language amounted to an expansive nonconsensual third-party release since its scope included any action that is “in contravention with or would interfere with” the restructuring plan and would broadly apply to “all entities.”	The Court doubted that the additional language created a nonconsensual third-party release, but held that, to the extent it did, “Purdue did not hold that nonconsensual third-party releases are contrary to [the] public policy of the U.S.”This confined Purdue’s holding exclusively to chapter 11 proceedings.
In re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd.	The releases barred claims of “Plan Creditors” against the debtor’s directors and advisers as well as its indirect parent. “Plan Creditors” included noteholders, the notes trustee, and certain other parties.	No objections were raised by the UST.	The Court approved the plan with the releases due to the overwhelming support and consent of the interested parties.
In re Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd.	Scheme creditors released claims relating to the restructured debt, the restructuring process, and the implementation of the scheme. The releases benefited Kaisa, its subsidiaries and affiliates, directors, officers, employees, advisers, the foreign representative, the ad hoc group, trustees, agents, and other restructuring participants.	None.	The Court recognized the scheme of arrangement.

 

---

 

¹ Anthony R. Grossi et al., The Promise and Pitfalls of U.K. Law-Based Restructuring Plans for U.S. Companies, Sidley Austin LLP (May 2026), https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/publications/2026/05/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-uk-law-based-restructuring-plans-for-us-companies

² Anthony R. Grossi et al., Achieving COMI: Pre-Filing Considerations Based on Recent Case Law, Sidley Austin LLP (June 2026), https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/publications/2026/06/achieving-comi-pre-filing-considerations-based-on-recent-case-law.

³ Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024).

⁴ See Frederick Tung, Confirmation and Claims Trading, 90 NW. U. L. REV. 1684, 1690 (1996) (“The focal point for Chapter 11 is plan of reorganization …. The rights and obligations … are adjusted as to render the reorganized debtor a viable economic entity”).

⁵ See, e.g., In re Crédito Real, S.A.B. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R., 670 B.R. 150, 160-161 (Bankr. D. Del. 2025)

⁶ 11 U.S.C. § 1504.

⁷ 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a); this relief is subject to the narrow public policy limitation in 11 U.S.C. § 1506.

⁸ 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a).

⁹ 11 U.S.C. § 1507(b).

¹⁰ 11 U.S.C. § 1506.

¹¹ Anthony R. Grossi et al., A Tale of Two Chapters – “Recognizing” the Significant Differences Between Chapter 15 and Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases, Sidley Austin LLP, https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2023/10/a-tale-of-two-chapters-recognizing-the-significant-differences-between-ch-15-and-11-bankruptcy-cases.

¹² Verified Pet. for (I) Recog. of Foreign Proc. at 4-5, In re Mega Newco Limited, No. 24-12031 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2024), Dkt. No. 2.

¹³ “Connected Parties” was a broadly defined group encompassing the entities’ current and former affiliates, related entities, officers, directors, employees, agents, managed funds, investment managers, attorneys, accountants, consultants, and other professionals.

¹⁴ Id. at 2.

¹⁵ Recog. Hr’g Transcript at 24, In re Mega Newco Limited, No. 24-12031 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025), Dkt. No. 26.

¹⁶ Id. at 37.

¹⁷ Verified Pet. under Chapter 15 for Recog. of a Foreign Main Proc. and Related Relief at 15-16, In re Yuzhou Grp. Holdings Co. Ltd., No. 24-11441 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025), Dkt. No. 2.

¹⁸ In re Yuzhou Grp. Holdings Co. Ltd., No. 24-11441, 2024 WL 6999351, at *9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025), Dkt. No. 26.

¹⁹ Verified Pet. for Recog. of a Foreign Main Proc. at 6, In re Crédito Real, S.A.B. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R., No. 25-10208 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 1, 2025), Dkt. No. 2.

²⁰ In re Crédito Real, S.A.B. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R., 670 B.R. 150, 158 (Bankr. D. Del. 2025).

²¹Unlike in In re Mega Newco, here debtor’s counsel told the court that the releases were not crafted by the parties under unique circumstances but instead were “customary in Mexican settlement agreements.” Id. at 155.

²² Id. at 168.

²³ Id. at 173.

²⁴ In re Crédito Real S.A.B. de C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R., 677 B.R. 192, 196 (D. Del. 2026).

²⁵ Id. at 205-206.

²⁶ In re Odebrecht Engenharia e Construção S.A. Em Recuperação Jud., 669 B.R. 457, 476 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2025).

²⁷ Id. at 464.

²⁸ Id. at 473.

²⁹ Id. at 469.

³⁰ Verified Pet. for Recog. of a Foreign Main Proc., In re Fossil (UK) Glob. Serv.’s Ltd., No. 25-90525 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2025), Dkt. No. 6.

³¹ A restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 can bind an entire class on the approval of 75% by value of those voting and can bind dissenting classes.

³² Recog. Hr’g Transcript at 13, In re Fossil (UK) Glob. Serv.’s Ltd., No. 25-90525-15 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2025), Dkt. No. 51 (“I would just ask that no one find anything I do as precedent here, but I will grant the relief requested”).

³³ Motion for Recog. of Foreign Main Proc. at 2, In re Kaisa Grp. Holdings Ltd., No. 26-10818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2026), Dkt. No. 3.

³⁴ The NCTP Releases barred all claims relating to the debt, the restructuring process, and the agreements and instruments necessary to implement the scheme. Further, the NCTP Releases applied not only to Kaisa and its subsidiaries and affiliates but also to their personnel and advisers, the foreign representative, the ad hoc group, the debt-administration parties, the scheme and chapter 15 implementation parties, and each of those parties’ related affiliates, personnel, advisers, predecessors, successors, and assigns.

³⁵ Certificate of No Obj., In re Kaisa Grp. Holdings Ltd., No. 26-10818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2026), Dkt. No. 20; Order Granting Recog. of Foreign Main Proc., In re Kaisa Grp. Holdings Ltd., No. 26-10818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026), Dkt. No. 21.

³⁶ In re NFE Glob. Holdings Ltd., No. 26-11268 (MG), 2026 WL 2032660, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2026).

³⁷ Id. at *5.

38 Id. at *23.