Updated for the UK by the Practical Guidance Team. A debtor-in-possession (DIP) must operate the business, serve as a fiduciary or trustee for the bankruptcy estate, and propose a plan of reorganisation that is acceptable to creditors. The DIP's management, board of directors, and retained bankruptcy counsel assists with these functions. Counsel should note that references in the Bankruptcy Code to actions taken by the trustee apply to the DIP as long as the debtor remains in control of its business and a trustee is not appointed to manage the debtor's estate. Generally, the filing of a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case follows a similar course of events. This Practice Note summarises and provides a general overview of the below listed Chapter 11 events: • Filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy • US trustee and creditors' committee • Automatic stay • First day motions in bankruptcy • DIP financing • Cash collateral • Professional retention in bankruptcy • Fee applications • Proofs of claim • Bankruptcy litigation and adversary proceedings • Asset sales in bankruptcy • Chapter 11 plan • Disclosure

This Practice Note does not purport to address the complete breadth of relief that may be obtained by a foreign representative or all of the intricacies encountered in multi-jurisdictional insolvency cases. Because Chapter 15 cases are intensely fact-driven and depend in large part upon the insolvency regime of the foreign jurisdiction, as well as its relative similarity to the Bankruptcy Code, Chapter 15 jurisprudence, and the forms of relief available to a foreign representative, continues to evolve. This Practice Note addresses Chapter 15 as follows: • Chapter 15 background • Chapter 15 key terms and concepts • Chapter 15 synopsis Chapter 15 background Comity Comity is the underlying legal doctrine animating Chapter 15. Comity is not a static doctrine—its reciprocal nature and political underpinnings make its contours both flexible and somewhat unpredictable. Nonetheless, it is a doctrine that must be understood by the studious Chapter 15 lawyer. The Supreme Court defined comity as ‘the recognition which one nation

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. Updated for the UK by the Practical Guidance Team. Chapter 7 affords the debtor a fresh start following financial misfortune. This fresh start is different for an individual debtor and a business debtor in Chapter 7. Specifically, only an individual debtor can receive a discharge of its debts in a Chapter 7 case—there is no corresponding discharge for business debtors in a Chapter 7 case (see 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(c)(1)(A)). Business debtors obtain relief from their debts through dissolution (see Collier on Bankruptcy P 727.01). Unlike cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, in a Chapter 7 case, a trustee takes control of the debtor's assets, sells them, and distributes the sale proceeds to creditors according to the Bankruptcy Code's distribution scheme. Potential debtors must understand that filing for relief under Chapter 7 may result in the loss of their assets. Because of this process, Chapter 7 is titled ‘Liquidation’. This Practice Note

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. Court approval must be obtained for sales outside the ordinary course of business under section 363(b). Section 363(f) allows debtors to sell their assets free and clear of liens and interests if certain conditions are satisfied. Debtors often sell their assets through a public auction and take numerous actions to secure court approval, including, among other things, executing a stalking horse agreement, establishing bid procedures, and holding an auction. Debtors can also sell assets through a plan of reorganisation but must meet the confirmation requirements to obtain court approval of the sale. This Practice Note addresses the Section 363 Sale requirements, the methods of selling assets in a bankruptcy proceeding, and the differences between bankruptcy sales and sales outside of bankruptcy as follows: • Section 363 requirements • Section 363 Sales and plans of reorganisation • Section 363 Sales and out-of-court sales Section 363 requirements Section

The debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing entails a debtor obtaining a loan, usually on a secured basis, from one or more lenders in order to fund its operations throughout the course of its bankruptcy proceedings. This is crucial because the debtor needs access to cash to pay employees, purchase necessary inventory, pay landlords, pay professional fees incurred during the case, and otherwise satisfy ordinary course obligations. The bankruptcy court must authorise the debtor's entry into any unsecured post-petition financing arrangement that is incurred outside of the ordinary course of business and allowable as an administrative expense (see 11 U.S.C. § 364(b)), or any post-petition financing that is secured by assets of the estate (see 11 U.S.C. §§ 364(c)–(d)). This Practice Note provides counsel with an in-depth discussion and related practical tips with respect to the fundamental aspects and issues related to DIP financing, as follows: • Parties to a DIP financing • Obtaining credit under section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code • Court approval of DIP financing

Law360: The US Department of Justice's (DOJ’s) Criminal Division is now weighing how companies manage risk related to artificial intelligence (AI) and potentially stymie whistleblowers, one of several updates to the division's policies on evaluating corporate compliance programmes announced by a senior official on 23 September 2024.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced coordinated disruption actions against the BlackSuit (Royal) ransomware group. The operation, conducted on 24 July 2025, involved the takedown of four servers and nine domains used to deploy ransomware, extort victims and launder proceeds. It forms part of broader efforts to dismantle ransomware ecosystems and address associated financial activity. Approximately $1.09m in virtual currency linked to a 2023 ransom payment was seized following a warrant unsealed by the US Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The action was led by Homeland Security Investigations, the US Secret Service, IRS Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in cooperation with law enforcement agencies from the UK, Germany, Ireland, France, Canada, Ukraine and Lithuania.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has resolved a foreign bribery investigation into Balt SAS under the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self‑Disclosure Policy after it voluntarily self‑disclosed misconduct, fully cooperated, and remediated, agreeing to pay approximately USD1.2 million in disgorgement in connection with alleged bribes to a senior physician at a state‑owned public hospital in France. Separately, a federal grand jury in the Central District of California has indicted David Ferrera and Marc Tilman for an alleged years‑long scheme between 2017 and 2023 involving corrupt payments, sham consulting agreements, fake invoices and money laundering to secure hospital purchases of Balt medical devices. The Department declined prosecution of Balt due to its voluntary disclosure, cooperation, remediation, absence of aggravating circumstances, acceptance of responsibility and coordinated resolution with French authorities.

Law360, London: On 14 February 2023 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division’s Fraud Section released its annual year in review for 2022.

MLex: President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Criminal Division pledged during his confirmation hearing on 22 October 2025 to follow a memo laying out priorities for enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): conduct that deprives US companies of the ability to compete with foreign rivals, involves key infrastructure, bears indicators of corrupt intent or is tied to the operations of a transnational criminal group.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported that the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has avoided a prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The DOJ, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has declined prosecution of BCG. The Department has reached this conclusion despite evidence of bribery committed by employees or agents of the company. The government’s investigation found evidence that from approximately 2011 until in or about 2017, BCG, through its Lisbon, Portugal office, paid its agent in Angola the equivalent of approximately $4.3m in commissions to help BCG obtain business with agencies of the Angolan Government.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported on a former Energy Trader for Vital Inc. who has pleaded guilty to an international bribery scheme. Javier Aguilar was part of a scheme to bribe Mexican government officials to secure contracts for his then-employer, Vitol Inc. (Vitol), the U.S. affiliate of the largest independent energy trading firm in the world. According to court documents, Javier Aguilar and his co-conspirators paid approximately $600,000 in bribes to two senior officials at PEMEX Procurement International, Inc. (PPI), a wholly owned affiliate of the Mexican state-owned oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), in exchange for assistance in winning business for Vitol, Aguilar pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to a violation of the Travel Act.