MOISES KROITORO, APPELLANT,
v.
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, N.A., BANCO SUDAMERIS INTERNACIONAL, S.A., CHARLES RACK AND ALAN DELSMAN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Moises Kroitoro, adjudicated bankrupt under Panamanian law, appealed the dismissal of his action against creditors in U.S. courts. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Panamanian bankruptcy laws are not repugnant to U.S. public policy and principles of comity require deference to the foreign proceeding.
Panamanian bankruptcy laws are not repugnant to U.S. public policy and are procedurally fair. Under principles of comity, U.S. courts must follow Panamanian law and respect the restrictions on the bankrupt's legal capacity imposed by that jurisdiction. The dismissal of the suit against creditors was properly entered.
[1] Panamanian bankruptcy laws are not repugnant to public policy as expressed in United States bankruptcy laws.
[2] Principles of comity require adherence to foreign law when it is procedurally fair and not against the public policy of the forum.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the bankruptcy laws of Panama are not repugnant to public policy as expressed in United States bankruptcy laws”
Establishes the court's core holding rejecting the appellant's principal contention
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKroitoro was adjudicated bankrupt under Panamanian law. Under Panama Commercial Code Article 1553, a bankrupt lacks legal capacity to appear in court …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal Of Trustee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Contrary to the appellant’s principal contention here, and consistent with representations made by him in the United States District Court,1 the bankruptcy laws of Panama are not repugnant to public policy as expressed in United States bankruptcy laws.
Another of several issues raised is whether a person adjudicated bankrupt under a Panamanian law may nonetheless bring an action against his creditors in the courts of the United States on grounds that the Panamanian bankruptcy trustee has a conflict of interests where Panamanian law renders the bankrupt without legal capacity to “appear in Court either as a plaintiff or a codefendant except to file actions concerning his person or his words but not concerning his properties.” Article 1553, Panama Commercial Code. In light of our conclusion that Panamanian laws are procedurally fair, principles of comity require that we follow the foreign law. Wilkinson v. Manpower, Inc., 531 F. 2d 712, 715 (5th Cir.1976) (“Mere difference between the law of the forum and that of a foreign state does not prevent enforcement of the foreign law or rights based thereon if such law is not against the public policy of the forum.”); Gadd v. Pearson, 351 F.Supp. 895, 902 (M.D.Fla.1972) (if rights incident to status established by foreign jurisdiction are not repugnant to the laws and policy of Florida, the law of the foreign jurisdiction may be applied under the rules of comity). Kroitoro does not dispute the appellees’ suggestion that one of several remedies available to a bankrupt who is dissatisfied with the trustee’s performance is to petition the appointing tribunal for removal of the trustee. That remedy is still available to the appellant in the ongoing Panamanian proceeding.
The order dismissing, without prejudice, the bankrupt’s suit against the creditors is
AFFIRMED.
. In his Motion to Dismiss Involuntary Petition Under Chapter 7, which was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Kroitoro stated:
In the instant case, a review of Panamanian law reveals that affording comity to the Panamanian Court would not violate American law or public policy.... While not identical in form to American law there is certainly nothing vicious, wicked, immoral or shocking to the prevailing American moral sense in the Panamanian law outlined.
Pursuant to Kroitoro's motion, the bankruptcy court dismissed the U.S. bankruptcy action on February 18, 1986, "in view of the fact that an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding is currently pending in the republic of Panama." Kroitoro then filed the present action in the Dade County Circuit Court on April 2, 1986.