Gap Period Injunctive Relief Warranted in Chapter 15 Case Where Recognition of Canadian Receivership Likely Based on U.S. Debtors' Receivership Activities

Unlike in cases filed under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of a petition for recognition of a foreign bankruptcy case under chapter 15 does not automatically trigger a stay of creditor actions against a debtor or its U.S. assets. Instead, the automatic stay generally applies only at such time that the U.S. bankruptcy court later enters an order recognizing the foreign bankruptcy as a "main" proceeding under chapter 15 or, in the event of recognition as a foreign "nonmain" proceeding, the court exercises its discretion to grant equivalent provisional relief. 

This can be problematic if creditor collection efforts continue during the "gap period" between the filing of the chapter 15 petition and the entry of a recognition order. However, section 1519 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes bankruptcy courts to grant provisional relief―including extension of the automatic stay or the issuance of a temporary injunction to protect the foreign debtor's U.S. assets―during the gap period "where relief is urgently needed to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors." 

The U.S. bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York addressed a request for gap period injunctive relief in In re Giftcraft Ltd., 2025 WL 1583480 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2025). Pending its decision on a petition for chapter 15 recognition of a Canadian receivership, the court in an unpublished ruling granted a foreign representative's request for a temporary injunction preventing creditors from proceeding against the assets of three U.S.-incorporated companies that were part of a group of companies subject to the receivership. Among other things, the bankruptcy court concluded that the foreign representative was likely to succeed in obtaining chapter 15 recognition because, although incorporated in the United States, the U.S. companies' "center of main interest" was in Canada. The court also ruled that parties affected by the injunction were adequately protected because they could participate and seek appropriate redress in both the Canadian receivership and the chapter 15 case.  

Procedures and Recognition Under Chapter 15 

Chapter 15 was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. It is patterned on the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), which has been enacted in some form by more than 50 countries. 

Under section 1515 of the Bankruptcy Code, the "foreign representative" of a non-U.S. debtor may file a petition in a U.S. bankruptcy court seeking "recognition" of a "foreign proceeding." Section 101(24) of the Bankruptcy Code defines "foreign representative" as "a person or body, including a person or body appointed on an interim basis, authorized in a foreign proceeding to administer the reorganization or the liquidation of the debtor's assets or affairs or to act as a representative of such foreign proceeding." 

"Foreign proceeding" is defined in section 101(23) of the Bankruptcy Code 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. 

More than one bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding may be pending with respect to the same foreign debtor in different countries. Chapter 15 therefore contemplates recognition in the United States of both a foreign "main" proceeding—a case pending in the country where the debtor's COMI is located (see 11 U.S.C. § 1502(4))—and foreign "nonmain" proceedings, which may be pending in countries where the debtor merely has an "establishment" (see 11 U.S.C. § 1502(5)). A debtor's COMI is presumed to be the location of the debtor's registered office, or "habitual residence" in the case of an individual. See 11 U.S.C. § 1516(c). However, this presumption can be overcome. 

Various factors have been deemed relevant by courts in determining a debtor's COMI, including the physical location of each debtor entity's headquarters, managers, employees, investors, primary assets, and creditors, as well as the jurisdiction whose law would apply to most of the debtor's disputes. See In re SPhinX, Ltd., 351 B.R. 103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 371 B.R. 10 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).  

In addition, courts have considered any relevant activities leading up to the chapter 15 filing, including liquidation or reorganization activities and administrative functions. See Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 714 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2013). Such activities can entail the negotiation or execution of a restructuring support agreement with creditors, creditor meetings, liquidation activities (including court hearings), or administrative functions. See, e.g., In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A., 578 B.R. 169, 222 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), 543 B.R. 498, 517 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re Modern Land (China) Co., 641 B.R. 768, 778–81, 789–90 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022)). In addition, where the debtor is an entity with limited operations, it may be the case that restructuring activities performed outside the United States constitute the debtor's primary business activity prior to the filing of the chapter 15 petition. 

Courts may also consider the situs of each debtor entity's "nerve center," including the location from which such entity's "activities are directed and controlled, in determining a debtor's COMI." Fairfield Sentry, 714 F.3d at 138. "[R]egularity and ascertainability" by creditors are also important factors in the COMI analysis. Id.; In re British Am. Ins. Co., 425 B.R. 884, 912 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010) ("The location of a debtor's COMI should be readily ascertainable by third parties."); In re Betcorp Ltd., 400 B.R. 266, 289 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2009) (looking to whether COMI is ascertainable by creditors). Creditors' expectations regarding the location of a debtor's COMI are also relevant. See In re Serviços de Petróleo Constellation S.A., 613 B.R. 497 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); Oi Brasil, 578 B.R. at 228.  

COMI can sometimes be found to have shifted, or "migrated," from a foreign debtor's original principal place of business or habitual residence to a new location. See Pirogova, 593 B.R. at 410; see also Creative Finance, 543 B.R. at 519 (ruling that the liquidator's efforts were too minimal to find a shift in COMI and noting that "[i]n the two months between the time [the debtors' principal] retained him and the time he filed his chapter 15 case in this Court, the Liquidator failed to do the basic things that can under normal circumstances cause a change in COMI—even in a liquidation"). In Fairfield Sentry, the Second Circuit ruled that, due principally to the present verb tense of the language of section 1517, the relevant time for assessing COMI is the chapter 15 petition date, rather than the date a foreign insolvency proceeding is commenced with respect to the debtor. See Fairfield Sentry, 714 F.3d at 137. The Fifth Circuit previously reached the same conclusion in In re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir. 2010), as did the bankruptcy court in British American. 

In Fairfield Sentry, the Second Circuit also expressed concern about possible COMI "manipulation," ruling that a court "may look at the period between the commencement of the foreign proceeding and the filing of the Chapter 15 petition to ensure that a debtor has not manipulated its COMI in bad faith." Fairfield Sentry, 714 F.3d at 138.  

In cases involving multiple foreign debtors, COMI must be determined on an entity-by-entity basis. See In re Black Press Ltd., No. 24-100044 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 14, 2024) (unpublished order) (Doc. No. 73) (in a case involving multiple enterprise group debtors, the court must examine each debtor's COMI separately, rather than the enterprise group as a whole, for purposes of chapter 15 recognition; U.S. debtors' guarantee of their Canadian parent company's debts was an insufficient basis to conclude that the U.S. debtors' COMI was located in Canada, or that the U.S. debtor's even maintained an "establishment" in Canada); In re Servicos de Petroleo Constellation S.A., 600 B.R. 237, 244 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("While the Constellation Group is discussed as a group entity at times throughout this opinion's opening sections for context, it is important to bear in mind that the Court's recognition is granted on an individual debtor by debtor basis."); In re OAS S.A., 533 B.R. 83, 92 n.8 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015).  

If a U.S. court recognizes a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15, section 1520(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that actions against the foreign debtor or its property located in the United States are stayed under section 362―the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay." Following recognition of a foreign main or nonmain proceeding, a bankruptcy court is authorized under section 1521 to grant, among other things, injunctive relief staying actions or execution against the debtor's U.S. assets, the authority to distribute the proceeds of the debtor's U.S. assets, and, with certain exceptions, any additional relief available to a bankruptcy trustee "where necessary to effectuate the purpose of [chapter 15] and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors." 

Section 1521(e) provides that "[t]he standards, procedures, and limitations applicable to an injunction shall apply to" requests for injunctive relief authorized by sections 1521(a)(1) and (2), to suspend the right to transfer the debtor's assets (section 1520(a)(3)), and for any extension of provisional relief previously granted during the gap period (section 1521(a)(6)). 

During the gap period, section 1519(a) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy court to grant provisional injunctive relief and certain other forms of relief where "relief is urgently needed to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors." Similar to section 1521(e), section 1519(e) provides that "[t]he standards, procedures, and limitations applicable to an injunction shall apply to relief under this section."  

Before granting a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. Rule 65, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065, or section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code, most courts require the party seeking the provisional relief to demonstrate: (i) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (iii) that the balance of hardships tips in the applicant's favor; and (iv) that the public interest would not be disserved if injunctive relief were granted. See, e.g., Broadstripe, LLC v. Natl. Cable Television Coop., Inc. (In re Broadstripe, LLC), 402 B.R. 646 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); Lyondell Chem. Co. v. CenterPoint Energy Gas Servs. Inc. (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 402 B.R. 571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009). 

However, courts sometimes disagree regarding the standard that should apply to a request by a foreign representative for provisional relief under section 1519 during the chapter 15 gap period. See, e.g., In re Andrade Gutierrez Engenharia S.A., 645 B.R. 175, 181 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) (in determining whether provisional relief is appropriate under section 1519, the court should apply the "standards, procedure, and limitations" that apply to the entry of a preliminary injunction); In re Beechwood Re, 2019 WL 3025283, at *2 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019) (same); In re Pro-Fit Holdings Ltd., 391 B.R. 850, 860–61 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (ruling that, because the relief sought under section 1519 was an extension of the automatic stay, rather than a temporary injunction, "the rules and jurisprudence for an injunction" did not apply); In re Worldwide Educ. Servs., Inc., 494 B.R. 494, 498 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2013) (rejecting the Pro-Fit approach as being "flatly inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous language of section 1519(e)"); In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., 455 B.R. 571, 579 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011) (applying the traditional preliminary injunction standard to a request for injunctive relief under sections 105 and 1519 during the gap period); In re Innua Canada Ltd., 2009 WL 1025088 (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2009) (same). 

Section 1522(a) provides that the bankruptcy court may exercise its discretion to order the relief authorized by section 1519 or 1521 "only if the interests of the creditors and other interested entities, including the debtor, are sufficiently protected." 

Pursuant to sections 1520(c) and 1528, the foreign representative can also commence a full-fledged bankruptcy case under any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code as long as the foreign debtor is eligible to file for bankruptcy in the United States under that chapter.  

Section 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth a public policy exception to the relief otherwise authorized in chapter 15, providing that "[n]othing in this chapter prevents the court from refusing to take an action governed by this chapter if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the United States."  

Giftcraft

Giftcraft Ltd. ("Giftcraft Canada") supplies gift items, including home décor, jewelry, and other novelties, through specialty retailers and national chains in Canada. Its affiliates include: (i) Giftcraft Inc. ("Giftcraft U.S."), a New York corporation that manages the enterprise's distribution of its products in the United States; (ii) Ripskirt Hawaii, LLC ("Ripskirt"), an Oregon limited liability company that produces and distributes women's vacation and leisure apparel; and (iii) Yosox USA Inc. ("Yosox," and together with Giftcraft U.S. and Ripskirt, the "U.S. debtors"), a Delaware e-commerce retailer. 

The ultimate parent of the group of companies (the "Giftcraft companies") is the Canadian corporation Giftcraft Holdings, Inc. ("GHI"). The holding company of the U.S. debtors is Giftcraft Midco, Inc. ("Midco), an Indiana corporation. 

The Giftcraft companies have an identical team of officers. The six-member boards of directors of Giftcraft Canada and Midco consist of a president residing in Canada and five members located in the United States. The Giftcraft companies collectively employ 56 people based in Canada and 10 people based in the United States working remotely.  

Giftcraft Canada has operated from leased premises in Ontario, Canada, since 2007 and has all of its inventory and accounts receivable in Canada. Giftcraft U.S. does not currently maintain any inventory, but at one time leased sample showrooms in Atlanta and Dallas. Its products are shipped directly to customers either through Giftcraft Canada or overseas suppliers. Giftcraft U.S. has no U.S. employees but has accounts receivable and three U.S. bank accounts holding in aggregate less than $5,000. 

Ripskirt ships products from a third-party logistics facility located in Indiana housing its inventory. It has two U.S. bank accounts containing de minimis amounts. Yosox has one U.S. bank account containing less than $5,000. 

In March 2024, a predecessor-in-interest to the Royal Bank of Canada (the "lender") extended various loans to Midco and Giftcraft Canada in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $28 million. The loans are secured by first-priority security interests in substantially all the Giftcraft companies' assets and are guaranteed by Midco, GHI, Giftcraft U.S., Yosox, Ripskirt, and another affiliate. 

In February 2025, the Lender notified Midco and Giftcraft Canada that they were in default. The Giftcraft companies' other debts included unpaid rent under premises leased by Giftcraft Canada and Giftcraft U.S., and amounts owed by Ripskirt to payment processors and other entities. 

In March 2025, the Lender issued a formal demand for payment. The Lender and the Giftcraft companies entered into a short-term forbearance agreement, but the Lender declined to extend the agreement after Giftcraft Canada informed it that the borrowers could not continue to make payments because Ripskirt, which was the principal source of the Giftcraft companies' revenue, had experienced an unprecedented decline in sales in April 2025 following the announcement of global tariffs on Chinese-sourced goods. 

As provided in the forbearance agreement, the Lender on May 9, 2025, filed an application in a Canadian court to appoint a receiver under the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") to secure the Giftcraft companies' assets and review strategic alternatives. The Canadian court approved the application for a receivership (the "BIA Receivership") and appointed a provisional receiver for all of the Giftcraft companies' assets. 

On May 20, 2025, the receiver, as the Giftcraft companies' foreign representative (the "FR") filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "U.S. bankruptcy court") seeking chapter 15 recognition of the BIA Receivership as a foreign main proceeding or, alternatively, as a foreign nonmain proceeding. The FR also sought provisional relief in the form of a preliminary injunction under section 1519 of the Bankruptcy Code preventing creditor collection efforts against the Giftcraft companies' U.S. assets pending resolution of the recognition petition. 

The Office of the U.S. Trustee (the "UST") opposed the recognition petition and the related relief, arguing, among other things, that COMI for all of the U.S. debtors is in the United States rather than Canada, and that the FC was not entitled to provisional relief under section 1519 because the FR could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the chapter 15 petition as to the U.S. debtors. According to the UST, the U.S. debtors should be required to pursue the relief sought by the FR in chapter 15 by filing for protection under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (as authorized by section 1520(c) and 1528).  

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court's Ruling 

The U.S. bankruptcy court granted the FR's motion for injunctive relief under section 1519. 

Initially, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn noted that a court should apply the "standards, procedure, and limitations" applicable to the issuance of a preliminary injunction when deciding whether to grant relief under section 1519(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—namely: (i) a likelihood of success on the merits (i.e., the recognition petition); (ii) "imminent irreparable harm" to the debtor absent provisional relief; (iii) a balance of harms tipping toward the party seeking injunctive relief; and (iv) public interest weighing in favor of the party seeking relief. Giftcraft, 2025 WL 1583480 at *5 (citing Andrade; 645 at 181 (citing Lyondell, 402 B.R. at 588–89)).  

He emphasized that a showing of irreparable harm is the "'single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.'" Id. at *6 (quoting Faively Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2009)). To satisfy this requirement, Judge Glenn explained, the party seeking injunctive relief must show that, without the injunction, it "'will suffer an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent, and one that cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of the trial to resolve the harm.'" Id. He further noted that the party seeking injunctive relief demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits in this context by showing that it is likely to obtain chapter 15 recognition of a foreign proceeding. Id. (citing Andrade, 645 B.R. at 181).

The U.S. bankruptcy court concluded that the FR demonstrated all of the requirements for injunctive relief under section 1519(e). 

The court emphasized that it did "not reach this conclusion lightly, as Chapter 15 is not a substitute for Chapters 7 and 11 for U.S.-based debtors, and the Court is vigilant of the potential for U.S. debtors to abuse the Chapter 15 process by bypassing Chapters 7 and 11." Id. at *8. Even so, Judge Glenn concluded that, at least for the purpose of injunctive relief under section 1519(e), the FR was likely to demonstrate that the COMI of the U.S. debtors as of the chapter 15 petition date was in Canada. Id.  

First, the U.S. Bankruptcy court noted that Canadian insolvency proceedings, including court-ordered receivership, have routinely been recognized under chapter 15. Id. at *9.

Next, Judge Glenn found that the COMI of Giftcraft Canada and the U.S. debtors was Canada as of the chapter 15 petition date because:

• Giftcraft Canada was organized under the laws of Canada, where its registered office, employees, and executives were located. Id.
• Giftcraft U.S. exclusively maintained office space in Canada, where its books, records, and corporate documents were stored, and had no inventory in the United States. All of its material management decisions were made by Giftcraft Canada's senior management. 
• Commencement of the BIA Receivership, whereby all of Giftcraft U.S.'s property was vested in the receiver, "constitutes pre-filing restructuring activities of the sort that suggest, as of the Petition Date, Giftcraft U.S.'s COMI was likely Canada." Id. 
• The COMI of Ripskirt and Yosox was also likely Canada due to the same pre-filing restructuring activities associated with commencement of the BIA Receivership. Id. at *10.

The U.S. bankruptcy court explained that, "[i]n the cross-border insolvency context, courts have recognized that irreparable harm exists where local actions could hinder the orderly process of a foreign proceeding and the goal of the fair distribution of assets." Id. (citing In re Petition of Garcia Avila, 296 B.R. 95, 114 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003); In re Berau Capital Res. PTE Ltd., No. 15-11804 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2015) (ECF Doc. # 20) at 3; In re Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C., 91 B.R. 661, 664 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988); In re Lines, 81 B.R. 267, 270 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)). 

According to Judge Glenn, Giftcraft Canada and the U.S. debtors would be irreparably harmed without an injunction because creditors were actively pursuing collection of their debts from the companies' U.S. assets. Id. at *11. He also found that the balance of harms favored the issuance of provisional relief because it would preserve the value of the assets of Giftcraft Canada and the U.S. debtors for the benefit of all creditors, and any creditor alleging harm from the injunction could petition the court for redress. 

The U.S. bankruptcy court concluded that the public interest would be served by the issuance of injunctive relief because such relief promoted the bankruptcy policy of affording debtors a breathing spell from creditor collection efforts, ensured the equitable treatment of creditors, facilitated the receiver's efforts to maximize the value of the debtors' assets for the benefit of all stakeholders, and would "minimize jurisdictional inconsistencies pending this Court's recognition order and therefore will 'promote[] cooperation between jurisdictions in cross-border insolvencies,' advancing an express purpose of Chapter 15." Id. (citation omitted)  

In overruling the UST's objections, the U.S. bankruptcy court noted that the case relied on by the UST—Black Press—was distinguishable because, unlike the U.S. debtors in these chapter 15 cases, the U.S.-based debtors in Black Press functioned independently from the Canadian debtors, and it did not appear that the U.S. debtors' COMI on the chapter 15 petition date was the in United States rather than in Canada, especially after commencement of the BIA Receivership. Id. at **11–12. 

According to Judge Glenn, parties affected by the issuance of injunctive relief were sufficiently protected, as required by section 1522(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, because all creditors had access to the Canadian court in connection with the BIA Receivership and could participate in the chapter 15 case. Id. at *12. Finally, the U.S. bankruptcy court exercised its discretion to waive the security requirement for temporary injunctive relief in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065 as well as the requirement in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(a)(4)(b) that the party seeking the injunction must identify all parties potentially impacted by it.

Because the U.S. bankruptcy court found that the FR was likely to obtain chapter 15 recognition of the BIA Receivership as a foreign main proceeding, it declined to address the FC's alternative argument that the receivership should be recognized as a foreign nonmain proceeding. Id. at *10 n.3.  

Postscript 

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. bankruptcy court entered an order recognizing the BIA Receivership as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15. See In re Giftcraft Ltd., No. 25-11030 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2025). Among other things, the court concluded that: (i) the U.S. debtors had a principal place of business and/or property in the United States, and were therefore eligible chapter 15 debtors; (ii) the U.S. debtors' COMI is in Canada; (iii) the requested relief was necessary to effectuate the purposes of chapter 15 and to protect the U.S. debtors' assets and the interests of creditors; (iv) the relief was necessary to effectuate the purposes and objectives of chapter 15 and to protect stakeholder interests; (v) the relief was in the interests of the public and international comity, consistent with U.S. public policy, and would not cause any hardship to any party that was not outweighed by the benefits of the relief; and (vi) absent the relief, creditor collection efforts could frustrate the BIA Receivership, contrary to the purposes of chapter 15. 

On August 13, 2025, after the Canadian court approved the sale of substantially all of the assets of Giftcraft Canada, Giftcraft U.S., and Yosox, the U.S. bankruptcy court granted an uncontested motion to sell the companies' U.S. assets free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances under sections 363(b) and 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. It also approved the assumption and assignment of various related contracts under section 365. Among other things, the U.S. bankruptcy court: (i) recognized the Canadian court's order approving the sale; (ii) found that the sale transaction satisfied the standard for approval of an asset sale under section 363(b); and (iii) concluded that the assignments passed muster under the business judgment standard. See In re Giftcraft Ltd., No. 25-11030 (MG), 2025 WL 2336275 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025).  

Outlook 

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition of foreign bankruptcy proceedings are often filed for the purpose of enjoining creditor collection activities that threaten foreign debtors' U.S. assets so that the property can be administered in the foreign proceedings. However, unlike in cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of a chapter 15 petition does not automatically trigger a stay of creditor actions against the foreign debtor or its assets. Instead: (i) the automatic stay applies only if the U.S. bankruptcy court grants chapter 15 recognition of the foreign bankruptcy as a foreign main proceeding; (ii) the court may exercise its discretion to issue injunctive relief upon recognition of a foreign nonmain proceeding; or (iii) as illustrated by Giftcraft, the court can exercise its discretion to issue injunctive relief in cases where such provisional relief is urgently needed during the chapter 15 gap period to protect the foreign debtor's assets or the interests of creditors. The provisional relief provisions in chapter 15 are part and parcel of chapter 15's purpose to provide assistance to foreign tribunals in cross-border bankruptcy cases. 

Key takeaways for Giftcraft include: 

• The standard applicable to injunctive relief in other contexts also applies to such relief during the chapter 15 gap period.
• One element of that standard—likelihood of success on the merits—is satisfied if the party seeking injunctive relief demonstrates the bankruptcy court is likely to grant chapter 15 recognition of the foreign bankruptcy case.
• Another element of the standard for injunctive relief—irreparable harm—is satisfied where U.S. creditor actions could hinder the orderly process of a foreign proceeding and the goal of the fair distribution of assets.
• The COMI of each affiliated debtor in a group of companies must be assessed separately for purposes of recognition.
• Restructuring or liquidation activities in a foreign country can be a basis for finding that the debtor's COMI is in that foreign country, even if the debtor it is organized or incorporated elsewhere.