U.S. Bankruptcy Court Temporarily Stays UK Winding-Up Petitions in Grupo Antolín

Background
Grupo Antolín‑Irausa, S.A.U. is a holding company of a corporate group that designs, develops and manufactures interior automotive components for companies such as Ford and General Motors. The primary debtor is a Spanish company, but the group operates through subsidiaries across Europe and North America, three of which are in the United Kingdom.

Grupo Antolín and certain of its affiliates (“Debtors”), including UK subsidiaries Grupo Antolin Leamington Ltd., Grupo Antolin UK Ltd., and Antolin Interiors UK Ltd. (“UK Subsidiaries”), sought judicial approval of a restructuring plan in Spain on July 10, 2026. Thereafter, on July 20, 2026, the Debtors sought recognition of the Spanish proceeding as a foreign main proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 22, the Bankruptcy Court granted provisional relief applying section 362’s stay to the Debtors and their property within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States pending recognition. The order also stated that it did not restrict actions outside the United States concerning debtors or their property located outside the United States.

Meanwhile, noteholders presented winding-up petitions in England against the UK Subsidiaries. The petitions relied on alleged defaults under the group’s existing notes. The foreign representative asked the Bankruptcy Court to stop the petitions, arguing that they sought to enforce rights under notes and guarantees governed by New York law and thereby interfered with the Debtors’ U.S. property. The noteholders responded that the petitions concerned English companies in an English court and fell within the July 22 order’s express reservation for foreign proceedings.

The Debtors’ foreign representative asked the Court either to confirm that the stay under the provisional order covered the UK winding-up petitions or to extend the stay and direct the noteholders to withdraw the winding-up petitions. This left the Court with the following dilemma: UK creditors had commenced winding-up petitions against UK debtors based on euro-denominated notes held in Europe. The notes were secured by share pledges, but not U.S.- based tangible assets of any debtor. On the other hand, the notes were subject to New York law, and the Debtors’ CEO stated that the UK entities were integrated parts of the worldwide supply chain and that the injunction was necessary to allow for an orderly reorganization proceeding in Spain.

Why the Location of the Contract Rights Mattered
Section 1519 permits a bankruptcy court to grant urgently needed provisional relief after a chapter 15 petition is filed and before recognition is decided. If a foreign proceeding is later recognized as a foreign main proceeding, section 1520(a)(1) makes the automatic stay set forth in section 362 applicable to the debtor and the debtor’s property within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The foreign representative argued that the Debtors held contract rights under indentures governed by New York law and containing New York forum selection provisions. The foreign representative relied in part on In re Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd., 540 B.R. 80 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015), which treated rights under a New York law indenture as U.S. property for chapter 15 eligibility. The noteholders disputed the analogy: Berau addressed only whether a foreign debtor had sufficient property in the United States to be eligible to file a chapter 15 case, whereas the question here was whether the Debtors owned U.S.-situated property whose protection justified restraining proceedings abroad.

The noteholders argued that the notes were the Debtors’ payment obligations, rather than their assets, and the Court should instead follow the reasoning of In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. 334 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). There, the Court held that the automatic stay does not afford broad anti-suit injunctive relief to a chapter 15 debtor outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and thus declined to stay an ongoing Swiss arbitration proceeding. Importantly, however, the Court emphasized that the Swiss arbitration had “no meaningful nexus to the property of the foreign debtor located in the United States.”

The Court’s Order on the Motion to Enforce or Extend the Provisional Relief
The Bankruptcy Court found, unless and until it determines otherwise after further briefing, that the Debtors’ rights under the existing notes and guarantees are property within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It thus enjoined the objecting noteholders from continuing to pursue the UK winding-up petitions, but it declined to force the noteholders to withdraw their winding-up petitions altogether. Instead, the Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on both the location of the contract rights under section 1502(8) and whether continued pursuit of the UK winding-up petitions would violate the automatic stay. The Court reasoned that this balance—restraining the continuation of the winding-up proceeding without forcing the petitions to be withdrawn—sufficed to maintain the status quo, while the question of whether the Debtors’ rights under the notes and guarantees are property located in the United States is fully litigated.

The parties subsequently entered into a standstill agreement in an effort to reach a consensual resolution on the overarching restructuring, and the noteholders agreed to withdraw the winding-up petitions (without prejudice). As part of this agreement, the Court has adjourned further proceedings on the provisional relief motion until at least November 2026.

Effect and Significance
Grupo Antolín illustrates how provisional chapter 15 relief can reach creditor conduct abroad when the court finds a sufficient connection to the debtor’s property within the United States. Its immediate effect was to halt further pursuit of the winding-up petitions; however, in light of the provisional nature of the order and the fact that many of the Court’s conclusions were expressly made subject to being reconsidered after supplemental briefing, the decision’s broader legal significance remains unsettled.