MEMORANDUM OPINION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1521

Pending before this Court is the general request of the duly appointed foreign representatives in these four Chapter 15 cases for additional relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)1, including the right to seek turnover of estate assets and records under §§ 542 and 543, authority to conduct discovery, and entrustment with the administration and realization of estate assets. For the reasons stated below, this Court will grant the additional relief sought, conditioned in accordance with § 1522 on the requirement that the foreign representatives file a motion on notice to seek specific turnover or specific discovery.

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a) and 157(b)(2)(A), (O) and (P), and the Standing Orders of Reference in effect in the Eastern District of New York dated August 28, 1986, and as amended on December 5, 2012, but made effective nunc pro tunc as of June 23, 2011.

Background

The Offshore Entities

The four foreign entities at issue are AJW Offshore, Ltd. (“Offshore I”), AJW *554Master Fund, Ltd. (“Master I”), AJW Offshore II, Ltd. (“Offshore II”), and AJW Master Fund II, Ltd. (“Master Fund II”) (collectively the “Offshore Funds”). The Offshore Funds are Cayman Islands exempted liability companies which are in liquidation proceedings pending before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, Financial Services Division (the “Cayman Islands Proceedings” before the “Cayman Court”). The petitioners in these Chapter 15 cases are Ian Stokoe and David Walker, both of PwC Corporate Finance & Recovery (Cayman) Limited (“Petitioners”), who were appointed as joint official liquidators of the Offshore Funds by the Cayman Court.

According to Petitioners2, the investment manager of the Offshore Funds was a New York limited liability company called First Street Manager II, LLC (“First Street”), which was responsible for identifying and executing investments. First Street is solely owned and managed by the N.I.R. Group, LLC (“NIR”), an unregistered investment advisor located in Roslyn, New York. Corey Ribotsky (“Ri-botsky”) is the manager and principal owner of NIR, through which he controlled the operations of First Street.3 Acting through NIR and First Street, Ribotsky employed an investment strategy of seeking private investments in public equities, referred to as “PIPE”, under which the Offshore Funds provided financing to micro-cap 4 distressed, emerging growth, and start-up companies in exchange for convertible debentures of these entities. This investment strategy ultimately proved unsuccessful, resulting in the liquidation proceedings before the Cayman Court.

Petitioners assert that Offshore I had 44 investors, that Offshore II had 156 investors, and that Master Fund I and Master Fund II each had two investors, their feed*555er funds. Petitioners further assert that the last audited accounts for any of the Offshore Funds were for the year ended December 31, 2007, and show that Master Fund I had $694.4 million in net assets and Offshore I had $454.9 million in net assets; this audit was conducted prior to the creation of Offshore II and Master Fund II. Subsequently, the Offshore Funds’ auditor prepared U.S. tax returns for the year ended December 31, 2010, utilizing information and valuations supplied by NIR. Based on information from these tax returns, which Petitioners assert are the most recent, the net assets of the Offshore Funds appeared to be stated to be as follows: Master Fund I — $141.5 million, Offshore I — $122.4 million, Master Fund II — $556.1 million, and Offshore II — $376 million; however, Petitioners question the reliability of these valuations, and believe they were improperly inflated. The assets of the Offshore Funds consist primarily of convertible debentures issued by the micro-cap entities, as well as various promissory notes.

On September 28, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission commenced a civil action against Ribotsky and NIR before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York5, alleging various securities laws violations in connection with their roles managing the investments of the Offshore Funds and related on-shore funds (the “SEC Action”).6 These allegations of wrongdoing include, inter alia, fraud and self-dealing by Ribotsky through NIR, the artificial inflation of the Offshore Funds’ financial performance data, and the impermissible transfer of money between the Offshore Funds and Ribotsky’s various entities. The SEC Action against Ribotsky and NIR remains pending.

The Chapter 15 Recognition Proceedings

On January 7, 2013, Petitioners filed petitions for recognition under Chapter 15. Following a recognition hearing held on February 4, 2013 (the “Recognition Hearing”) 7, this Court determined, inter alia, that Petitioners are the duly appointed foreign representatives of the Offshore Funds under § 101(24), and that the Cayman Islands Proceedings are foreign main proceedings within the meaning of § 101(23) and are entitled to recognition by this Court pursuant to § 1517(a). The Court further determined that the Cayman Islands is the location of the Offshore Funds’ “center of main interests” and, as such, the Cayman Islands Proceedings are entitled to recognition as foreign main proceedings pursuant to §§ 1502(4) and 1517(b)(1). Thus, Orders of recognition for each of the Offshore Funds were entered on February 5, 2013, under which Petitioners were granted all relief provided pursuant to § 1520, without limitation (the “Recognition Orders”), [dkt item 31].

As part of the Verified Petition, Petitioners also sought additional relief under each subsection of § 1521(a), other than (a)(3), and not under (b).8 Significantly, Petition*556ers requested authority to seek turnover under both §§ 542 and 5439 pursuant to § 1521(a)(7). Petitioners’ moving papers indicate they have been unsuccessful in recovering books and records from professionals retained by the Offshore Funds, and now seek this Court’s authority to grant turnover of them.

Following recognition, this Court set a hearing for February 20 to consider Petitioners’ request for additional relief (the “Additional Relief Hearing”). Due notice of the Recognition Hearing was given. One objection to Petitioners’ request for additional relief was filed by the law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP (“Bingham” and the “Bingham Objection”), which did not challenge this Court entrusting the foreign representatives with the administration and realization of the Offshore Funds’ assets under § 1521(a)(5) or their general right to seek discovery, [dkt item 40],

At the Additional Relief Hearing, Petitioners withdrew without prejudice their request for additional relief under § 1521(a)(1) and (2)10 and asserted that they may access turnover powers via § 1521(a)(7). [dkt item 7]. Also at the Additional Relief Hearing, Bingham’s Objection, which was broadly drawn, was narrowed to: (1) objecting to Petitioners’ request for authority to seek turnover under either § 542 or § 543; and (2) objecting to any order directing Bingham to turn over records under § 542(e).11 *557Bingham essentially argued that allowing Petitioners to utilize these turnover powers was not authorized by the statute and was not necessary, as entrusting Petitioners with the administration and realization of all of the Offshore Funds’ assets that are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to § 1521(a)(5), to which no party objected, would subsume the powers of turnover. Bingham further argued that § 103’s failure to expressly incorporate §§ 542 and 543 into Chapter 15 further supports their position. This Court disagrees, and for the following reasons overrules Bingham’s Objection.

Discussion

“Chapter 15 implements the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross&emdash; Border Insolvency;” courts interpreting Chapter 15 are required under § 1508 to “consider its international origin, and the need to promote an application of th[e] chapter that is consistent with the application of similar statutes adopted by foreign jurisdictions in interpreting its provisions”. In re Condor, 601 F.3d 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1508). Chapter 15 both expressly authorizes certain relief to be accorded and explicitly limits other relief which may be provided. For example, § 103(a) provides that Chapter 1, “sections 307, 362(o), 555 through 557, and 559 through 562” automatically apply in a case under Chapter 15, and § 1523(a) immediately upon recognition provides a foreign representative with standing in cases regarding the debtor pending under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code “to initiate actions under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, 553, and 724(a)”. 11 U.S.C. §§ 103(a); 1523(a). However, while § 1521(a)(7) authorizes a Court to grant “any additional relief that may be available to a trustee,” such relief may not include “relief available under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a).” 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7). In other words, a foreign representative may not utilize these avoidance powers in a Chapter 15 case, and may only do so in a ease pending or filed under another chapter.12

Chapter 15 is silent as to the applicability or inapplicability of other sections of the Bankruptcy Code, specifically including §§ 542 and 543. Thus, determining whether Petitioners are entitled to utilize §§ 542 and 543 requires an analysis of the relevant provisions of Chapter 15 and related Bankruptcy Code provisions, case law under prior § 30413, and consideration of whether granting such relief is in the interests of international comity. See Condor, 601 F.3d at 319-29.

Statutory Construction

The first consideration in determining whether turnover is available as part of the “any additional relief’ available under § 1521(a)(7) is statutory construction&emdash;that is, what did Congress provide under the statute. Therefore, this Court’s analysis necessarily begins by looking to the language of the statute itself to determine if the statute is plain or ambiguous. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004); United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989); see also In re Miller, 462 B.R. 421, 429 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 2011). “[I]n determining plainness or ambiguity, *558courts are directed to look ‘to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.’ ” In re Phillips, 485 B.R. 53, 56 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 2012), quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). If the statutory language is clear, a court’s analysis must end there. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) (“[W]hen the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts&emdash;at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd&emdash;is to enforce it according to its terms.”).

However, “[sjtatutory language is ambiguous if it is susceptible to two or more reasonable meanings.” Phillips, 485 B.R. at 56. In that setting, where the plain language as clarified by context fails to resolve any statutory ambiguity, a court may resort to canons of statutory construction to aid in its interpretation. United States v. Colasuonno, 697 F.3d 164, 173 (2d Cir. 2012); United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d 257, 264 (2d Cir. 2000). Significantly, statutory construction is a holistic endeavor; thus, a statute must be interpreted in light of the statutory scheme as a whole. United Sav. Ass’n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assoc., Ltd., 484 U.S. 865, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988); Phillips, 485 B.R. at 59.

Thus, this Court will first consider the plain language of § 1521(a)(7). Section 1521(a) provides that the bankruptcy court may grant a foreign representative “any appropriate relief,” including staying various aspects of court proceedings involving the debtor or its assets, suspending rights to transfer, encumber or dispose of the debtor’s assets, providing for discovery, granting powers to the foreign representatives to administer the debtor’s U.S. assets and, specifically as to § 1521(a)(7), “granting any additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for relief available under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a).” 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7). Notably, §§ 542 and 543 are relief that may be available to a trustee and are not among those sections explicitly excluded. Thus, the plain language allows a court to allow a foreign representative to utilize turnover subject, as § 1521 requires, to sufficient protections under § 1522.

Moreover, Congress did not otherwise preclude a foreign representative from being given authority to seek turnover under § 542 or § 543. The Bankruptcy Code in § 103(a) provides that “chapters 1, 3, and 5 of this title apply in a case under chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of this title, and this chapter, sections 307, 362(o), 555 through 557, and 559 through 562 apply in a case under chapter 15.” 11 U.S.C. § 103(a). Congress did not use a limiting phrase such as “only” in listing the sections which have immediate application in Chapter 15 cases. See In re Pro-Fit Holdings, Ltd., 391 B.R. 850, 866 (Bankr. C.D.CaI. 2008)14; see also In re Fairfield Sentry, 452 B.R. 52, 59 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2011). This is particularly persuasive giv*559en that “[s]ection 1521 is a broad reservoir of equitable power” which enables courts to “grant any appropriate relief ... to effectuate the purpose of chapter 15 and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of creditors.” Leif M. Clark, ANCILLARY ANB OTHER CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY Cases Under Chapter 15 of the BaNkruptoy Code: A Collier Monograph, § 7[2] (2008) (“Clark, Chapter 15”).

Further, if § 103 was intended to constitute the constellation of Code provisions applicable in Chapter 15, that would render § 1521(a)(7) meaningless. Section 1521(a)(7) provides that a bankruptcy court may “grant[] any additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for” specified avoidance actions; if Congress had intended that the only powers available to a debtor or trustee which are also available to a foreign representative are those expressly incorporated by § 103, then § 1521(a)(7) serves no purpose, particularly given that § 1511 expressly authorizes a foreign representative to commence another case under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code and § 1523 grants a foreign representative standing to bring the excluded avoidance actions in another ease commenced under another chapter. Moreover, if a foreign representative was only intended to utilize turnover if another case was pending under the Bankruptcy Code, then § 1523 would grant the foreign representative standing to seek turnover in a case pending under another chapter in addition to use of the excluded avoidance powers. This Court will not adopt an analysis that renders § 1521(a)(7) meaningless. See Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 62, 118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998) (courts should hesitate to “adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law.”)

Thus, the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit the court from authorizing the foreign representative to employ turnover powers available under §§ 542 and 543;15 rather, access to turnover powers under § 1521(a)(7) is conditioned upon sufficient protections being provided to creditors and other interested parties under § 1522, which requires a balancing of the respective parties’ interests. See 11 U.S.C. § 1522(a) (“The court may grant relief available under section [ ] 1521 ... only if the interests of creditors and other entities, including the debtor, are sufficiently protected.”); SNP Boat Serv. S.A. v. Hotel Le St. James, 483 B.R. 776, 784 (S.D.Fla. 2012); In re Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig., 433 B.R. 547, 556-58 (E.D.Va. 2010); CT Investment Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Cozumel Caribe, S.A. de C.V., 482 B.R. 96, 108 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2012).

An analogous situation regarding § 1521(a)(7) was addressed by the Fifth Circuit in Condor. There, a foreign representative in a foreign main proceeding filed an adversary proceeding in the United States stating claims under the domiciliary law of the foreign debtor, there Nevis, *560seeking recovery of certain assets which were allegedly fraudulently transferred “to put them out of the reach of creditors during the Nevis proceeding.” Condor, 601 F.3d at 320-21.16 While the Fifth Circuit did not address the implications of § 103, it construed § 1521(a)(7) under the dictate that “additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of contrary legislative intent,” and considering the broad scope of relief made available to foreign representatives upon recognition. Id. at 324, 325 (citing Andrus v. Glover Const. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980)). The Fifth Circuit also stated that while “it is plain that relief under the listed sections is excluded, the statute is silent regarding proceedings that apply foreign law, including any rights of avoidance such law may offer.... ” Id. The court concluded that, “[a]s Chapter 15 was intended to facilitate cooperation between U.S. courts and foreign bankruptcy proceedings, we read section 1521(a)(7) in that light and hold that a court has authority to permit relief under foreign avoidance law under the section.” Id. at 329.

Similarly, §§ 542 and 543 are not expressly excluded from § 1521(a)(7). Given the broad scope of relief available under Chapter 15, additional exceptions to § 1521(a)(7) should not be implied,17 and turnover may be a valuable tool for Petitioners to enable them to obtain control over property and records necessary for the administration and realization of assets within the United States.

This Court recognizes that few courts have reached the specific issue here of whether Chapter 15 allows a foreign representative to utilize the turnover provisions of §§ 542 and 543; these courts have generally recognized a foreign representative’s right to seek turnover, but not via § 542 and § 543, but rather, under § 1521(a)(5) and (b). Compare In re Lee, 472 B.R. 156, 182 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2012) *561(stating that § 542 was inapplicable in Chapter 15 pursuant to § 103, but that the burden of proof contained in § 542 was applicable in determining whether the foreign representatives had satisfied their burden in establishing their entitlement to turnover under § 1521(a)(5) and (b)), and In re Int’l Banking Corp. B.S.C., 439 B.R. 614, 627 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2011) (the court considered the foreign representative’s turnover motion solely under § 1521(a)(5) and (b), although there is no indication that §§ 542 or 543 relief was sought), and In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that § 543 was inapplicable in Chapter 15, as turnover is provided for under § 1521(a) and (b)), with In re ABC Learning Ctrs., Ltd., 445 B.R. 318, 341 (Bankr.D.Del. 2010) (allowing without discussion the right to seek turnover under §§ 542 and 543). This Court respectfully disagrees with the contrary cases, and based on the statutory construction analysis above, case law under prior § 304 and the interests of international comity discussed infra, concludes that turnover may be sought via §§ 542 and 543, but only so long as appropriate conditions are imposed as required under § 1522.

While this Court will entrust the foreign representatives with the administration and realization of the Offshore Funds’ assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States under § 1521(a)(5),18 it also will allow Petitioners to seek turnover under § 542 or § 543; however, they may only do so by motion on notice with an opportunity for a hearing to the adverse parties. In that way, this Court can make a case-by-case analysis of whether to order turnover in a specific circumstance and, if so, under such conditions as § 1522 requires to sufficiently protect the interests of creditors and the affected parties.

This same protection will also apply to the use of discovery under § 1521(a)(4)&emdash;discovery will only be permitted by motion on notice with an opportunity for hearing to the adverse parties and by making examination and production of documents under Rule 2004 of the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) available, with any discovery to be allowed to be subject to conditions imposed in accordance with § 1522. See, e.g., In re Millennium, Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd., 471 B.R. 342, 347 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2012) (although not reaching the issue, the court discussed that granting the foreign representative broad discovery rights under § 1521(a)(4) by making the full scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 available would be consistent with the main purposes of Chapter 15 and former § 304).

Former § SOI of the Bankruptcy Code Does Not Conflict with this Court’s Analysis of § 1521(a)(7)

The legislative history to Chapter 15 directs courts to use case law interpreting former 304 in interpreting current Chapter 15 issues, unless the former 304 is contradicted by the current provisions of Chapter 15. See H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, at 145 *562(2005), 2005 WL 882198; see Condor, 601 F.3d at 328. This Court finds no conflict between prior § 304 and the analysis herein of §§ 1521(a)(7) and 1522, and therefore will consider case law interpreting prior § 304.

Former § 304 authorized granted courts to order turnover of estate property upon request of a foreign representative.19 Atlas, 404 B.R. at 734. Although former § 304 “was more limited in scope than Chapter 15, it provided significant discretionary relief’, and required courts to “exercise discretion in the spirit of comity and in the interests of the parties.”20 Condor, 601 F.3d at 328.

Prior to the enactment of Chapter 15, several courts had suggested that turnover powers available under §§ 542 and 543 were not available to a foreign representative under a case commenced under former § 304, as former § 304(b) specifically authorized turnover. See Ma v. Cont’l Bank, N.A., 905 F.2d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 1990) (concluding that former § 304(b) not § 542 would permit the foreign representative to direct the stakeholder to surrender assets); In re Treco, 229 B.R. 280, 292 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd, 239 B.R. 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 240 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that § 542 was “inapplicable in ancillary cases” commenced under former § 304); see generally In re Koreag, Controle et Revision SA., 961 F.2d 341, 357 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[A] § 304 proceeding is not a bankruptcy case that implicates the full range of procedural and substantive provisions applicable to domestic bankruptcies.”); In re Metzeler, 78 B.R. 674, 677 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1987) (“a foreign representative may assert, under § 304, only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate.”)

Here, as noted above, Chapter 15 does not have a specific provision authorizing turnover under § 542 or § 543, but does have the general incorporation of powers available to a trustee under § 1521(a)(7), subject to the protection of affected interests under § 1522; read together, these provisions harmonize the turnover provisions of former § 304, and do not reflect a legislative intention to eradicate a foreign representative’s ability to seek turnover.

Comity

“Central to Chapter 15 is comity.” Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de CV (In re Vitro SA.B. de CV), 701 F.3d 1031, 1043 (5th Cir. 2012); Condor, 601 F.3d at 321 (Chapter 15 “directs courts [pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1508] to ‘consider its international origin, and the need to promote an application of th[e] *563chapter that is consistent with the application of similar statutes adopted by foreign jurisdictions’ in interpreting its provisions”); see § 150721. As Judge Kimball noted in British American:

International uniformity is a primary goal of the Model Law and thus of chapter 15. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501(a), 1508. UNCITRAL expressed the desire that the Model Law be enacted by adopting countries with as few changes as possible “in order to achieve a satisfactory degree of harmonization and certainty.”

In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., 2013 WL 765373, at *2 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. Feb. 28, 2013) (quoting United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCI-TRAL), Cross-Border Insolvency: Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, at part 2 ¶ 12, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (Dec. 19, 1997), available at http://vnow.uncitral.org/ pdflenglishltextslins0lvenlmsdlvency-e.pdf [“Model Law”]). Comity has been defined as the “recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the protections of its laws.” Vitro, 701 F.3d at 1043-44, quoting Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895). Post-recognition relief, such as the additional relief sought by Petitioners, “is largely discretionary and turns on subjective factors that embody principles of comity.” In re Bear Steams High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 389 B.R. 325, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); British Am., 2013 WL 765373, at *25 (same).

Petitioners’ general request for the use of § 542 or § 543 powers pursuant to § 1521(a)(7) is consistent with principles of international comity. As noted in Condor, while § 1521(a)(7) allows a bankruptcy court to grant a foreign representative additional relief other than under §§ 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a), “[t]his exception does not exist in the Model Law.” Condor, 601 F.3d at 323. The Model Law at Article 21 would provide for “[gjranting any relief that may be available to [insert the title of a person or body administering a reorganization or liquidation under the law of the enacting State] under the laws of this State.” Model Law, Art. 21 at ¶ 1(g). The Model Law at Article 22 would require that for any grant of relief under Article 21, “the court must be satisfied that the interests of the creditors and other interested persons, including the *564debtor, are adequately protected.”22 Model Law, Art. 22 at ¶ 1. Thus, with the limitations in § 1521(a)(7) already existing, a further curtailment of a foreign representatives powers by denying access to §§ 542 and 543 could potentially be inconsistent with principles of comity; a United States based trustee or examiner authorized under § 150523 to act in a foreign country may want broader access to the laws of the foreign country adopting the Model Law intact or virtually intact, including having access to any rights of turnover available under foreign law.

As Judge Kimball noted in British American, the Model Law has been enacted in the following countries: Australia (2008), British Virgin Islands, overseas territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2003), Canada (2005), Colombia (2006), Eritrea (1998), Great Britain (2006), Greece (2010), Japan (2000), Mauritius (2009), Mexico (2000), Montenegro (2002), New Zealand (2006), Poland (2003), Republic of Korea (2006), Romania (2002), Serbia (2004), Slovenia (2007), South Africa (2000), Uganda (2011), and the United States of America (2005). British Am., 2013 WL 765373, at *2; UNCITRAL, Status: 1997-Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency, http:// www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitraL texts/insolvency/1997ModeLstatus.html (last visited March 12, 2013).24 While the Cayman Islands is not listed as a country adopting the Model Law, Petitioners were authorized under Section 110(2)(b) of the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands, and “without the further sanction of intervention of the Court” to, inter alia, “take possession of, collect and get in the property of the Company and for that purposes to take all such proceedings as they consider necessary.” Verified Petition, Order of the Cayman Court, 6 April, 2011. [dkt item 3-1]. This authority to act from the Cayman Court would appear to be supported by allowing the foreign representatives to seek turnover in the United States.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this Court will entrust the foreign representatives with the administration and realization of the Offshore Funds’ assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States under § 1521(a)(5), will authorize Petitioners to seek turnover of any of the Offshore Funds’ assets located within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States under § 542 or § 543, and will permit Petitioners to seek discovery or seek examination or production of documents pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, subject to the requirement that any request for turnover or for discovery must be sought by motion on notice in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 2002.

An order consistent herewith shall issue.