由于某些原因，这家公司不得不申请破产。2012年2月27日，该公司申请破产。根据《日本公司重组法》，公司希望重组程序。2012年3月，由于JCRA的一般权力，该公司根据美国破产法申请破产保护。这是根据美国破产法第1504和1515条提交的。根据这一准则，它实质上要求政府考虑该公司在日本的资产净值，并要求政府救助，因为半导体价格已经下跌。模态法第20条类似于美国国际贸易法第363条。基于这一点，美国政府作出了决定并提起了法律诉讼。In re Elpida Memory Inc.(12-10947)一案是在特拉华州威尔姆顿(Wilmngton Delaware)提起的。各国在努力建立礼让的同时，也在努力平衡各国的利益，保持友好关系。
在Elpida memory的案例中，1507年和1521年的礼让条款在判决形成时发挥了影响。第1509 (b)(3)节第15章的具体内容在判决中发挥了重要作用。除了这一节，1520年的法律也在案件的审理中发挥了作用。破产法第363条也在确定案件中发挥了重要作用。第363条的法律与《统一法示范法》第20条相似。国际金融交易由UNICTRAL控制。他们为公司的运作设立了相同的授权。具体条款与《美国破产法》中的破产有关，政府如何做出判决和判决需要进行探讨。还将分析礼让因素。为此，本文以日本Elpida Memory公司为例进行案例法分析。将探讨模态法和美国破产法的解释。由此，可以理解法律程序中每一条款的具体内容。将对案件的实际判决进行分析。
Due to certain events the company had to file for bankruptcy. On February 27, 2012, the company filed for Bankruptcy. Company wanted to reorganize proceedings according to Japan Corporate Reorganization Act. On March 2012, owing to the general powers of JCRA, the company filed for Chapter 15 under US bankruptcy code. This was filed pursuant to sections 1504 and 1515 of the US bankruptcy code. By this code, it essentially asked the government to consider the Japanese net asset value of the company and requested governmental bailout as semi conductor prices had fallen. Article 20 of Modal Law is similar to Section 363 of United States law on International trade. Based on this, decisions and legal proceedings were undertaken by the United States Government. The case of In re Elpida Memory Inc., 12-10947 was filed in Wilmngton Delaware. Countries while trying to establish comity try to balance between individual country interests and also maintain amicable relations.
In the case of Elpida memory the comity clauses of 1507, 1521 played an impact while judgment was being formed. Specific aspects of Section1509 (b)(3) Chapter 15 played an important role in determining the judgment. Apart from this Section 1520 of the law also played in determining about case. Section 363 of the Bankruptcy code also plays an important role in determining the Case. the law of Section 363 are found to be similar with Article 20 of the Model law of UNICTRAL. International Finance transactions are controlled by UNICTRAL. They set up homogenous mandates for the functioning of the companies. The specific clause is related to insolvency in the United States bankruptcy code, and how the government renders verdict and judgment needs to be probed. Comity factor will also be analysed. For this purpose, the case law analysis of Elpida Memory, a Japanese company, is investigated in this analysis. Interpretation of the modal law and the US bankruptcy code will be probed. From this, specifics of each clause in the legal proceedings can be understood. There will be analysis conducted on the actual judgment delivered in the case.