In the case of Broderick, Superintendent of Banks of New York v. Rosner et al., 1934, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide on a matter concerning banking law and bankruptcy proceedings in relation to foreign banks operating within the United States. The issue arose when Mr. Broderick, as Superintendent of Banks for New York State (the liquidator), sought to recover assets from American creditors who had received preferential payments from an insolvent Lithuanian bank prior to its closure by authorities in Lithuania and subsequent liquidation process in New York State. The defendants argued that they were entitled under Lithuanian law to receive these payments before other general creditors because their deposits were secured by collateral held by the bank; therefore, they should not be required to return them for distribution among all depositors during liquidation. However, Justice Cardozo delivered a unanimous decision stating that while foreign laws may determine rights over property located abroad or contractual obligations made therein; it cannot dictate how local insolvency proceedings are conducted nor can it create preferences contrary to domestic policy regarding equality among creditors during such processes. Therefore, any preferential transfers obtained must be returned so as not disadvantage other claimants.

In the dissenting opinion for Broderick v. Rosner, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to deny recovery of funds from a bank liquidation to foreign depositors who had failed to file claims within two years as required by New York law. He argued that this ruling was unjust and inconsistent with previous decisions which allowed late filing under certain circumstances such as when claimants were unaware of their rights or unable to act due to legal disability. In his view, these exceptions should also apply in cases where claimants are prevented from acting due to governmental restrictions - in this case, Russian citizens whose assets were frozen by Soviet authorities during the relevant period. Furthermore, he contended that denying these individuals' claims would unfairly enrich other creditors at their expense and undermine public confidence in banking institutions.