CNUDMI - UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency -The Judicial Perspective (Updated 2022)

UNCITRAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

UNITED NATIONS

UNCITRAL

Model Law on

Cross-Border Insolvency: The Judicial Perspective

(Updated 2022)Further information may be obtained from: UNCITRAL secretariat, Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone: (+43-1) 26060-4060 Telefax: (+43-1) 26060-5813

Internet: uncitral.un.org Email: uncitral@un.orgUNCITRAL Model Law on

Cross-Border Insolvency: The Judicial Perspective

(Updated 2022)

UNITED NATIONS

Vienna, 2022

UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAWUNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION

Sales No.: 23.V.I

ISBN 978-92-1-130459-6 e-ISBN 978-92-1-002207-1

Note Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. © United Nations, 2022. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Links to Internet sites contained in the present publication are provided for the convenience of the reader and are accurate at the time of issue. The United Nations takes no responsibility for their continued accuracy after issue or for the content of any external website. This publication has not been formally edited.

Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations

Office at Vienna.iii Preface The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: the Judicial Perspective was finalized and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International T rade Law (UNCITRAL or the Commission) on 1 July 2011. The project originated from

Office at Vienna.iii Preface The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: the Judicial Perspective was finalized and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International T rade Law (UNCITRAL or the Commission) on 1 July 2011. The project originated from a request by judges attending the Eighth UNCITRAL/INSOL International/World Bank Multinational Judicial Colloquium, held in Vancouver, Canada, in 2009,1 that consideration should be given to providing information and guidance for judges with respect to questions arising under the UNCITRAL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency (MLCBI). In 2010, the Commission agreed that the UNCITRAL secretariat should be mandated to develop a guidance text in consultation principally with judges but also with insolvency practitioners and other experts, in much the same manner as the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation (2009) was developed.2 The first draft of the judicial perspective was prepared by Justice Paul Heath of the High Court of New Zealand and developed further through consultations with judges. It was presented to Working Group V (Insolvency Law) in December 2010 for discussion and circulated to Governments for comment in early 2011. It was also presented to participants at the Ninth UNCITRAL/INSOL International/World Bank Multinational Judicial Colloquium, held in Singapore in March 2011. A revised version of the judicial perspective, taking into account the comments provided by the Working Group, Governments and participants at the judicial colloquium, was presented to the Commission for finalization and adoption at its forty-fourth session in 2011. The text was adopted by the Commission by consensus on 1 July 2011 (see annex II.A). On 9 December 2011, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 66/96, in which it expressed its appreciation to the Commission for completing and adopting The Judicial Perspective (see annex II.B). The Judicial Perspective was updated in 2013 to reflect the revisions to the Guide to

Assembly adopted resolution 66/96, in which it expressed its appreciation to the Commission for completing and adopting The Judicial Perspective (see annex II.B). The Judicial Perspective was updated in 2013 to reflect the revisions to the Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (GE), adopted by the Commission in 2013 as the Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (GEI), 3 and jurisprudence applying and interpreting the MLCBI issued between July 2011 and 15 April

2013. The updates were prepared at that time by the Secretariat in consultation with a board of experts established in accordance with the Commission’s decision of 1 July 2011. 4 Members of the board were: Leif Clark (United States of America), 1 This colloquium is one of a series of colloquiums organized jointly by UNCITRAL, INSOL and the World Bank. For reports of the colloquiums see: https://uncitral.un.org/en/colloquia/insolvency. 2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/65/17), para. 261. 3 The GEI is available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency. 4 See annex II.A, para. 2.iv

Miodrag Đordević (Slovenia), Allan Gropper (United States), Min Han (Republic of Korea), Paul Heath (New Zealand), Geoffrey Morawetz (Canada), Alastair Norris (United Kingdom), Diana T alero Castro (Colombia) and Jean-Luc Vallens (France). Prior to consideration by the Commission, the updates were made available to Working Group V (Insolvency Law) at its forty-third session in April 2013 and to judges attending the T enth Multinational Judicial Colloquium, held in The Hague in May 2013. The Commission took note of the updates and authorized publication of the updated text.5

ble to Working Group V (Insolvency Law) at its forty-third session in April 2013 and to judges attending the T enth Multinational Judicial Colloquium, held in The Hague in May 2013. The Commission took note of the updates and authorized publication of the updated text.5 The text was further updated in 2022 to reflect developments in the jurisprudence applying and interpreting the MLCBI and to align the text with the Digest of Case Law on the MLCBI completed in 2020. The updates were prepared in consultation with a board of experts established in accordance with the Commission’s decision of 1 July 2011.4 Members of the board were: Martin Glenn and Allan Gropper (United States), Paul Heath (New Zealand), Myriam Mailly (France), Geoffrey Morawetz (Canada), Alastair Norris (United Kingdom) and Kannan Ramesh (Singapore). The Commission, at its fifty-fifth session, in 2022, approved the updates transmitted to it by Working Group V (Insolvency Law)6 and authorized the secretariat to publish the updated publication in the six languages of the United Nations and to keep the publication up-to-date so that it continued fulfilling its intended purpose.7 5 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/68/17), para. 209. 6 A/CN.9/1094, paras. 12-15. 7 Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-seventh Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/77/17), para. 191.v Contents Preface .................................................................... iii

I. Introduction ........................................................ 1

A. Purpose and scope .............................................. 1

B. Glossary ....................................................... 2

II. Background ......................................................... 4

A. Scope and application of the MLCBI ............................ 4

B. A judge’s perspective ............................................ 8

C. Purpose of the MLCBI .......................................... 10

III. Interpretation and application of the MLCBI .......................... 12

II. Background ......................................................... 4

A. Scope and application of the MLCBI ............................ 4

B. A judge’s perspective ............................................ 8

C. Purpose of the MLCBI .......................................... 10

III. Interpretation and application of the MLCBI .......................... 12

A. The “access” principle ........................................... 12

B. The “recognition” principle ...................................... 15

C. The process of recognition ...................................... 24

D. Relief .......................................................... 54

E. Cooperation and coordination ................................... 71

Annexes

I. Case summaries ..................................................... 86

II. Decision of the United Nations Commission on International T rade Law and General Assembly resolution 66/96 ...... 121

A. Decision of the Commission .................................... 121

B. General Assembly resolution 66/96 .............................. 1221

I. Introduction

A. Purpose and scope

1. The present text discusses the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (MLCBI) from a judge’s perspective. Recognizing that some enacting States have amended the MLCBI to suit local circumstances, different approaches might be required if a judge concludes that the omission or modification of a particular article from the text as enacted necessitates such a course.1 The present text is based on the MLCBI and its accompanying Guide to Enactment (GE) as endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1997. 2 The GE has been revised to include additional guidance with respect to the interpretation and application of selected aspects of the MLCBI relating to the debtor’s “centre of main interests” (COMI) in the light of the emerging jurisprudence interpreting the MLCBI in those States that have enacted legislation based upon it. The revisions were adopted by the Commission in July 2013 as the “Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency” (GEI).3

2. Although the present text makes references to decisions given in a number of

were adopted by the Commission in July 2013 as the “Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency” (GEI).3

2. Although the present text makes references to decisions given in a number of jurisdictions, there is no intention to critique the decisions, beyond pointing out issues that a judge may want to consider should a similar case come before them.

Nor has any attempt been made to provide references to all relevant decisions touching on the interpretation issues raised by the MLCBI. Rather, the intention is to use decided cases solely to illustrate particular strands of reasoning that might be adopted in addressing specific issues. In each case, the judge will determine the case at hand on the basis of domestic law, including the terms of legislation enacting the MLCBI. 1 The present text neither makes reference to nor expresses views on the various adaptations to the MLCBI made in some enacting States. 2 General Assembly resolution 52/158. 3 Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency. The GE adopted in 1997 is no longer available on the UNCITRAL website. Courts have considered the issue of whether either guide should take priority or how to utilize the GEI. An extensive analysis of that issue is set out in the review decision in Sturgeon (case no.  32), paras. 71-84 of the judgment. In some States, that issue is influenced by the legislation enacting the MLCBI, which makes specific reference to the GE. In Zetta Jet (case no. 39, para. 37 of the judgment), for example, the court sets out a conflict test. In another case, Fibria Cellulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co. Ltd [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch), CLOUT 1482, the court decided to refer to the GE, but noted that the relevant text had not been altered in the GEI. In Sturgeon, the court concluded that by withdrawing the GE from circulation, it could be inferred that the body that produced

the court decided to refer to the GE, but noted that the relevant text had not been altered in the GEI. In Sturgeon, the court concluded that by withdrawing the GE from circulation, it could be inferred that the body that produced the MLCBI, with the assistance of many experienced insolvency practitioners, Government bodies of enacting States and in consultation with the judiciary, intended the GEI to provide a useful and updated tool for interpretation. A number of other English decisions postdating the introduction of the GEI support its use as a tool for interpretation: Re Videology (case no. 35); OGX Petroleo e Gas S.A. [2016] EWHC 25 (Ch), CLOUT 1622; The OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan; Bakhshiyeva v Sberbank of Russia [2018] EWCA 2802, CLOUT 1822; and In re Agrokor [2018] Bus LR 64, CLOUT 1798.2 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The Judicial Perspective

3. The present text does not purport to instruct judges on how to deal with applications for recognition and relief under the legislation enacting the MLCBI. As a matter of principle, such an approach would run counter to principles of judicial independence. In addition, in practical terms, no single approach is possible or desirable. Flexibility of approach is all-important in an area where the economic dynamics of a situation may change suddenly. All that can be offered is general guidance on the issues a particular judge might need to consider, based on the intentions of those who crafted the MLCBI and the experiences of those who have used it in practice.

4. Deliberately, this text is ordered so as to reflect the sequence in which particular decisions would generally be made by the receiving court under the MLCBI, as distinct from providing an article-by-article analysis.4

B. Glossary

1. Terms and explanations

5. The following paragraphs explain the meaning and use of certain expressions

decisions would generally be made by the receiving court under the MLCBI, as distinct from providing an article-by-article analysis.4

B. Glossary

1. Terms and explanations

5. The following paragraphs explain the meaning and use of certain expressions that appear frequently in the present document. Many of these terms are common to the MLCBI, the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (the Legislative Guide) and the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation (the Practice Guide).5 Their use in the present document is consistent

with their use in those texts: (a) “CLOUT”: refers to the case law on UNCITRAL texts reporting system. Abstracts of cases dealing with the MLCBI are available in the six official languages of the United Nations at https://uncitral.un.org/en/case_law; (b) “Cross-border insolvency agreement”: an oral or written agreement intended to facilitate the coordination of cross-border insolvency proceedings and cooperation between courts, between courts and insolvency representatives and between insolvency representatives, sometimes also involving other parties in interest;6 (c) “Enacting State”: a State that has enacted legislation based on the MLCBI; (d) “Insolvency representative”: a person or body, including one appointed on an interim basis, authorized in insolvency proceedings to administer the reorganization or the liquidation of the insolvency estate; 4 An article-by-article analysis of the jurisprudence interpreting the MLCBI is provided in the Digest. 5 These UNCITRAL texts are available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency. 6 These agreements are discussed in some detail in the Practice Guide.I. Introduction 3 (e) “Judge”: a judicial officer or other person appointed to exercise the powers of a court or other competent authority having jurisdiction under legislation based on the MLCBI; ( f) “Receiving court”: the court in the enacting State from which recognition and relief is sought.

2. Reference material

(a) References to cases

a court or other competent authority having jurisdiction under legislation based on the MLCBI; ( f) “Receiving court”: the court in the enacting State from which recognition and relief is sought.

2. Reference material

(a) References to cases

6. References to specific cases are included throughout the present text. In general, since those references are to cases included in the summaries provided in annex I, only a short-form reference is included in the text; for example, Bear Stearns refers to the proceedings concerning In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit

Strategies Master Fund, Ltd (case no. 4 in annex I). Full citations for these cases are included in annex I. References to page or paragraph numbers in association with those cases are references to the relevant portion of the version of the judgment cited in that annex. Additional cases are referred to in the footnotes, but not included in annex I. (b) References to texts

7. The present text includes references to several texts dealing with cross-border

insolvency, including the following: (a) “MLCBI”: UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997); (b) “Guide to Enactment and Interpretation” (GEI): Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as revised and adopted by the Commission on 18 July 2013;7 (c) “Legislative Guide”: UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law, parts one and two (2004), part three (2010), part four (2013 as expanded in 2019) and part five (2021); (d) “Practice Guide”: UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation (2009);

(e) “The Digest”: Digest of Case Law on the MLCBI (2021); 7 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/68/17), para. 198.4 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The Judicial Perspective (f) “EIR”: European Council (EC) Regulation No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings;8 (g) “EIR recast”: Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast);9 (h) “European Convention”: Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of the European Union (EU) (1995);10 (i) “Virgos-Schmit Report”: M. Virgos and E. Schmit, Report on the Convention on Insolvency Proceedings, Brussels, 3 May 1996.11

II. Background

A. Scope and application of the MLCBI

8. In December 1997, the General Assembly endorsed the MLCBI, developed and adopted by UNCITRAL. The MLCBI was accompanied by the GE, which provided background and explanatory information to assist those preparing the legislation necessary to implement the MLCBI and judges and others responsible for its application and interpretation. As noted above, the GE was revised to include additional guidance with respect to the interpretation and application of selected aspects of the MLCBI relating to COMI and was adopted by the Commission on 18 July 2013 as the GEI.12

9. The MLCBI does not purport to address substantive domestic insolvency law.

Rather, it provides procedural mechanisms to facilitate more efficient disposition of cases in which an insolvent debtor has assets or debts in more than one State. It was

8 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 160, vol. 43, 30 June 2000, 1. 9 Official Journal of the European Communities, L 141, vol. 58, 5 June 2015, 19. 10 For information on the history of the Convention and its relevance to the MLCBI, see below paras. 97-100; see also the report of the European Parliament of 23 April 1999 on the Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of the European Union (1995) available at: Report on the Convention on Insolvency Proceedings of 23 November 1995 – Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens’ Rights | A4-0234/1999 | European Parliament (europa.eu) (accessed on 25 July 2022). 11 In anticipation of adoption of an insolvency convention by European Union member States, that explanatory report was prepared to provide guidance on various concepts in the draft convention, in particular COMI. Notwithstanding the demise of the Convention, the report has been accepted generally as an aid to interpretation of the concept COMI that was subsequently used in EIR. The report is available at: https://globalinsolvency.com/ resource-article/virgos-schmit-report-convention-insolvency-proceedings-now-regulation-insolvency (accessed on 25 July 2022). 12 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/68/17), para. 198.II. Background 5 ascertained by the UNCITRAL secretariat that as at 25 July 2022, 55 jurisdictions across 52 States have enacted legislation based on the MLCBI.13

10. The MLCBI is designed to apply where:14

(a) Assistance is sought in the MLCBI-enacting State by a foreign court or a foreign representative in connection with a foreign insolvency proceeding; (b) Assistance is sought in a foreign State in connection with a proceeding under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency; (c) A foreign proceeding and a proceeding under the laws of the enacting State

eign representative in connection with a foreign insolvency proceeding; (b) Assistance is sought in a foreign State in connection with a proceeding under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency; (c) A foreign proceeding and a proceeding under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency are taking place concurrently, in respect of the same debtor; or (d) Creditors or other interested persons in a foreign State have an interest in requesting the commencement of, or participating in, a proceeding under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency.

11. The MLCBI anticipates that a representative (the foreign representative) will have been appointed to administer the insolvent debtor’s assets in one or more 13 The following information is taken from the UNCITRAL website (as of 25 July 2022): https://uncitral. un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-border_insolvency/status. Australia (2008), Bahrain (2018), Benin (2015), Brazil (2020), Burkina Faso (2015), Cameroon (2015), Canada (2005), Central African Republic (2015), Chad (2015), Chile (2013), Colombia (2006), Comoros (2015), Congo (2015), Côte d’Ivoire (2015), Democratic Republic of the Congo (2015), Dominican Republic (2015), Equatorial Guinea (2015), Gabon (2015), Ghana (2020), Greece (2010), Guinea (2015), Guinea-Bissau (2015), Israel (2018), Japan (2000), Kenya (2015), Malawi (2015), Mali (2015), Mauritius (2009), Mexico (2000), Montenegro (2002), Morocco (2018), Myanmar (2020), New Zealand (2006), Niger (2015), Panama (2016), Philippines (2010), Poland (2003), Republic of Korea (2006), Romania (2002), Senegal (2015), Serbia (2004), Seychelles (2013),

Morocco (2018), Myanmar (2020), New Zealand (2006), Niger (2015), Panama (2016), Philippines (2010), Poland (2003), Republic of Korea (2006), Romania (2002), Senegal (2015), Serbia (2004), Seychelles (2013), Singapore (2017), Slovenia (2007), South Africa (2000), T ogo (2015), Uganda (2011), United Arab Emirates – Abu Dhabi Global Market (2015) and Dubai International Financial Centre (2019), United Kingdom of Great Britain – Great Britain (2006) and overseas territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – British Virgin Islands (2003) and Gibraltar (2014), United States of America (2005), Vanuatu (2013) and Zimbabwe (2018). The asterix indicates States enacting the MLCBI in the Acte uniforme portant organisation des procédures collectives d’apurement du passif (OHADA), 10 September 2015 at Grand-Bassam, Côte d’Ivoire.

Disclaimer: A model law is created as a suggested pattern for lawmakers to consider adopting as part of their domestic legislation. Since States enacting legislation based upon a model law have the flexibility to depart from the text, the above list is only indicative of the enactments that were made known to the UNCITRAL secretariat. The legislation of each State should be considered in order to identify the exact nature of any possible deviation from the model in the legislative text that was adopted. The year of enactment indicated above is the year the legislation was passed by the relevant legislative body, as indicated to the UNCITRAL secretariat; it does not address the date of entry into force of that piece of legislation, the procedures for which vary from State to State, and could result in

entry into force some time after enactment. 14 MLCBI, art. 1, para. 1.6 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: The Judicial Perspective States or to act as a representative of the foreign proceedings at the time an application under the MLCBI is made.15

12. The MLCBI requires an enacting State to specify the court or other competent authority that has the power to deal with issues arising under the MLCBI. 16

Acknowledging that some States will nominate administrative rather than judicial bodies, the definition of “foreign court” includes both judicial and other authorities competent to control or supervise a foreign proceeding.17

13. The MLCBI envisages that particular entities, such as banks or insurance companies, the failure of which might create systemic risks within the enacting State, may be excluded from the operation of the MLCBI.18

14. The MLCBI is built on four principles:

(a) The “access” principle: This principle establishes the circumstances in which a “foreign representative”19 has rights of access to the court (the receiving court) in the enacting State from which recognition and relief is sought. It also refers to access by foreign creditors to proceedings under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency;20 (b) The “recognition” principle: Under this principle, the receiving court may make an order recognizing the foreign proceeding, either as a foreign “main” or “non-main” proceeding;21 (c) The “relief” principle: This principle refers to three distinct situations. In cases where an application for recognition is pending, interim relief may be granted to protect assets within the jurisdiction of the receiving court.22 If a proceeding is recognized as a “main” proceeding, automatic relief follows.23 Additional discretionary relief is 15 Ibid., art. 2, subpara. (d); see also MLCBI, art. 5 envisaging that an enacting State would specify persons authorized to act in a foreign State on behalf of a proceeding commenced under the laws of the enacting State relat15 Ibid., art. 2, subpara. (d); see also MLCBI, art. 5 envisaging that an enacting State would specify persons authorized to act in a foreign State on behalf of a proceeding commenced under the laws of the enacting State relating to insolvency, as permitted by applicable foreign law. The Digest discusses cases interpreting the provision, noting that since it does not require the appointment of the foreign representative to be made by the foreign court, it is sufficiently broad to include appointments made by some other special agency. The Digest also notes the types of body or person that may be appointed: synopsis of case law for art. 2, subpara. (d). 16 Ibid., art. 4. 17 Ibid., art. 2, subpara. (e), definition of “foreign court”; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 2, subpara. (e). 18 Ibid., art. 1, para. 2; see also the GEI, paras. 55-60, which discuss this question in more detail, and Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 1, para. 2. 19 As defined by art. 2, subpara. (d) of the MLCBI; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 2, subpara. (d). 20 Ibid., arts. 9-14; Digest, synopsis of case law for those articles. 21 Ibid., art. 17; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 17, para. 2. 22 Ibid., art. 19; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 19. 23 Ibid., art. 20; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 20.II. Background 7 available in respect of “main” proceedings, and relief of the same character may be

given in respect of a proceeding that is recognized as “non-main”;24 (d) The “cooperation” and “coordination” principle: This principle places obligations on both courts and insolvency representatives in different States to communicate and cooperate to the maximum extent possible, to ensure that the single debtor’s insolvency estate is administered fairly and efficiently, with a view to maximizing benefits to creditors.25

15. Those principles are designed to meet the following public policy objectives:26

(a) The need for greater legal certainty for trade and investment; (b) The need for fair and efficient management of international insolvency proceedings, in the interests of all creditors and other interested persons, including the debtor; (c) Protection and maximization of the value of the debtor’s assets for distribution to creditors, whether by reorganization or liquidation; (d) The desirability and need for courts and other competent authorities to communicate and cooperate when dealing with insolvency proceedings in multiple States; and (e) The facilitation of the rescue of financially troubled businesses, with the aim of protecting investment and preserving employment.

16. In December 2009, the General Assembly endorsed the Practice Guide.27 The Practice Guide discusses, by reference to actual cases, various means by which cooperation among insolvency representatives, courts or other competent bodies may be enhanced to increase the fairness and efficiency of the administration of the estates of insolvent debtors who have assets or creditors in more than one jurisdiction. One mechanism used to facilitate cooperation, the cross-border insolvency agreement, is discussed in some detail. Depending on applicable domestic law and the subject matter of a particular cross-border agreement, in some cases there may be a need for a court (or other competent authority) to approve such an agreement. The Practice Guide discusses examples of such agreements.28

17. In 2021, the Digest was published, which was prepared to facilitate access to the growing number of cases applying and interpreting the MLCBI that had been 24 Ibid., art. 21; Digest, synopsis of case law for art. 21.

Guide discusses examples of such agreements.28

17. In 2021, the Digest was published, which was prepared t