Vol 22 (2025) - Issue 1

Article preview

The UK Government’s Proposals in Respect of the Model Laws on Enterprise Group Insolvency and Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments: A Brief Commentary

Synopsis
This article considers the UK Government’s responses to the results of its consultation on the proposals to incorporate the UNCITRAL Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and article X of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments into English law in a more international context and adds the authors’ voices to the English law issues considered.
In particular, the article considers the examples of the EU and the HK/PRC regime for cross-border cooperation in insolvency proceedings. The example of the EU indicates that the Group Model Law, which is similar to the rules for group proceedings under the Insolvency Regulation, may not be used for some time to come. The example of the HK/PRC regime shows that insolvency judgments can be recognised and enforced across two different judicial systems where there is the political commitment to effective cross-border cooperation.
Both examples also indicate that efforts to enhance cross-border cooperation are driven by economic and political drivers which prompt lawmakers to provide simplified, less costly means of cross-border cooperation in insolvency, rather than the desire to promote international cooperation or best practice in the abstract.
The authors also add their perspectives on the UK Government’s proposals. With respect to the Group Model Law, they agree with the commentators who
submit that it is likely to take years for a critical mass of countries to incorporate the Group Model Law in their local law. In fact, the authors argue that it might be as much as a decade or more before that critical mass adopts the Group Model Law, if ever, as there does not appear to be a clear political driver.
In relation to Art X, the authors agree with the UK Government’s view to further evaluate the ramifications of introducing Art X. However, they also note that the incorporation of Art X, to be effective, will need to be done in a way that, at least partially, overturns or suspends the effect of Rubin and the rule in Gibbs, which is ultimately a political decision, not a legal one.
In light of the finding that political and economic drivers may be more effective in driving cross-border cooperation, the authors also speculate that it might be more fruitful for the UK Government to prioritise seeking cooperation with the EU, it most significant trading partner (by size in goods traded).