The purpose of the article is to reveal the peculiarities of the cross-border insolvency procedure under the law of England and to identify the theoretical and practical problems of the theory of universalism.

The article examines the procedure of a cross-border insolvency under the law of England and describes the theoretical and practical problems of the theory of universalism.

It is noted that the main legal act that regulates the issue of a cross-border insolvency in the territory of England is The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, which is an implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

It was found that the provisions of the Regulations allow the existence of several types of proceedings, among which there is a classic cross-border insolvency procedure, which, in turn, is characterized by the theory of universalism. Other types include domestic insolvency proceedings complicated by a foreign element and concurrent insolvency proceedings, where there are two or more simultaneous proceedings concerning the same debtor, one of which takes place directly in a Great Britain.

The author emphasizes that the recognition of a foreign insolvency procedure in Great Britain is necessary for the implementation of a classic cross-border insolvency procedure.

It has been found that in the event of the existence of a classic cross-border insolvency procedure, a foreign insolvency administrator can be provided with significant judicial assistance, thanks to which the identification, preservation and return of the debtor’s assets to the liquidation mass and their realization are greatly facilitated and become possible.

The problem of the application of the classic cross-border procedure is pointed out from a review of the practice of the courts of England and the presence of the rule in Gibbs.

It was revealed that, despite the established opinion in the English legal doctrine that the rule in Gibbs is the biggest obstacle to the application of the classic cross-border insolvency procedure, in fact the difficulty of its application lies in the banal reluctance of the English courts to do so, as well as the interest of the latter in any stronger protection of interests creditors, which, in turn, may manifest itself in the opening of concurrent proceedings.

It has been proven that the stated position of the English courts has a negative character, because it will certainly lead to redundant economic costs, which are unjustified and unnecessary in view of the fact that in the classic cross-border insolvency procedure according to the provisions of the Regulations, the protection of the interests of creditors is quite important and certainly takes place.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Stepanov V, Nesostojatel’nost’ (bankrotstvo) v Rossii, Francii, Anglii, Germanii (Statut 1999) (in Russian).

 Journal articles

2. Adams Е S, Fincke J K, Coordinating Cross-Border Bankruptcy: How Territorialism Saves Universalism (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 43–88 (in English).

3. Crinson K, Gallagher A, ‘Fighting on: the rule in Gibbs survives another day’ (2019) 12 Corporate Rescue and Insolvency 47–9 (in English).

4. Gordon J C, ‘Crossing the Line in Cross-Border Insolvencies’ (2019) 27 American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 (in English).

5. McCormack G, ‘Universalism in Insolvency Proceedings and the Common Law’ [2012] 32 (2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 325–47 (in English).

 6. Metreveli L, ‘Toward Standardized Enforcement of Cross-Border Insolvency Decisions: Encouraging the United States to Adopt UNCITRAL’s Recent Amendment to its Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency’ (2017) 51 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 315–46 (in English).

Websites

7. ‘No side-stepping the rule in Gibbs’ (Insolvency Bitesize – March 2019) <https:// www.linklaters.com/en/insights/publications/insolvency-bitesize/insolvency-bitesize_ march-2019/fancy-footwork> (accessed: 25.08.2022) (in English).

 8. Bettle W, ‘English Court of Appeal Upholds “The Gibbs Rule”’ (Jones Day, February 2019) <https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2019/02/english-court-of-appealupholdsthe-gibbs-rule> (accessed: 27.08.2022) (in English).

 9. Madaus S, ‘The Rule in Gibbs, or How to Protect Local Debt from a Foreign Discharge’ (University of Oxford, 19.12.2018) <https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/businesslawblog/blog/2018/12/rule-gibbs-or-how-protect-local-debt-foreign-discharge> (accessed: 25.08.2022) (in English).

10. McDonald I, Wood А, Theodoulou L, ‘Court of Appeal refuses to grant indefinite stay on the enforcement of English law debts’ (Mayer Brown, January 2019) <https:// www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2019/01/court-of-appealrefusesto-grant-indefinite-stay-o> (accessed: 26.08.2022) (in English).

11. Srivastava N, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency, Modified Universalism and the Rule in Gibbs’ (Monash University, 2021) <https://www.monash.edu/law/research/excellence/clars/ research/publications/cross-border-insolvency,-modified-universalism-and-the-rule-ingibbs> (accessed: 27.08.2022) (in English).