This article examines the procedural activity of the insolvency practitioner, individual creditors, and the creditors’ committee in bankruptcy proceedings through the lens of the formation of the insolvency estate as the key indicator of the effectiveness of collective insolvency protection. It is argued that the plurality of actors empowered to initiate procedural actions with collective proprietary consequences should not be perceived as a mere aggregation of autonomous procedural statuses, but rather as an institutional characteristic of modern insolvency proceedings. The article introduces the analytical concept of “subjects of collective protection” and demonstrates that the principles developed in judicial practice – most notably the principle of insolvency immunity and the principle of the insolvency practitioner’s unquestionable completeness of actions – while performing an important protective function, do not provide a sufficient framework for coordinating procedural plurality. These principles operate primarily as ex post safeguards against individual enforcement and procedural passivity, but remain methodologically limited in addressing the risks of excessive, fragmented, or uncoordinated procedural activity. In response to these limitations, the article substantiates the doctrine of procedural sufficiency of collective protection as a general coordinating principle for both ex ante and ex post assessment of procedural behaviour in bankruptcy proceedings. Procedural sufficiency is conceptualised not as a quantitative benchmark of minimum or maximum activity, but as a functional criterion aimed at ensuring a reasonable balance between necessary procedural intervention and the avoidance of procedural inflation, duplication of actions, and unjustified depletion of the insolvency estate. The proposed doctrine shifts the analytical focus from the formal admissibility of individual procedural initiatives to their proportionality, coherence, and contribution to the collective material outcome, namely the preservation and enhancement of the insolvency estate and the overall level of creditor satisfaction. Particular attention is paid to the asymmetry of procedural rights and responsibilities, whereby multiple actors possess autonomous procedural standing, while responsibility for the collective result is largely concentrated on the insolvency practitioner. The article concludes that procedural sufficiency serves as a conceptual bridge between procedural autonomy and collective responsibility. It complements existing judicial standards without replacing them and provides a doctrinal framework for coordinating procedural strategies among the subjects of collective protection, enhancing predictability, efficiency, and integrity of bankruptcy proceedings.

Authored books

1. Munenori Yagyu, The Life-Giving Sword: Secret Teachings from the House of the Shogun (Translated by William Scott Wilson, Shambhala Publications 2012).

2. Butyrska I, Pravovyi status uchasnykiv spravy pro bankrutstvo (Tekhnodruk 2017) (in Ukrainian).

3. Poliakov B, Poliakov R, Aktualni problemy zakhystu mainovykh prav ta interesiv kredytoriv u protseduri bankrutstva (nespromozhnosti) v Ukraini ta deiakykh krainakh Yevropy (NDI pryvatnoho prava i pidpryiemnytstva imeni akad. F. H. Burchaka NAPrN Ukrainy 2025) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

4. Banasik P, Godlewska M, KĊdzierski P, Morawska S, Turek J, ‘The Pro-Debtor and Pro- Creditor Models – Comparison of the Effectiveness of Bankruptcy Law’ [2022] 4 Kwartalnik Nauk o PrzedsiĊbiorstwie 19–30 https://doi.org/10.33119/KNoP.2022.66.4.2.

5. Fagetan A M, ‘Corporate Insolvency Laws in Selected Jurisdictions: US, England, France, and Germany – A Comparative Perspective’ [2025] 14(2) Laws https://doi.org/10.3390/ laws14020021.

6. Keay A, ‘The Harmonization of the Avoidance Rules in European Union Insolvencies’ [2017] 66(1) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 79–105 https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0020589316000518.

7. Belianevych O, ‘Pro zastosuvannia u spravakh pro bankrutstvo konstruktsii fraudatornoho pravochynu’ [2022] 1 Pravnychyi chasopys Donetskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Vasylia Stusa 18–25 https://doi.org/10.31558/2786-5835.2021.2.2 (in Ukrainian).

8. Kolohoida O, ‘Zakhyst prav ta interesiv kredytoriv u razi neplatospromozhnosti hospodarskoho tovarystva’ [2023] 9 Pravo Ukrainy 96–114 https://doi.org/10.33498/louu- 2023-09-096 (in Ukrainian).

9. Kolpakov V, Samoilenko H, Yevtushenko D, ‘Dotrymannia pryntsypu dobrosovisnosti zdiisnennia protsedur u sferi bankrutstva: yak predmet sudovoho oskarzhennia v umovakh voiennoho stanu’ [2025] 7 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 433–437 https://doi. org/10.32782/2524-0374/2025-7/104 (in Ukrainian).

10. Poiedynok V, Kovalenko I, ‘Vidpovidalnist dyrektoriv u protsedurakh nespromozhnosti (bankrutstva) za zakonodavstvom YeS ta okremykh derzhav-chleniv YeS’ [2021] 1 Ekonomika ta pravo 48–57 https://doi.org/10.15407/econlaw.2021.01.048 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

11. Butyrskyi A, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia zakhodiv shchodo vidnovlennia platospromozhnosti borzhnyka’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2007) (in Ukrainian).

12. Donkov S, ‘Protsesualna nezalezhnist arbitrazhnoho keruiuchoho v protsedurakh bankrutstva’ (dys d-ra filos 081 Pravo, 2023) (in Ukrainian).

13. Hrabovan L, ‘Pohashennia vymoh kredytoriv u protseduri bankrutstva’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2017) (in Ukrainian).

14. Huryn M, ‘Vyznannia nediisnymy pravochyniv borzhnyka u protseduri bankrutstva’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2013) (in Ukrainian).

15. Kabenok Yu, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia arbitrazhnoho upravlinnia v protseduri bankrutstva v Ukraini’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2018) (in Ukrainian).

16. Latynin O, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia zakhystu prav kredytoriv u spravi pro nespromozhnist (bankrutstvo)’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2012) (in Ukrainian).

17. Raicheva S, ‘Vidokremlene provadzhennia u spravakh pro bankrutstvo’ (dys d-ra filos. 081 Pravo, 2025) (in Ukrainian).

18. Riabtseva Ya, ‘Pravovyi status arbitrazhnoho keruiuchoho’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2006) (in Ukrainian).

19. Vechirko I, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia protsesualnykh vidnosyn u spravakh pro bankrutstvo v Ukraini’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2011) (in Ukrainian).