Table of differences between main and non-main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006

The following Restructuring & Insolvency practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Table of differences between main and non-main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006
  • Introduction

Table of differences between main and non-main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006

Introduction

From IP completion day (11pm on 31 December 2020), despite the trade deal, the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/146 kick in and amend both the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (OJ L141/19), Recast Regulation on Insolvency [EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency] and various other legislation including the CBIR (see News Analysis: Brexit impact on Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR 2006) and Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency).

The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030 (CBIR) which implement the UNCITRAL Model Law on Insolvency in England specify that foreign main or foreign non-main proceedings may be opened (see Practice Note: When does UNCITRAL (implemented by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations) apply and what are the effects?). The table below compares the differences between foreign main proceedings (similar to 'main proceedings' under the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency and foreign non-main proceedings (similar to 'secondary proceedings' under the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency):

Foreign main proceedingsForeign non-main proceedings
SI 2006/1030, sch 1 art 2(g)SI 2006/1030, sch 1 art 16(3) Janvey (as receiver of Stanford International Bank) v Wastell; Serious Fraud Office v Wastell [2011] Ch 33means a foreign proceeding taking place in the State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests (COMI): COMI is

Popular documents