The Role of Consent in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings: European and Comparative Perspectives From the Unilateral Undertaking Under Article 36 EIRR

Properly balancing between public and private interests is one of the most significant and complex challenges presented by modern insolvency law. The European Union insolvency law has recently embraced that challenge, by reinforcing the role that private actors, such as creditors and stakeholders, are called upon to play within the context of insolvency proceedings. That approach to insolvency has gradually reduced the impact of public actors, such as judges and public officers, in managing the debtor’s financial difficulties. The individual consent seems to be the new way of facing the debtor’s insolvency. First, this Article examines the role of individual consent in insolvency proceedings in terms of economic efficiency. It focuses on the tendency to favor agreements between the debtor and creditors or the insolvency practitioner in several European legal systems when they increase the likelihood to produce efficient results for both the parties. The second part of this Article focuses on the European Regulation on cross-border insolvency proceedings no. 848/2015. I offer some critical thoughts about the unilateral undertaking under article 36 of the European Regulation. It represents a relevant means of managing the debtor’s cross-border insolvency through an agreement between the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings and local creditors in order to avoid the opening of inefficient secondary proceedings.