Lecture VI

Video 6 (out of 8)
Communication, Cooperation, and Group Insolvencies: The Art of Coordination – Summary
Presenters: Defne Taşman & Bob Wessels

This sixth video explains coordination under the European Insolvency Regulation. Earlier videos showed that main and secondary proceedings may exist and run in parallel. This video focuses on how those proceedings, courts and insolvency practitioners are expected to work together.

The video also discusses synthetic secondary proceedings and the coordination of group insolvencies.

The Regulation turns cooperation into a binding duty. Earlier international and European instruments, such as the CoCo Guidelines, UNCITRAL materials, JudgeCo principles and JIN Guidelines, developed soft-law standards for communication in cross-border insolvency. The 2015 Regulation builds on these ideas and transforms them into legal obligations. Courts and insolvency practitioners are required to cooperate across borders.

The first layer concerns cooperation between insolvency practitioners (IPs). The IP in the main proceeding and those in secondary proceedings must cooperate and exchange relevant information. This may include information about lodged claims, progress in its verification process, asset realization and possible restructuring. They may also conclude protocols or arrangements to coordinate their work.

The second layer concerns cooperation between courts. The CJEU stressed that courts must consider the objectives of the main proceedings and the Regulation as a whole. The 2015 Regulation now has made this duty explicit, allowing courts to coordinate hearings, exchange information, approve protocols and even appoint intermediaries to assist communication.

The third layer concerns cooperation between courts and IPs. The Regulation creates a web of reciprocal duties between main proceedings, secondary proceedings and courts before which requests are pending.

The video then explains synthetic secondary proceedings, developed in practice in cases such as Nortel Networks and later codified in the Regulation. Instead of opening formal secondary proceedings, the IP in the main proceedings may give an “undertaking” to local creditors, promising them to treat them ‘as if’ secondary proceedings indeed had started.

The final part of the video addresses group insolvencies. The Regulation still follows the “five O’s” principle, followed for decades: a proceeding with one debtor, one estate, one proceeding, one court and one IP. There is no group COMI, and the assets of group members cannot simply be blended together. Each company in a group remains legally separate, with its own proceedings. The video explains the consequences, the provisions in the Regulation dealing with group insolvencies, and the practical reality.

Further Reading

• Reinhard Bork and Kristin van Zwieten (eds.), Commentary on The European Insolvency Regulation, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. (2022)
• Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000: Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000] OJ L160/1
• Insolvency Regulation 2015/848: Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast) [2015] OJ L141/19, consolidated version (6 November 2025)
• Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), [2012] OJ L 351/1, consolidated version (26 February 2015)
• Virgos-Schmit Report 1996: Virgos, Miguel and Schmit, Etienne. (1996) Report on the Convention on Insolvency Proceedings. [EU Council of the EU Document]
• European Communication and Cooperation (CoCo) Guidelines for Cross-Border Insolvency 2007 (Bob Wessels/ Miguel Virgos)
• UNCITRAL Practical Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation 2009
• American Law Institute (ALI)-III (international Insolvency Institute) Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases 2012
• EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Communications Principles and Guidelines (JudgeCo Principles and Guidelines) 2014
• Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters 2016
• Case C-116/11, Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA and PPHU “ADAX”/Ryszard Adamiak v Christianapol sp. z o.o. (ECLI:EU:C:2012:739)
• Re Collins & Aikman Europe SA [2006] EWHC (Ch) 1343
• In re Nortel Network, [2009] EWHC (Ch) 206