INSOL Talks Ep.77 - Cross-Border Recognition and Enforcement of Restructuring Plans
Feb 25, 2026
Dr. Riz Mokal, barrister and international restructuring advocate; Prof. Stephan Madaus, comparative insolvency scholar; Prof. Dominik Skouradzun, German judge and insolvency specialist. They unpack the Frankfurt court decision refusing recognition of an English restructuring plan. Conversation covers collectivity, German reciprocity practice, Gibbs origins, whether a new recognition regime is needed, and practical options for cross-border restructurings.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Frankfurt's Legal Basis For Denying Recognition
- Frankfurt refused recognition of a UK Part 26A sanction order because under German law it did not qualify as an insolvency proceeding and reciprocity was not proven.
- The court saw collectivity as required by Section 343 Insolvenzordnung and treated Part 26A as selectively binding creditors, not fully collective.
Germany Is Recognition Friendly But Definition Is Evolving
- Germany is generally recognition-friendly for foreign insolvency proceedings under Section 343, but debate arises over whether modern preventive restructurings fall within that scope.
- Stephan Madaus highlights changing practice since the 2012 Bundesgerichtshof decision and Annex A additions that suggest room to reinterpret collectivity.
Collectivity Should Be Functional Not Binary
- Collectivity is a scalar concept focused on whether the proceeding addresses the defaults that matter to resolve distress rather than an all-or-nothing test.
- Riz Mokal argues a plan affecting only a critical 10% of debt can be collective if it efficaciously resolves the debtor's crisis via proper class voting.