JCOERE Report 1: Report 1: Identifying substantive rules in preventive restructuring frameworks including the Preventive Restructuring Directive which may be incompatible with judicial cooperation obligations

This JCOERE Report 1 identifies substantive and procedural rules in preventive restructuring frameworks (either those which have already been introduced in some European jurisdictions at this point, or in the PRD) which may present challenges to implementation and co-operation. JCOERE Report 2 will continue to develop the enquiry regarding courts, judicial and administrative authorities, and procedural rules and consider how these factors may affect court-to-court co-operation generally, while also benchmarking the utilisation and awareness of best practice guidelines for court-to-court co-operation in preventive restructuring. As the research has continued the importance of explaining some of these challenges by reference to legal culture has become clear

JCOERE Judicial Co-operation Supporting Economic Recovery in Europe: Report 2

The JCOERE Project, funded by the European Commission’s DG Justice Programme (2014-2020), addresses two aspects of the European Union’s strategy to respond to the problems of cross-border insolvency within the increasingly integrated internal market. The European Commission’s strategy is described in the Commission Recommendation 2014/135/EU on a new approach to business failure. The first aspect concerns the co-operation obligations that have been imposed on all domestic Member State courts and judiciary under the European Insolvency Regulation (Recast) 2015/848 (EIR Recast). The second concerns the implementation, subsequent to the Preventive Restructuring Directive 2019/1023, of a preventive restructuring framework in the domestic law of all Member States. The second JCOERE Report analyses the co-operation obligations arising from the EIR Recast, which are imposed on courts and practitioners in EU Member States to co-operate in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters. The Report also undertakes a benchmarking of judicial utilization and awareness of best practice guidelines on co-operation that have been adopted by European and international organizations. This was achieved through engagement with judicial networks during a number of interactive workshops and through the distribution of a judicial survey to three focus groups comprised of members of the judiciary. This, together with JCOERE Report 1, has contributed to answering the overall project research question, which asks: Based on existing experience with restructuring (e.g. Ireland), will obstacles to court co-operation arise from substantive rules, which are particular to preventive restructuring. Will some of these obstacles to court co-operation be exacerbated in the preventive restructuring context, given that they pertain to existing procedural rules? JCOERE Project Report 2 reflects the goals of Work package 3 of the Project and accordingly focusses on the courts, including judicial and administrative authorities, charged with approving and implementing restructuring plans and to which the co-operation obligations are addressed. The second Report considers the application of best practices for co-operation of cross-border preventive restructuring cases, judicial awareness of existing obligations and guidelines and judicial practice in this area. Report 2 also considers broader questions, such as differences in judicial culture across the EU Member States, how this impacts mutual trust and effective cooperation, and how the obligations and broader initiatives concerning judicial co-operation are fundamental to the question of European integration and harmonization. The research in Report 2 also undertakes a comparative analysis of judicial co-operation in another federalized jurisdiction, undertaking a comparison between the European Union and the United States. The JCOERE Project was led by a team at University College Cork School of Law in collaboration with a team at the University of Florence, Titu Maiorescu University in Romania and INSOL Europe. The content of this document represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

JCOERE Consortium. Report 1: Identifying substantive and procedural rules in preventive restructuring frameworks including the Preventive Restructuring Directive which may be incompatible with judicial co-operation obligations

Judicial Co-operation Supporting Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE).This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the nature of substantive and procedural aspects that may arise in complex preventive restructuring or rescue regimes as envisaged by the Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023). The report includes a comparative analysis of eleven European Member State jurisdictions, considering their pre-existing systems and approaches, and their responses taken to the Preventive Restructuring Directive

JCOERE Consortium. Report 2: Report on Judicial Co-operation in Preventive Restructuring and Insolvency in the EU – Substantive and procedural harmonisation, judicial practice and guidelines

Judicial Co-operation Supporting Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE)The second JCOERE Report analyses the co-operation obligations arising from the EIR Recast, which are imposed on courts and practitioners in EU Member States to co-operate in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters. This Report undertakes a benchmarking of judicial utilisation and awareness of best practice guidelines for co-operation in cross-border insolvency and preventive restructuring cases that have been adopted by European and international organisations. Report 2 also considers broader questions, such as differences in judicial culture across the EU Member States, how this impacts mutual trust and effective cooperation, and how the obligations and broader initiatives concerning judicial co-operation are fundamental to the question of European integration and harmonisation. A comparative analysis of judicial co-operation in another federalised jurisdiction has also been undertaken in this report, between the European Union and the United States