Brooklyn Journal of International Law

First Page



Since 1995, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), has been developing tools to meet the challenges of having different insolvency laws managing a single cross-border insolvency. By 1997, UNCITRAL’s Working Group V completed the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. By September 2020, the original model law has been adopted by 48 countries. In Rubin v. Eurofinance SA, the U.K. Supreme Court cited a lack of authority to recognize a U.S. insolvency-related judgment in the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. As a result of this decision, UNCITRAL’s Working Group V developed the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments. This Note intends to address this following question: does this second model law provide a statutory basis to reverse the case law established by Rubin in the U.K.? This Note will demonstrate through an analysis of this new model law that a full implementation could potentially, but not definitely, provide such a basis. There is a small risk that a judge rejecting modified-universalism will not apply the new model law as designed to fix Rubin. Further, this Note will provide suggestions on where the new model law needs further direction or clarification in order to more assuredly bring the U.K. and other relevant jurisdictions back in line with a modified-universalist approach that UNCITRAL is targeting.