International Experience in Protecting the Rights of Bona Fide Counterparties When Invalidating the Debtor’s Transactions in Bankruptcy Proceedings

In an increasingly globalized economy, the rise in cross-border transactions and supply chains has created new commercial opportunities, as well as heightened risks for bona fide parties. A higher incidence of bankruptcy leads to more frequent cases of invalidated transactions between debtors and creditors. This trend underscores the importance of protecting the rights of good faith participants in these transactions. Given this context, it is essential to analyze the legal approaches adopted by different countries to address these issues. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks in the United States, France, and Kazakhstan, focusing on how each jurisdiction seeks to protect the rights of bona fide counterparties when the debtor’s transactions are invalidated in bankruptcy proceedings. The goal of this analysis is to identify both shared and jurisdiction-specific methods and problems in the field of bankruptcy regulation. The findings reveal that, despite differences in legal traditions, these systems converge in certain key respects. Common elements include reliance on the doctrine of good faith and the use of tools for assessing the market value of transactions. Judicial and nonjudicial mechanisms are also employed. All three jurisdictions encounter challenges related to the insufficient legal definition of the term describing so-called suspicious transactions within the dispute process.