Maximising the value of the insolvency estate in EU cross‐border cases: The interplay of insolvency practitioners in main and secondary insolvency proceedings

Abstract Modified universalism, as applied by the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR), allows not only for parallel main and secondary insolvency proceedings, but also for the creation of separate insolvency estates and the appointment of insolvency practitioners in each proceeding. Parallel proceedings can create a plethora of legal questions driven by the competing interests of insolvency practitioners, each driven by their individual aim to maximise the value of their estate. This was highlighted in the Air Berlin case that was decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2024. This case triggers various questions related to the role of insolvency practitioners and the aim of maximising the value of the insolvency estate. This article seeks to assess whether the value of the insolvency estate should be increased through the cooperation of insolvency practitioners in cross‐border insolvency cases and also explore what legal remedies can be invoked when a dispute arises between insolvency practitioners related to the treatment of assets in their estates. The article analyses the implications of the CJEU's decision in the Air Berlin case to accept the locus standi of a secondary insolvency practitioner to bring actions to set aside against the main insolvency practitioner.