Europe is experiencing the rise of restructuring proceedings, which has recently culminated in the adoption of the Restructuring Directive. While being a major achievement in harmonising substantive (pre)insolvency law in the EU, it lacks rules targeting restructuring of multinational enterprise groups. As a result, effectiveness of group reorganisations may be undermined. Nevertheless, some jurisdictions adopt innovative tools, facilitating group solutions. Among them – third-party releases. Such releases entail a total or partial discharge or amendment of claims against third parties, such as co-obligors, guarantors and collateral providers (typically, group members) in the insolvency or restructuring proceeding of the principal debtor.The diversity of approaches to third-party releases highlights their controversial nature. Such releases may frustrate legitimate expectations of creditors relying on cross-guarantees and other forms of cross-liability arrangements. Extending the effects of debt reorganisation to third parties in the absence of a separate insolvency proceeding may also run contrary to the longstanding views on corporate insolvency and entity shielding. This article argues that a single-entity-restructuring risks being short-sighted and that third-party releases are a matter of commercial necessity, synchronising legal responses with actual business models and better addressing the complexity of group interdependencies, realised through various intra-group liability arrangements.

中文翻译：

---

跨国企业集团破产的第三方发布

欧洲正在经历重组程序的兴起，最近重组程序的采用达到了高潮。尽管这是欧盟统一实质性（破产前）法律的一项重大成就，但缺乏针对跨国企业集团重组的规则。结果，集团重组的有效性可能会受到损害。但是，某些辖区采用了创新工具，为团体解决方案提供了便利。其中-第三方发行版。此类释放需要在主要债务人的破产或重组程序中完全或部分解除或修正对第三方的债权，例如共同债务人，担保人和抵押提供者（通常是集团成员）。政党新闻稿突出了他们的争议性质。这种放行可能会挫败依赖交叉担保和其他形式的交叉责任安排的债权人的合法期望。在没有单独的破产程序的情况下将债务重组的影响扩大到第三方的做法，也可能与长期以来对公司破产和实体保护的观点背道而驰。本文认为，单一实体重组的风险是短视的，第三方发布是商业必要性的问题，它使法律响应与实际业务模型保持同步，并更好地解决了通过各种集团内部实现的集团相互依赖性的复杂性责任安排。在没有单独的破产程序的情况下将债务重组的影响扩大到第三方的做法，也可能与长期以来对公司破产和实体保护的观点背道而驰。本文认为，单一实体重组的风险是短视的，第三方发布是商业必要性的问题，它使法律响应与实际业务模型保持同步，并更好地解决了通过各种集团内部实现的集团相互依赖性的复杂性责任安排。在没有单独的破产程序的情况下将债务重组的影响扩大到第三方的做法，也可能与长期以来对公司破产和实体保护的观点背道而驰。本文认为，单一实体重组的风险是短视的，第三方发布是商业必要性的问题，它使法律响应与实际业务模型保持同步，并更好地解决了通过各种集团内部实现的集团相互依赖性的复杂性责任安排。