Many English (and other) restructuring lawyers consider that the scheme of arrangement cannot properly be characterized as an insolvency proceeding for the purposes of certain international instruments for (amongst other things) the allocation of jurisdiction and/or the recognition of proceedings, judgments, and/or orders. This article shows that this view is mistaken. The article examines insolvency as a scalar attribute and a vague concept. It draws out the implications of treating insolvency law functionally as that part of law which responds to the circumstances peculiar to a debtor's insolvency. It considers the nature of insolvency, “pre-insolvency”, “preventive'”, restructuring, liquidation, and “pre-pack” proceedings. It shows that proceedings operating under insolvency law in relation to insolvent debtors often operate in identical or materially similar ways in relation to solvent debtors. This is as true of winding-up, administration, and company voluntary arrangement proceedings under English law as of the scheme of arrangement. This has important implications for the characterization of a proceeding as an insolvency proceeding for relevant purposes. The article outlines the development of the concordat in several civil law jurisdictions, starting with its roots in Justinian's Digest. It traces the development of the composition in England, starting with its status as a voluntary process incapable of binding dissentients, taking in the “protections” granted by the Privy Council and the “bills of conformity” issued by the Court of Chancery, and then considering statutory compositions. It shows how the statutory composition travelled from natural person insolvency law to corporate insolvency law. The artic draws on this analysis and the official reports on key European instruments allocating international jurisdiction in insolvency and “civil and commercial” matters to characterise the scheme of arrangement. The article also assesses the most detailed critique yet of the gategroup judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, which characterized the restructuring plan proceeding as an insolvency proceeding for certain jurisdictional purposes. The critique of this judgment usefully exposes to the sunlight of public scrutiny — at length and independently of the exigencies of any particular litigation — the types of arguments which have been used to resist the conclusion that the scheme is (quite plainly) a judicial composition which constitutes an insolvency proceeding for relevant purposes when deployed in relation to insolvent companies. The article shows that these arguments are unpersuasive.

中文翻译：

---

什么是破产程序？Gategroup 登陆一个封闭的社区

许多英国（和其他）重组律师认为，为了某些国际文书（除其他外）管辖权分配和/或承认程序、判决和/或订单。这篇文章表明这​​种观点是错误的。这篇文章将破产作为一个标量属性和一个模糊的概念来考察。它引出了在功能上将破产法视为对债务人破产所特有的情况作出反应的法律部分的含义。它考虑了破产、“破产前”、“预防性”、重组、清算和“预先打包”程序的性质。它表明，根据破产法对无力偿债的债务人进行的程序通常以相同或实质相似的方式对有偿债能力的债务人进行。英国法律下的清盘、管理和公司自愿安排程序与安排计划一样，都是如此。这对于出于相关目的将程序定性为破产程序具有重要意义。文章概述了该项目的发展几个大陆法系司法管辖区的协约，从查士丁尼文摘开始。它追溯了英国组成的发展，从它作为一个无法约束异议者的自愿过程开始，接受枢密院授予的“保护”和衡平法院颁发的“合规法案”，然后考虑法定组成。它展示了法定构成如何从自然人破产法发展到公司破产法。本文利用这一分析和关于在破产和“民事和商业”事项中分配国际管辖权的主要欧洲文书的官方报告来描述安排方案的特征。这篇文章还评估了迄今为止最详细的批评英格兰和威尔士高等法院的gategroup判决，该判决将重组计划程序定性为出于某些司法管辖目的的破产程序。对这一判决的批评有益地暴露在公众监督的阳光下——最终并且独立于任何特定诉讼的紧急情况——被用来抵制该计划是（很明显）一个司法组成的结论的论据类型在针对破产公司部署时，构成相关目的的破产程序。文章表明，这些论点缺乏说服力。