It is a really complicated task to determine a unified legal structure of cross-border recognition proceedings because of such a variety of approaches to this legal area listed above. The interest to the recognition and enforcement of cross-border insolvency judgments is growing rapidly today. It was noted by UNCITRAL that there are lots of difficulties arisen from absence of specific legal rules: "Approaches based purely on the doctrine of comity or on exequatur do not provide the same degree of predictability and reliability…For example, in a given legal system general legislation on reciprocal recognition of judgments, including exequatur, might be confined to enforcement of specific money judgments or injunctive orders in two-party disputes, thus excluding decisions opening collective insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings might not be considered as a matter of recognizing a foreign "judgment”, for example, if the foreign bankruptcy order is considered to be merely a declaration of status of the debtor or if the order is considered not to be final”. UNCITRAL,Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation (2014).

There were made lots of efforts to harmonize rules of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, but insolvency cases have been usually excluded from this list. Meanwhile, the concept of recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency judgments plays a key role in solving of many problems arising from the implementation of foreign judicial decisions. It is impossible to solve many important tasks, among which is a common approach to the objects of recognition and enforcement, without giving a definition to this concept.

There are different views on defining of this event. Jonathan Hill indicates that the recognition of a foreign judgment is a passive phenomenon, because it does not require any active action. But the enforcement requires proactive steps from the court, where such enforcement shall be exercised, to permit the execution of a foreign judgment against assets of the debtor Jonathan Hill. The Law relating to international commercial disputes. Lloyd's of London press ltd., 1994. p. 4. .

Peter Stone notes that the enforcement of a foreign judgment means that the judgment issued by the court of one country (the country of origin of the decision), which imposes on a party a duty to perform certain actions or to refrain from performing of a specific action, would be the act, according to which the courts and authorities of other countries (country of recognition of the decision) will act in order to ensure consistency of their actions with the commitments set out by foreign decision. Peter Stone The conflict of laws. London and New York, Longman, 1995. p. 306.

Christopher Wadlow determines recognition of a foreign judgment as an action, when the foreign judgment becomes lawful and which you can be followed by certain legal effects Christopher Wadlow. Enforcement of intellectual property in European and international law. The new Private International Law of Intellectual Property in the United Kingdom and the European Community. London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998. p. 483. .

The European Court of Justice expresses the view that a foreign judgment issued in one of the contracting states should have the same effect in the state, where it should be officially recognized. It is stated by the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2015, that the court, where the center of main interests (COMI) is situated, will have the primacy to open the proceedings. Still the Regulation does not define the concept of COMI, but it is meant that only economic interests shall be taken into consideration. The approach of the European Court of Justice is reflected in the case of Eurofood of 2006, which is important for the interpretation of COMI. Eurofood IFSC Ltd. was registered in Ireland in 1997, having its office in Dublin. It is wholly owned subsidiary of Parmalat SpA incorporated in Italy. On December 2003, in accordance with Decree-Law №347 of 23 December 2003, Parmalat SpA was admitted to extraordinary administration proceedings by the Italian Ministry of Production Activities, who appointed Mr. Bondi as the extraordinary insolvency practitioner of Parmalat. On 27 January 2004, the Bank of America applied to the High Court (Ireland) for compulsory winding up proceedings to be commenced against Eurofood because of its insolvency and for the nomination of a provisional liquidator. Mr. Farell was appointed as the provisional liquidator by the Irish High Court with powers to take possession of all the company's assets, manage its affairs, open a bank account in its name, and instruct lawyers on its behalf. On February 2004, the Italian Minister for Production Activities admitted Eurofood to the extraordinary administration procedure and appointed Mr. Bondi as the extraordinary insolvency practitioner. On February 10 2004, the District Court of Parma (Italy) has received an application for declaration that Eurofood was insolvent. On 20 February the District Court of Parma, taking the view that Eurofood's COMI was in Italy, held that it had international jurisdiction in the meaning of Article 3 (1) of the Insolvency Regulation to determine whether Eurofood was in a state of insolvency. At the same time in Ireland there were opened insolvency proceeding in respect of Eurofood according to Irish Law on the day of application submitted by the Bank of America. Ireland court decided that the COMI of Eurofood was in Ireland and opened main proceedings. It also held that the circumstances in which the proceedings were conducted before the District Court in Parma were such as to justify the refusal of the Irish courts to recognize the decision of that court. Finding that Eurofood was insolvent, the High Court made an order for winding up and appointed Mr. Farrell as the liquidator. Mr. Bondi appeals against that judgment and the Irish Supreme Court considered it necessary to stay the proceedings and to examine several questions, including the one concerning COMI, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On 2 May 2006 the ECJ decides that the judgment based on application before the High Court of Ireland must be recognized, because insolvency proceedings opened by a court of a Member State must be recognized by the courts of the other Member States without the latter being able to review the jurisdiction of the court of the opening State. Prof. Bob Wessels European Union Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings. An Introductory Analysis. October 2006

Thus, as a summary to the above definitions of the recognition and enforcement of foreign courts' decisions, we can distinguish the main features of the studied concept. First of all, the recognition of foreign judgments is a legal act, whereby a sovereign state expresses its attitude to foreign act of justice, spreading its legal force on national legal space.

But, as the experience shows, many states still prefer to adhere to the principle of territorial validity of foreign judgments. Thus, the decisions of the courts have full legal force within the sovereignty of the state that issued the decision. For the execution of court's decision in the area of jurisdiction of another state it is usually necessary to obtain the consent of this state by having a proper authorization (exequatur), the next step is the issuance of an enforcement order.

Generally, the regime of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments determines the direction of legal policy of the state in relation to foreign acts of judgments, including bankruptcy cases. Thus, regime of recognition of foreign bankruptcies is a complex of rules, established by the state in relation to foreign bankruptcies, in particular to the acts issued by the foreign courts relation bankruptcy cases, the authority of foreign administrator, other legal consequences of initiation, conduction and completion of bankruptcy proceedings, arisen on the territory of the foreign country.

The next interesting and important question in terms of cross-border insolvency is function of principle of reciprocity. There are a lot of views on this principle. For example, legislation of Switzerland, Austria, Russia and others has an opinion, that the principle of reciprocity is vital in case of recognition of foreign judgment. But the legislation of the USA, England and others have different views. Traditionally, there are two kinds of this principle: in broad and narrow sense. "Narrow reciprocity" takes place, when the state A refuses to recognize the judgment of the state B, until state B starts to recognize judgments of the state A. So it is necessary to prove, that the judgments of the state A were ever recognized and enforced in the territory of the state A. In the broad sense: both states recognize and enforce the judgments of each other until any failure to recognize a judicial act appear in one of them. So for recognition in broad sense it is enough when there is no any denial of enforcement of decisions in that foreign country.

It is well-known fact, that each country creates laws in response to particular political needs and preferences of its citizens due to maximize private benefit of its creditors and debtors. Presence of differences in legal systems of the states causes difficulties in detection of the signs, which express the reciprocity. Absence of such discrepancies would lead in practice to disappearance of necessity to conclude international treaties, which govern order of execution and recognition of foreign judgment. However today the development of legislation is still on the way of creation of uniform acts, international treaties that govern the relations on recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions. To sum up, we may say that reciprocity is more legal fact, than legal principle, because it leads to appearance, changing and termination of respective legal relations in the field of recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions.

In many states the legislation, adopted on the basis of the Model Law, helped to create an effective regime of recognition of foreign bankruptcies, as evidenced by the practice of these states, such as the United States of America.

Initially, American courts were hostile to foreign bankruptcy judgments, which tried to include US assets into their proceedings or to suspend proceedings, initiated in the USA. In particular, the case Harrison v. Sterry, where the partnership, having business at the same time on the USA and in the Great Britain, has satisfied in the preferential order the requirements of some of its creditors at the expense of the property located in the States. The Supreme Court has denied to recognize English bankruptcy and didn't allow English creditors to dispute these transactions, considering that they had no rights in respect of the property located in the United States and could not challenge these transactions.

The US Constitution gives to the Congress the exclusive right to the adoption of the Federal laws, constituting a single legislation on the reorganization and bankruptcy. The main source of law for the bankruptcy proceeding in the USA is Bankruptcy Code 1978. From the moment of its adoption and the inclusion of §304 American courts began to change their attitude to foreign bankruptcies: the main trend was an increasing of cooperation and recognition of effects of foreign proceedings on bankruptcy cases concerning debtors' property in the USA. Chapter 15 of the Code, 1978 consisting the terms of the Model Law, the tendency mentioned above was legally approved. Nowadays the States recognize foreign bankruptcies, if they meet certain requirements, such as: proof of existence of foreign bankruptcy, the jurisdiction compliance, conformity of public policy. While the property rights of the debtor and creditors are regulated by legislation of the state, the validity of the transactions made by the debtor prior to the bankruptcy and the federal law governs order of satisfaction of creditors' claims at the expense of the debtor. The Code determines the order of commencement of bankruptcy proceedings; it also contains rules that determine the rights and obligations of the debtor, creditors and management bodies, claims procedures and other. The Code provides with opportunity of development and approval of reorganization plan, which is effectively a contract between the debtor and the creditor.

Since 2006 American Law Institute has been working on the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases, consisting of 37 Global Principles for Cooperation in Global Insolvency Cases and 18 Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases. These principles and guidelines are primarily focused on USA, Canada and Mexico and they are non-binding codified customs and norms that may assist in preparing legal advice, interpretation and drafting contracts. This act underlines few new important principles, which also have a positive impact on the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the territory of different states, namely: language in cross-border cooperation as the most important channel of communication; independent intermediary as a new professional function to create direct communication between the courts or through respective insolvency administrators and others.

As for England, the order of recognition of foreign judgments was worked out within long precedential practice on the basis of universality principle. Perhaps, England is the first example of the country with the effective and detailed regulation of recognition of foreign bankruptcies. There have to be a legal basis for such recognition. According to the rules of English law the following legal acts can be applied in case of recognition of a foreign insolvency: the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation 2006; the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings; s426 of the Insolvency Act 2000 and the common law.

It is mainly assumed by the English courts that on the basis of the foreign judgment and under certain circumstances the movable property located in England shall be immediately transferred to the foreign administrator appointed in the bankruptcy case. This right of the foreign administrator is named as "title" in the English legislation. Moreover, if the person, who keeps this property, prevents the transfer of the assets to a foreign administrator, this person may be fined. But there is no any exhaustive list of such circumstances in English law, but judicial precedents help to identify them. Usually, English court examines the extraterritoriality of a foreign law first and then jurisdiction of the foreign court, which leads foreign proceeding. According to English law, it can not authorize foreign administrator in relation to property situated in England, but it can recognize the powers, which were conferred on him under the law of a foreign state. This is the reason why English court examines extraterritoriality issue. Thus, extraterritoriality of foreign law has to be proven for recognition of foreign bankruptcy under English law, in other words it shall be proven that foreign law is applicable to assets located abroad, and foreign administrator has authority in respect of this property. There were cases when a foreign bankruptcy was not recognized, because foreign administrator did not have extraterritoriality quality. From the point of view of English legislator a foreign court has the right to consider case on bankruptcy in following cases:

1) bankruptcy is instituted or recognized in domicile (place of incorporation) of the debtor;

2) the debtor applied to a foreign court by himself;

3) the debtor was doing business in the state, the court of which claims jurisdiction over the debtor. But English courts never recognized the jurisdiction of the foreign courts on the basis of the fact, that the property is located on that foreign territory. In addition to the grounds of recognition of foreign insolvency, English law has developed a number of restrictions on such recognition, such as contradiction to a public order and the violation of the principles of fairness and natural justice. It is also prohibited to recognize and enforce foreign decisions that have a fiscal nature. Another important issue is the consequences of such recognition in England. Recognizing foreign judgment, English court clearly distinguishes between the recognition and the consequences of such recognition. If the foreign bankruptcy in recognized by English court, it still does not mean, that in all cases the property located in England will be transferred to the foreign administrator. English law contains rules in case of conflict between English and foreign bankruptcy in relation to the property acquired later. If the English procedure is not started, such property can be transferred to the foreign administrator, if the extraterritoriality of a foreign law is proven. Thus, English court must consider only the question of title, if the property is located on the territory of England. If the property is acquired after the initiation of the foreign procedure, but before opening of such procedure in England, the property shall not be considered as acquired after commencement of bankruptcy under English law and should be transferred to a foreign administrator. Last thing to mention about English law on recognition and enforcement of foreign bankruptcy judgments is that there are rules of correlation between foreign and English bankruptcies. The commencement of foreign bankruptcy proceedings does not automatically terminate English proceedings, being commenced against the debtor. However, this fact influences the decision of the court regarding the opening or continuation of English procedure.

Talking about Canadian law, it should be noted that it is based on the common law traditions and approaches to recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions are based on English law, described above. The only exception is law of Quebec province, which follows Roman legal traditions, i. e. French civil law. The General approach of Canadian courts to cooperation with the foreign courts and recognition of foreign judgments is based on universalism as well.

The legal order of recognition and enforcement of the bankruptcy judgments of three countries is reflected here, namely: England, Canada and the USA. The comparison of the legal regimes of the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of foreign courts can be based on three criteria: legal regulation of the relations, the model (doctrine) applied by the state, legal basis for recognition of a foreign judgment, the grounds for refusal to recognize the judgment, regulation of the administrator's authority, interrelation between foreign and national proceedings.

To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to express the recognition of the foreign judgment through the following definition. It is a legal act of a sovereign state, which can be expressed not only through judicial act, but also in other ways, for example, by establishing a standard automatic order of recognition in national law.

§2. Models of recognition of foreign judgments on the cross-border insolvency cases