Collins & Aikman (C&A), an automotive supplier, operated as a multinational group. It entered insolvency with its main insolvency proceedings initiated in the United States (the Center of Main Interests-COMI). Si

Article 30 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (and similar provisions in the EU Recast Insolvency Regulation) addresses the coordination of more than one foreign proceeding, specifically when a debtor is subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in different jurisdictions. This article empowers a court to modify or terminate relief previously granted to a foreign representative to ensure that the proceedings are coordinated, preventing conflicting decisions and ensuring equitable treatment of creditors. Coordination of more than one Foreign Proceeding (Article 30) Article 30 deals with cases where the debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings in more than one foreign State and foreign representatives of more than one foreign proceeding seek recognition or relief in the enacting State. The provision applies whether or not an insolvency proceeding is pending in the enacting State. If, in addition to two or more foreign proceedings, there is a proceeding in the enacting State, the court will have to act pursuant to both Article 29 and Article 30. In respect of more than one foreign proceeding regarding the same debtor, the court shall seek cooperation and coordination under Articles 25, 26 and 27, and the following shall apply: (a) any relief granted under Article 19 or 21 to a representative of a foreign non-main proceeding after recognition of a foreign main proceeding must be consistent with the foreign main proceeding; (b) if a foreign main proceeding is recognized after recognition, or after the filing of an application for recognition, of a foreign non-main proceeding, any relief in effect under Article 19 or 21 shall be reviewed by the court and shall be modified or terminated if inconsistent with the foreign main proceeding; and (c) if, after recognition of a foreign non-main proceeding, another foreign non-main proceeding is recognized, the court shall grant, modify or terminate relief for the purpose of facilitating coordination of the proceedings. The objective of Article 30 is similar to that of Article 29 in that the key issue in the case of concurrent proceedings is to promote cooperation, coordination and consistency of relief granted to different proceedings. Such consistency will be achieved by appropriate tailoring of relief to be granted or by modifying or terminating relief already granted. Unlike Article 29, which, as a matter of principle, gives primacy to the local proceeding, Article 30 gives preference to the foreign main proceeding, if there is one.