Harmonizing Global Insolvency Proceedings from Theory to Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Centre of Main Interest (COMI) Determination and Judicial Trends

This study compares the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA) to examine how cross-border insolvency (CBI) ideas are applied in the real world. It focuses on theories of territorialism, universalism, and modified universalism. This study assesses the correspondence between these theoretical frameworks and tangible procedural outcomes in domains such as Centre of Main Interests (COMI) disputes, shifts, resolution timelines, and creditor-friendliness levels. The analysis employs doctrinal and empirical research methodologies, drawing on 169 cross-border insolvency cases from publicly accessible databases and court rulings. A Qualitative analysis is used to find trends and inconsistencies in the data. Concurrently, the application of the three theoretical frameworks is evaluated through four essential indicators in terms of practical performance. The findings reveal notable discrepancies: The EU, despite its well-established regulatory framework, has long turnaround times and is not creditor-friendly; the USA, although exhibiting procedural uniformity, has high dispute rates because it lacks a clear COMI. Following Brexit, the UK, which operates under a standard law system, has a high proportion of COMI disputes and shifting, but also benefits from improved creditor protection and speedier remedies. This analysis highlights how procedural fragmentation and jurisdictional disparities frequently undermine theoretical expectations regarding coordination, efficiency, and fairness. The researcher suggests revising the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law to address these issues, incorporating a defined, tiered choice of law (COMI) structure, standardizing procedural timelines, and establishing judicial cooperation frameworks. Ultimately, this paper advocates for reforms that foster predictability and coherence in global insolvency practices, thereby bridging the gap between theoretical concepts and practical applications.