As cross-border insolvency and international arbitration continue to converge, creditors increasingly face a pivotal strategic question: where should an arbitration be seated, and in which jurisdiction should an award be enforced to maximize recovery?
The answer is increasingly jurisdiction-specific. Treaty coverage, local court practice, and the availability of effective interim and post-award remedies differ across major arbitration hubs, creating an uneven (but opportunity rich) landscape for creditors pursuing assets across borders.
How Global Arbitration Hubs Are Evolving
In 2025, arbitration hubs such as London, Paris, New York, and several EU jurisdictions continue to dominate international dispute resolution. While these hubs remain dominant, their relative advantages increasingly turn on enforceability realities: the local courts’ approach to arbitration, procedural speed, and how smoothly parties can move from award to execution.
Separately, but important for the broader enforcement regulation – the Hague Judgments Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom on July 1, 2025, creating a clearer multilateral path for recognition/enforcement of certain court judgments between contracting states. This development restores a streamlined path for U.K. civil and commercial judgments to be recognized within the EU, reducing procedural friction that had existed since Brexit. For creditors who often convert arbitral awards into court judgments before enforcement, this renewed predictability enhances the U.K.’s role as a gateway venue for international recovery.
Judicial Attitudes Shaping Enforcement Outcomes
At the same time, Paris remains a leading arbitration center known for the arbitration-friendly posture of its courts, which typically intervene only in limited circumstances. This judicial restraint reinforces Paris’s reputation as a reliable seat for awards expected to circulate through multiple enforcement channels, especially in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
New York remains central for enforcement strategy because the US is a key jurisdiction for recognizing and enforcing awards under the New York Convention. These procedural advantages, combined with a well-developed body of pro-arbitration case law, make the United States an important jurisdiction for both initiating and enforcing arbitral awards. That said, creditors should be realistic about “discovery advantages.” Under ZF Automotive, parties generally cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain US discovery for use in private foreign arbitrations, which narrows one commonly-cited leverage point.
The Importance of Insolvency Recognition and Enforcement Strategy
The choice of arbitration seat and enforcement forum now requires careful examination of local insolvency regimes, judicial tendencies, and treaty participation. Global insolvencies increasingly involve parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, and courts differ widely in how they treat foreign insolvency administrators, creditor priorities, and public policy objections.
Arbitration awards may receive strong protection in one jurisdiction and face significant barriers in another. Understanding these distinctions is essential when crafting a recovery strategy, particularly when assets are dispersed across countries with varying levels of cooperation or alignment with international conventions.
Interconnected Jurisdictions and Multi-Step Enforcement Paths
For many creditors, the optimal enforcement strategy is not confined to one jurisdiction but instead involves coordinated steps across several. An award may be rendered in one hub and pursued for recognition/execution in another, depending on where assets sit and where enforcement defenses are least likely to succeed. The New York Convention’s baseline obligation to recognize/enforce awards provide an essential backbone, but outcomes still turn on local procedure and judicial approach.
The interactions between arbitration law, judgment recognition frameworks, and local insolvency principles create a legal ecosystem in which timing, venue, and sequence all matter. The most successful enforcement plans reflect this interconnected reality.
THCA’s Role in Navigating Cross-Border Arbitration and Enforcement
Thomas H. Curran Associates advises clients across this full spectrum of cross-border enforcement challenges. With deep experience in insolvency, commercial litigation, and judgment enforcement, the firm assists clients in analyzing treaty participation, procedural infrastructure, judicial tendencies, and the practical realities of asset recovery in each relevant jurisdiction.
THCA’s longstanding relationships with trusted professionals across Europe, the U.K., and other global markets enable the firm to coordinate strategy, evidence-gathering, and enforcement efforts with precision and efficiency.
Positioning Clients for Success in a Shifting Global Landscape
As global arbitration and insolvency disputes evolve, creditors benefit from counsel who can anticipate jurisdictional developments, understand the nuances of competing enforcement regimes, and craft approaches that maximize recovery outcomes. THCA remains committed to providing this level of strategic guidance, ensuring that clients pursuing cross-border awards are positioned for success, wherever enforcement may ultimately be needed.