As insolvency disputes increasingly intersect with international arbitration, creditors are asking: which jurisdictions provide the most favorable environment for enforcing judgments?
The landscape shifted in July 2025, when the UK brought the Hague Judgments Convention (2019) into force for EU-related enforcement. This change streamlines recognition of foreign civil and commercial judgments between the UK and EU, reducing barriers that previously slowed recoveries.
For creditors, this development strengthens the UK’s position as an enforcement hub alongside New York and key EU jurisdictions. These advantages are shaped not only by treaty participation, but also by the statutory frameworks governing arbitration in each forum.
Judicial Review and Finality
In the United States, arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) emphasizes speed and finality by sharply limiting judicial review of arbitral awards and leaving discovery largely to arbitrator discretion. By contrast, the UK Arbitration Act 1996 provides a more structured framework, permitting limited appeals on questions of law and imposing stricter neutrality obligations on arbitrators, while maintaining restrained evidentiary procedures. These differences can materially affect leverage and predictability in cross-border insolvency disputes.
Discovery and Procedural Control
The FAA leaves discovery largely to arbitrator discretion and does not mandate litigation-style pre-hearing discovery. This flexibility can reduce costs and accelerate resolution for creditors. UK arbitration similarly limits discovery, but does so within a more structured statutory framework that emphasizes efficiency and proportionality – often appealing to creditors prioritizing streamlined proceedings.
Arbitration Neutrality and Tribunal Integrity
Under the FAA, arbitrator bias is addressed primarily after the fact as a ground for vacatur, allowing greater flexibility in arbitrator appointments. In contrast, the UK Arbitration Act imposes an express duty of impartiality on all arbitrators, enhancing tribunal integrity and confidence in the process – an important consideration for creditors concerned with enforceability and fairness.
These statutory differences can materially affect predictability and recovery strategy in cross-border insolvency disputes.
Choosing the right enforcement hub has never been more critical. Creditors must weigh treaty participation, local insolvency recognition regimes, and the practical realities of cross-border asset recovery.
With offices across the U.S., as well as London, and strong partnerships with local law firms worldwide, THCA advises clients on selecting optimal arbitration and enforcement forums to maximize recovery outcomes.
For more information, please contact us at +1 (617) 207-8670 or visit our contact page.