ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the insolvency laws of eight countries, comparing their provisions on creditors' meetings, creditors' committees and creditor representation with the UNCITRAL recommendations on the same topics. It finds considerable dissensus regarding both the details of these provisions and the purposes and practices associated with creditor representation. This dissensus in practice surprised, since people also found that many of these countries' provisions on creditors' committees were consistent with UNCITRAL's recommendations in this area. It lays out UNCITRAL's recommendations on creditor participation, namely the laws of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Singapore, the Russian Federation and South Korea. It concludes by questioning whether findings are the result of UNCITRAL's open-ended recommendations, whether UNCITRAL neglects issues important to the success of creditor representatives in a reorganization proceeding, or whether creditors' committees are less important to the creation of a rescue culture than UNCITRAL.
