Procedure for Concluding an Amicable Agreement in Insolvency Proceedings

Abstract

This article examines the legal nature, substance, and practical significance of the procedure for concluding an amicable agreement in insolvency proceedings through a comparative legal approach. The study analyzes the key features of the amicable agreement institution as provided in Article 161 of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, including decision-making by the meeting of creditors, the consent of secured creditors, the participation of third parties, judicial approval, and the binding force of the agreement. At the same time, corresponding legal mechanisms in the legislation of Russia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom are comparatively analyzed, demonstrating that the Uzbek model mainly belongs to the procedural compromise model, whereas in foreign legal systems this institution has evolved into a comprehensive restructuring instrument. The article advances proposals for improving Uzbek legislation, including the classification of creditors into groups, the judicial assessment of dissenting creditors’ interests on the basis of the “no worse off” principle, the strengthening of the court’s active role, and the balancing of secured creditors’ veto power. The author concludes that the amicable agreement should be developed not merely as a tool for terminating insolvency proceedings, but as a full-fledged rehabilitative mechanism aimed at restoring solvency.