Update 22 November 2018 for the US decision upholding recognition, Case No. 18-12104 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2018) see review here and here. The US side of the debate essentially refuses to extend the common law Gibbs rule despite considerations of comity.
Update 2 April 2018 For related developments in Slovenia, see Dr Sladic’s analysis here.
If one needed further illustration that the Brussels I Recast and the Recast Insolvency Regulation do not dovetail (a concept which I explore ia here) [2017] EWHC 2791 (Ch) Agrokor DD is it.
The English courts are being asked to recognise Agrokor’s extraordinary administration as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR). For the facts of the case and Hogan Lovells breakdown of the judgment see here.
Of note for this blog is that Croatia have not included the emergency procedure foreseen Agrokor Act in the relevant Annexes to the Insolvency Regulation. Consequently no matter how much the procedure in the abstract meets with the definition of insolvency proceedings, it does not fall under the Insolvency Regulation hence recognition and enforcement of same does not follow that Regulation. Neither does it follow Brussels I Recast: for the procedure most definitely meets with the ‘insolvency’ exception under that Regulation. Matthews J justifiably refers to both in passing only, noting they have no calling here.
Recognition was eventually granted. Despite some serious relevant differences between Croatian and English insolvency law, none of these as so serious as to trigger ordre public objections. As Jake Hardy notes: if no man is an island, nor is any debt obligation – no matter how English it has painted itself to be.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5.
gavc law - geert van calster 
Slovenian Supreme court refused to grant the exequatur to Croatian extraodrinary administration in Agrokor case by order Cpg 2/2018 of 14 March 2018. As far as the Insolvency regulation is concerned: the absence of mention in the annexes of extraordinary administration was construed as meaning that the Insolvency Regulation does not apply. A Follow up for the Conflict-of-laws. net will be made.
Thank you for the heads-up, Jorg!
Geert, only one suggestion: please replace Slovakia (Bratislava) with Slovenia (Ljubljana)
Jorg
Yikes! Of course and apologies. Geert.