From a comparative legal perspective, there are two basic models for the general execution procedure, the so-called, formal and informal model. In a formal model, which is still prevalent, the key role has the court. It decides should the process be initiated and later on opened, manages the entire process, and in the process it engages other extrajudicial operational entities (e.g. bankruptcy manager, trustee) who perform certain actions for the court on the basis of the court order. In an informal model, there are certain services which are (more or less) independent. They are not subject to formally prescribed rules and procedures which give participants greater ability to find the most optimal solutions. This informal model process of general execution is mainly dominant in common law countries, but recently it was a model that was implemented in server countries of Western and Eastern Europe. In the past several years in the Bosnian legal environment there is a process of re-affirming general executions as a legal discipline, giving it a place that was for a long time unjustly denied. Moreover, the upcoming reform of insolvency law, including the implementation of a formal model of procedures of general executions - prebankruptcy procedure in the Draft Law on Bankruptcy, indicate a tendency for a functionalization of bankruptcy law protection. Therefore, for comparison and possible proposals for Bosnia-Herzegovina legislator, analysis of Croatian experience with the model of prebankruptcy procedure is important because it indicates whether a potential implementation and application of new model of insolvency proceedings will achieve its purpose and give the expected results - lower costs and shorter duration of the bankruptcy process and, as a final result, greater satisfaction of creditors due claims. The complexity of the research subject and set tasks dictated the choice of methods, so the author primarily used comparative and normative methodological approach. It is important to emphasize that the length of the paper doesn’t permit a detailed analysis of this issue, so author is forced to limit his observations to some aspects of the new regulation.