CERIL

On Thursday 8 and Friday 9 October 2026, the Conference on European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) organised a two-day conference on the transposition of the Insolvency Directive. Directive (EU) 2026/799 of 30 March 2026 harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive) introduces a new set of minimum harmonisation rules that Member States must transpose into their national legal systems. CERIL met for a hybrid conference held in Paris at the offices of Clifford Chance, for an extensive discussion on key transposition questions regarding main topics of the Insolvency Directive.

Harmonising EU insolvency law

The Directive provides for minimum harmonisation of a selected group of aspects. The conference dealt with focus on: (i) avoidance actions, (ii) tracing of assets, (iii) pre-pack proceedings, (iv) the director’s duty to file, (v) creditors’ committees, as well as (vi) private international law matters related to the Insolvency Directive.

Harmonising these topics, which closely interact with domestic law, entails an extensive legislative effort. In addition to minimum harmonisation, the Insolvency Directive offers various opportunities for national derogations. As a result, there is much discretion and therefore transposition questions to be made by Member States. Nonetheless, EU Member States are expected to have completed the transposition of all topics of the Insolvency Directive by 22 January 2029.

While the Insolvency Directive’s objectives are to remove obstacles to the functioning of the fundamental freedoms of the Single Market resulting from fragmented domestic laws, CERIL observes that this may be limited due to the minimum harmonisation and the various derogations. This conference will host an open exchange to discuss some of the key challenges for the transposition and for the harmonisation of insolvency law.

Setting of the conference

The CERIL Conference provided a forum for an open exchange of views on some of the challenges arising from the transposition process and the broader harmonisation of insolvency law. The aim was not to revisit or criticise the provisions of the Directive (what has been agreed, has been agreed) but rather to share ideas, explore possible solutions and learn from one another. One Member State may already have developed a potential approach to a particular transposition challenge while still struggling with another; a different Member State may have valuable experiences to offer in precisely that area. By bringing these perspectives together with both physical and online attendance, the conference sought to encourage mutual learning and help make the harmonisation of insolvency law work.

Report

Click here for the full report.