1.9 billed hours per lawyer per day or a utilisation rate of only 25% is a figure taken from the 2018 Legal Trends Report. And while most law firms see increasing the firm’s revenue and growing the client base among their top priorities, very few show interest in increasing efficiency.

At EU level, insolvency statistics are viewed as a means of measuring the efficiency of national insolvency frameworks from a cross-border investment angle. It is true that insolvency figures are generally used as a tool to measure the country’s good social and economic health. From a creditor’s perspective, these insolvency statistics can be used as an indicator to enable them to secure their choice in lending in one Member State rather than another. From a debtor’s point of view, figures can also highlight the successfulness of a specific type of proceedings rather than another.

In 2014, I attended a training programme related to guidelines and best practices for judicial cooperation in cross-border insolvency.

Explaining that in my daily judicial activity I had insufficient time to determine the most appropriate method to transform general guidelines and rules into concrete measures in pending litigations, someone asked me: “What do you want, Judge, a cookbook for insolvency?”

My direct and immediate answer was: “Yes, if a cookbook helps me to find practical solutions and be efficient”.

The speed of reforms across the world in insolvency law is truly breath-taking. In Europe and neighbouring countries, the pace has accelerated of late. Countries, such as Armenia, France, Greece, Latvia, Poland and Romania, inter alia, have within the past decade carried out reforms, many under very challenging economic conditions.

After more than two years of intensive discussions in politics and science, the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30 shortly lies ahead.

After the Niebler’s Report on the European Commission’s Directive Proposal on preventive restructuring frameworks1 was endorsed by the plenary meeting of the European Parliament on 12 September 2018 and the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) adopted its General Approach during its meeting on 11 October 2018, the co-legislators have successfully concluded their Trilogue.

We are grateful to Catherine Ottaway from Hoche Avocats (Paris, France) who kindly send us an update on the adaptation of French law to the Regulation on insolvency proceedings. The article focuses in particular on the Order which was adopted in order to facilitate the implementation of the mechanisms created by the Regulation and to enable courts and practitioners to act quickly in often complex insolvency cases, where economic and social issues require exemplary responsiveness.

Blockchain brings value reconstruction to assets, including assets digitalisation, standardisation, registering, and precise pricing. In the “traditional” insolvency practice, there are always three pain points:

Dramatic changes to insolvency law throughout the EU in the last couple of decades have refocused on rehabilitation and rescue instead of liquidation.

Rescue frameworks have often introduced conflicts with traditional insolvency law principles such as equality of treatment of creditors, transparency and predictability. This has become even more complicated due to the requirement for judicial cooperation in cross-border insolvency cases.

On 11 October 2018, the (Justice and Home Affairs) Council agreed upon its position on the compromise text concerning the European Commission’s Directive Proposal on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30/EU of 1 October 2018.