In our earlier blog, "EU insolvency law: Member States move closer to harmonisation", we examined how proposals to harmonise insolvency law across the European Union are gathering pace with a draft Directive to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law being negotiated. And the pace is, indeed, continuing.
On 12 June 2025, the Council of the EU announced that member states have agreed on a general approach to a directive aimed at bringing national insolvency standards closer together. This draft directive is designed to make the EU more attractive to foreign and cross-border investors by reducing the legal uncertainties and complexities associated with differing national insolvency laws.
On 13 December 2024, EU member states agreed on a ‘partial’ general approach to the harmonisation of insolvency law.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).
Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.
Background
Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.
In yet another major restructuring in the Netherlands, the Dutch Court confirmed a restructuring plan under the Dutch Act on Court Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan (WHOA). The public restructuring of the Steinhoff Group (Steinhoff) was approved by the Amsterdam Court on 21 June 2023, only seven days after the confirmation hearing.