Harmonising EU insolvency law: colegislators reach agreement on compromise text for a new directive — key changes and what is next 8 DECEMBER 2025 EU insolvency law © A&O Shearman 2 EU directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law Overview and status The European Parliament and the Council (the co-legislators) reached political agreement on the proposed Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law on 19 November 2025. The final compromise text was confirmed and circulated in early December 2025.
A knowing breach of the payment prohibition under insolvency law cannot be inferred from a breach of the obligation to file for insolvency.
On September 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a trial court decision that had rejected a bank’s assertion of the in pari delicto defense to aiding and abetting claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee for a debtor that had allegedly perpetrated a Ponzi scheme. Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2024 WL 4158179 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2024).
Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.
The A&O Shearman team, together with counsel Michael Lok and Jasmine Cheung, acted for the opposing creditor in these Scheme proceedings.
Following the judgment of the High Court in June 2024 finding two former directors of BHS liable for (amongst other things) wrongful trading and breaches of their directors' duties to creditors in the prelude to the insolvency of the BHS group[1], Mr.
11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):
- “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”
There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.
On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:
Recent high-profile contractor collapses have made many acutely aware of the need to ensure they are adequately protected in the event of employer or contractor insolvency. This increase in insolvencies has also placed significant stress on the construction bond market. Contractor insolvencies put pressure on surety bond providers, which in turn can lead to increased rates and more stringent criteria being imposed on contractors seeking bonds.
A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.
The Problem
Here’s the problem:
Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.
Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?
- §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).
Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?