Considerations on COM(2022)702 - Proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)702 - Proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2022)702  |
| date | December 7, 2022 |
(2) The wide differences in substantive insolvency laws acknowledged by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council 32 create barriers to the internal market by reducing the attractiveness of cross-border investments, thus impacting the cross-border movement of capital within the Union and to and from third countries.
(3) Insolvency proceedings ensure the orderly winding down or restructuring of companies or entrepreneurs in financial and economic distress. These proceedings are key in financial investments, as they determine the final recovery value of such investments. Diverging rules among Member States have contributed to increasing legal uncertainty and unpredictability about insolvency proceedings’ outcome, so raising barriers especially for cross-border investments in the internal market. Large divergences in recovery value and time required to complete insolvency proceedings across the Union have negative repercussions on cost predictability for creditors and investors in cross-border situations in the internal market.
(4) The integration of the internal market in the area of insolvency laws pursued by this Directive is a key tool for a more efficient functioning of the capital markets in the European Union, including greater access to corporate financing. Therefore, it is necessary to set out minimum requirements in targeted areas of national insolvency proceedings, which have a significant impact on the efficiency and length of such proceedings, especially on cross-border insolvency proceedings.
(5) In order to protect the value of the insolvency estate for creditors, national insolvency laws should include effective rules that enable the annulment of legal acts that are detrimental to creditors and have been perfected prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings (avoidance actions). Given that avoidance actions aim at reversing the detrimental effects for the estate of the legal act, it is appropriate to refer to the completion of the cause for this detriment as the relevant point in time, namely to the perfection of the legal act rather than to the execution of the performance. For instance, in the case of electronic money transfer, the relevant point in time should not be when the debtor instructs the financial institution to transfer the money to a creditor (performance of the legal act) but rather when the creditor’s account is credited (perfection of the legal act). Avoidance actions rules should also allow for the compensation of the insolvency estate for the detriment caused to creditors by such legal acts.
(6) The scope of the legal acts that could be challenged under the avoidance actions rules should be drawn broadly, in order to cover any human behaviour with legal effects. The principle of equal treatment of creditors implies that legal acts should also include omissions, as it makes no significant difference if creditors suffer a detriment as a consequence of an action or of the passivity of the party concerned. For instance, it makes no difference whether a debtor actively waives a claim against his or her obligor or whether he or she remains passive and accepts the claim to become time-barred. Further examples of omissions that may be subject to avoidance actions include the omission to challenge a disadvantageous judgement or other decisions of courts or public authorities or the omission to register an intellectual property right. For the same reason, avoidance rules should not be restricted to legal acts performed by the debtor, but should also include legal acts performed by the counterparty or by a third party. On the other hand, only legal acts should be subject to avoidance rules which are detrimental to the general body of creditors.
(7) To protect the legitimate expectations of the debtor’s counterparty, any interference with the validity or enforceability of a legal act should be proportionate to the circumstances under which that act is perfected. Such circumstances should include the debtor’s intent, the knowledge of the counterparty or the time-span between the perfection of the legal act and the commencement of the insolvency proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between a variety of specific avoidance grounds that are based on common and typical fact patterns and that should complement the general prerequisites for avoidance actions. Any interference should also respect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(8) In the context of avoidance actions, a distinction should be made between legal acts where the claim of the counterparty was due and enforceable and has been satisfied in the owed manner (congruent coverages) and those where performance was not entirely in accordance with the creditor’s claim (incongruent coverage). Incongruent coverages include, in particular, premature payments, the satisfaction with unusual means of payments, the subsequent collateralisation of a so far unsecured claim which was not already agreed upon in the original debt agreement, granting an extraordinary termination right or other amendments not provided for in the underlying contract, the waiver of legal defences or objections or the acknowledgement of disputable debts. In the case of congruent coverages, the avoidance ground of preferences can only be invoked if the creditor of the legal act that can be declared void knew, or should have known, at the time of the transaction that the debtor was insolvent.
(9) Certain congruent coverages, namely legal acts that are performed directly against fair consideration to the benefit of the insolvency estate, should be exempted from the scope of legal acts that can be declared void. Those legal acts aim at supporting the ordinary daily activity of the debtor’s business. Legal acts falling under this exception should have a contractual basis, and require the direct exchange of the mutual performances, but not necessarily a simultaneous exchange of performances, as, in some cases, unavoidable delays may result from practical circumstances. However, this exemption should not cover the granting of credit. Furthermore, performance and counter-performance in those legal acts should have an equivalence in value. At the same time, the counter-performance should benefit the estate and not a third party. This exception should cover, in particular, prompt payment of commodities, wages, or service fees, in particular for legal or economic advisors; cash or card payment of goods necessary for the debtor’s daily activity; delivery of goods, products, or services against payment by return; creation of a security right against disbursement of the loan; prompt payment of public fees against consideration (e.g. admittance to public grounds or institutions).
(10) New- or interim financing provided during a restructuring attempt, including in the course of a preventive insolvency procedure under Title II of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council 33 , should be protected in subsequent insolvency proceedings. Consequently, avoidance actions on the ground of preferences should not be permitted against payments to or collateralisation in favour of the providers of such new- or interim financing, if those payments or collateralisations are performed in accordance with the claims of the providers. Such payments or collateralisation should be considered, therefore, as legal acts performed directly against fair consideration to the benefit of the insolvency estate.
(11) The main consequence of declaring a legal act void in avoidance proceedings is the obligation for the party benefiting from the legal act that has been declared void to compensate the insolvency estate for the detriment caused by such legal act. Compensation should include emoluments, where relevant, and interest, in accordance with the applicable general civil law. The compensation implies the payment of a sum equivalent to the value of the performance received if it cannot be returned in natura to the insolvency estate.
(12) Parties who are closely related to the debtor, such as relatives in case the debtor is a natural person or actors fulfilling decisive roles in relation to a debtor that is a legal entity, usually enjoy an information advantage with regard to the financial situation of the debtor. In order to prevent abusive behaviours, additional safeguards should be established. Consequently, in the context of avoidance actions, legal presumptions about the knowledge of the circumstances on which the conditions for avoidance were based should be introduced when the other party involved in the legal act that can be declared void is a party closely related to the debtor. These presumptions should be rebuttable and should aim at reversing the burden of proof to the benefit of the insolvency estate.
(13) Improving the possibilities of insolvency practitioners to identify and trace assets belonging to the insolvency estate is essential for the maximisation of the value of that estate. When performing their duties, insolvency practitioners may, already now, access information held in public data registers, partly set up by Union law and interconnected at European level, such as the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), the system of Insolvency Registers Interconnection (IRI) or the Beneficial Ownership Registers Interconnection System (BORIS). Accessing the information held in public databases, however, is often not satisfactory to identify and trace important assets that are or should be in the perimeter of the insolvency estate. In particular, insolvency practitioners face practical difficulties when they try to access asset registers situated abroad.
(14) It is therefore necessary to lay down provisions to ensure that insolvency practitioners, when performing their duties in insolvency proceedings, can have, either directly or indirectly, access to information held in databases which are not publicly accessible.
(15) Prompt direct access to centralised bank account registries or data retrieval systems is often indispensable for the maximisation of the value of the insolvency estate. Therefore, rules should be laid down granting direct access to information held in centralised bank account registries or data retrieval systems to designated Member States’ courts that have jurisdiction in insolvency proceedings. Where a Member State provides access to bank account information through a central electronic data retrieval system, that Member State should ensure that the authority operating the retrieval system reports search results in an immediate and unfiltered way to the designated courts.
(16) In order to respect the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, direct and immediate access to bank account registries should be granted only to courts with jurisdiction in insolvency proceedings that are designated by the Member States for that purpose. Insolvency practitioners should therefore be allowed to access information held in the bank account registries only indirectly by requesting the designated courts in their Member State to access and run the searches.
(17) Directive (EU) YYYY/XX of the European Parliament and of the Council 34 [OP: Directive which replaces Directive 2015/849] provides that the centralised automated mechanisms are interconnected via the bank account registers (BAR) single access point, to be developed and operated by the Commission. Considering the growing importance of insolvency cases with cross-border implications and the importance of relevant financial information for the purposes of maximising the value of the insolvency estate in insolvency proceedings, the designated national courts having jurisdiction in insolvency matters should be able to directly access and search the centralised bank account registries of other Member States through the BAR single access point put in place pursuant to Directive (EU) YYYY/XX [OP: Directive which replaces Directive 2015/849].
(18) Any personal data obtained under this Directive should only be processed in accordance with the applicable data protection rules by designated courts and insolvency practitioners where it is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of identifying and tracing assets belonging to the insolvency estate of the debtor in on-going insolvency proceedings.
(19) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and the Council 35 ensures that persons who are able to demonstrate a legitimate interest are granted access to beneficial ownership information on trusts and other types of legal arrangements, in accordance with data protection rules. Those persons are granted access to information on the name, month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner, as well as the nature and extent of beneficial interest held. It is essential that insolvency practitioners can quickly and easily access that set of information for performing their tasks to trace assets in the context of ongoing insolvency proceedings. It is therefore necessary to clarify that in such a case access by insolvency practitioners constitutes a legitimate interest. At the same time, the scope of data directly accessible by the insolvency practitioners should not be broader than the scope of data accessible by other parties having a legitimate interest.
(20) To ensure that assets can be efficiently traced in the context of cross-border insolvency proceedings, insolvency practitioners appointed in a Member State should be granted expeditious access to asset registers also when these registers are located in a different Member State. Therefore, the access conditions applying to foreign insolvency practitioners should not be more cumbersome than those applying to domestic insolvency practitioners.
(21) In the context of insolvent liquidation, national insolvency laws should allow for the realisation of the assets of the business to occur through the sale of the business or part thereof as a going concern. Sale as a going concern should mean, in this context, the transfer of the business, in whole or in part, to an acquirer in a way that the business (or part thereof) may continue to operate as an economically productive unit. Sale as a going concern should be understood as opposed to a sale of the assets of the business piece by piece (piecemeal liquidation).
(22) It is generally assumed that more value can be recovered in liquidation by selling the business (or part thereof) as a going concern rather than by piecemeal liquidation. In order to promote going-concern sales in liquidation, national insolvency regimes should include a pre-pack proceeding, where the debtor in financial distress, with the help of a “monitor”, seeks possible interested acquirers and prepares the sale of the business as a going concern before the formal opening of insolvency proceedings, so that the assets can be quickly realised shortly after the opening of the formal insolvency proceedings. The pre-pack proceedings should consist of two phases, namely a preparation phase and a liquidation phase.
(23) For the effective management of the pre-pack proceedings, the court before which such proceedings are brought should also have the power to decide on issues closely related to the pre-pack sale of the business or part thereof.
(24) The pre-pack proceedings should ensure that the monitor appointed in the preparation phase might propose the best bid obtained during the sale process for authorisation by the court only if it declares that, in its view, piecemeal liquidation would not recover manifestly more value for creditors than the market price obtained for the business (or part thereof) as a going concern. The going-concern value is, as a rule, higher than the piecemeal liquidation value because it is based on the assumption that the business continues its activity with the minimum of disruption, has the confidence of financial creditors, shareholders and clients and continues to generate revenues. Therefore, the monitor’s declaration should not require a valuation being made in every case. The monitor should only reasonably conclude that the sale price is not significantly lower than the proceeds that could be recovered through a piecemeal liquidation. However, an increased scrutiny should be required from the monitor or the insolvency practitioner in cases where the only existing offer is made by a party who is closely related to the debtor. In such situations, the monitor or the insolvency practitioner should reject the offer if it does not satisfy the best-interest-of-creditors test.
(25) In order to guarantee that the business is sold at the best market value during the pre-pack proceedings, Member States should either ensure high standards of competitiveness, transparency and fairness of the sale process conducted in the preparation phase, or provide that the court runs a brief public auction after the opening of the liquidation phase of the proceedings.
(26) If a Member State opts to require high standards in the preparation phase, the monitor (subsequently to be appointed as insolvency practitioner in the liquidation phase) should be responsible for ensuring that the sale process is competitive, transparent, fair and meets market standards. Complying with market standards in this context should require that the process is compatible with the standard rules and practice on mergers and acquisitions in the Member State concerned, which includes an invitation to potentially interested parties to participate in the sale process, disclosing the same information to potential buyers, enabling the exercise of due diligence by interested acquirers, and obtaining the offers from the interested parties through a structured process.
(27) If a Member State opts to provide that the court runs a public auction after the opening of the liquidation phase, the offer selected by the monitor during the preparation phase should be used as an initial bid (‘stalking horse bid’) during the auction. The debtor should be able to offer incentives to the ‘stalking horse bidder’ by agreeing, in particular, to expense reimbursements or break-up fees in the case a better offer is selected through the public auction. Member States should, nevertheless, ensure that such incentives given by the debtors to the ‘stalking horse bidders’ during the preparation phase are commensurate and do not deter other potentially interested bidders from participating in the public auction in the liquidation phase.
(28) The opening of insolvency proceedings should not result in the early termination of contracts under which the parties still have obligations to perform (executory contracts), which are necessary for the continuation of business operations. Such termination would unduly jeopardise the value of the business, or part thereof, to be sold in the pre-pack proceedings. It should, therefore, be ensured that those contracts are assigned to the acquirer of the business of the debtor or part thereof, even without the consent of the counterparty of the debtor to those contracts. Nonetheless, there are situations where the assignment of the executory contracts cannot be reasonably expected, such as when the acquirer is a competitor of the counterparty of the contract. Similarly, the court may come to the conclusion in an individual assessment of an executory contract that its termination would serve the interests of the business of the debtor better than its assignment, such as when the assignment of the contract would result in a disproportionate burden for the business. The court should not be allowed, however, to terminate executory contracts relating to licenses of intellectual and industrial property rights, as they are usually key components of the operations of the business being sold.
(29) The possibility to enforce pre-emption rights in the course of the sale process would distort competition in the pre-pack proceedings. Potential bidders might abstain from bidding because of rights that would discard their offers at the holder’s discretion, irrespective of the time and resources invested and the economic value of the offer. In order to ensure that the winning offer reflects the best available price on the market, pre-emption rights should not be conceded to bidders, nor should such rights be enforced in the course of the bidding process. Holders of pre-emption rights that were granted prior to the commencement of the pre-pack proceedings, instead of invoking their option, should be invited to participate in the bidding.
(30) Member States should allow secured creditors to participate in the bidding process in the pre-pack proceedings by offering the amount of their secured claims as consideration for the purchase of the assets over which they hold a security (credit bidding). Credit bidding should not, however, be used in a way that provides secured creditors with an undue advantage in the bidding process, such as when the amount of their secured claim against the debtor’s assets is above the market value of the business.
(31) This Directive should be without prejudice to the application of Union competition law, especially Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 36 nor should it prevent Member States from enforcing national merger control systems. When selecting the best offer, the monitor should be allowed to take into account the regulatory risks raised by offers requiring the authorisation of competition authorities and may consult with those authorities if allowed under applicable rules. It should remain the responsibility of the bidders to provide all necessary information to assess those risks and to engage in timely manner with competent competition authorities in order to mitigate those risks. In order to increase the likelihood that procedures are successful, in presence of an offer that raises such risks, the monitor should be required to perform its role in a way that facilitates the presentation of alternative bids.
(32) Directors oversee the management of the affairs of a legal entity and have the best overview of its financial situation. Directors are therefore among the first to realise whether a legal entity is approaching or surpassing the brink of insolvency. A late filing for insolvency by directors may lead to lower recovery values for creditors Member States should therefore introduce an obligation on directors to submit a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings within a specified time-period. Member States should also define to whom the directors’ duties should apply taking into account that the notion of “director” should be interpreted broadly, to cover all persons who are in charge of making or do in fact make or ought to make key decisions with respect to the management of a legal entity.
(33) To ensure that directors do not act in their self-interest by delaying the submission of a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings, despite signs of insolvency, Member States should lay down provisions making directors civilly liable for a breach of the duty to submit such a request. In that case directors should compensate creditors for the damages resulting from the deterioration in the recovery value of the legal entity compared to the situation where the request would have been submitted on time. Member States should be able to adopt or maintain national rules on civil liability of directors related to the filing for insolvency that are stricter than those laid down by this Directive.
(34) Microenterprises often take the form of sole proprietorships or small partnerships whose founders, owners or members do not enjoy limited liability protection and thus are exposed to unlimited liability for business debts. Where microenterprises operate as limited liability entities, limited liability protection is usually illusory for microenterprises owners because they are often expected to secure microenterprises business debts using their personal assets as collateral. Moreover, since microenterprises heavily depend on payments from their clients they often face cash-flow problems and higher default risks that follow from the loss of a significant business partner or from late payments by their clients. In addition, microenterprises also face scarcity of working capital, higher interest rates and larger collateral requirements, which make raising finance, especially in situations of financial distress, difficult, if not impossible. As a consequence, they may be prone to insolvency more often than larger enterprises.
(35) National insolvency rules are not always fit to treat insolvent microenterprises properly and in a proportionate manner. Taking into account the unique characteristics of microenterprises and their specific needs in financial distress, in particular the need for faster, simpler, and affordable procedures should be acknowledged, separate insolvency proceedings should be developed at national level in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. Although the provisions of this Directive concerning simplified winding-up proceedings only apply to microenterprises, it should be possible for Member States to extend their application also to small and medium-sized enterprises that are not microenterprises.
(36) It is appropriate to ensure that the conduct and oversight of simplified winding-up proceedings may be entrusted by Member States to a competent authority which is either a court or an administrative body. The choice would depend, among other things, on the administrative and legal systems of the Member States as well as the capacities of courts and the need to ensure cost-efficiency and speed of proceedings.
(37) The cessation of payments test and the balance sheet test are the two usual triggers among Member States for opening of standard insolvency proceedings. The balance sheet test may however be unfeasible for microenterprise debtors, particularly where the debtor is an individual entrepreneur, because of a possible lack of proper record and of a clear distinction between personal assets and liabilities and business assets and liabilities. Therefore, the inability to pay debts as they mature should be the criterion for the opening of simplified winding-up proceedings. Member States should also define the specific conditions under which this criterion is met, as long as these conditions are clear, simple and easily ascertainable by the microenterprise concerned.
(38) In order to establish cost-effective and expeditious simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises, short deadlines should be introduced. Similarly, formalities for all procedural steps, including for the opening of the proceedings, the lodgement and the admission of claims, the establishment of the insolvency estate and the realisation of the assets should be minimised. A standard form should be used for submitting a request to open simplified winding-up proceedings and electronic means should be used for all communications between the competent authority, and where relevant, the insolvency practitioner, and the parties to the proceedings.
(39) All microenterprises should be able to commence proceedings to address their financial difficulties and obtain a discharge. Access to simplified winding-up proceedings should not depend on the microenterprise’s ability to cover the administrative costs of such proceedings. The laws of the Member States should introduce rules for covering the costs of administering simplified winding-up proceedings where assets and sources of revenue of the debtor are insufficient to cover those costs.
(40) In simplified winding-up proceedings, the appointment of an insolvency practitioner is usually unnecessary given the simple business operations carried out by the microenterprises that make their supervision by the competent authority possible and sufficient. Therefore, the debtor should remain in control of its assets and day-to-day operation of the business. At the same time, to ensure that simplified winding-up proceedings can be conducted effectively and efficiently, the debtor should, upon commencement of and throughout the proceedings, provide accurate, reliable and complete information relating to its financial position and business affairs.
(41) A microenterprise debtor should be able to benefit from a temporary stay of individual enforcement actions, in order to be able to preserve the value of the insolvency estate and ensure a fair and orderly conduct of the proceedings. Member States, however, may allow competent authorities to exclude certain claims from the scope of the stay, in well-defined circumstances.
(42) Disputed claims should be dealt with in a way that does not unnecessarily complicate the conduct of simplified winding-up proceedings for microenterprises. If disputed claims cannot be quickly dealt with, the ability to dispute a claim may be used to create unnecessary delays. In deciding on the treatment of a disputed claim, the competent authority should be empowered to allow the continuation of the simplified winding-up proceedings with respect to undisputed claims only.
(43) In the context of simplified winding-up proceedings, avoidance actions should only be brought by a creditor or, where appointed, by the insolvency practitioner. In taking the decision to convert the simplified winding-up proceedings to standard insolvency proceedings for the purpose of the conduct of avoidance proceedings, the competent authority should weigh various considerations, including the anticipated cost, duration and complexity of avoidance proceedings, the likelihood of the successful recovery of assets and expected benefits to all creditors.
(44) Member States should ensure that the assets of the insolvency estate in simplified winding-up proceedings can be realised through public on-line judicial auction, if the competent authority considers this means of realisation of assets as appropriate. For this reason, Member States should ensure that one or more electronic auction systems are maintained in their territory for that purposes. This obligation should be without prejudice to the multiple platforms that exist in some Member States for on-line judicial auctions of specific types of assets.
(45) The auction systems operated for the purposes of realising the assets of debtors in simplified winding-up proceedings should be interconnected via the European e-Justice Portal. The e-Justice Portal should serve as a central electronic access point to the on-line judicial auction processes run in the national system or systems, provide a search functionality for users and guide them to the relevant national on-line platforms if they intend to participate in the bidding. When determining the technical specifications of that interconnection system by way of implementing act, the Commission should, in accordance with the Commission's “Dual Pillar Approach" 37 , present the result of the analysis of existing solutions already provided by the Commission with the potential for their reuse or should carry out a market screening for potential off-the shelf commercial solutions to use as such or with little customisation.
(46) In the case of insolvency of an unlimited liability microenterprise debtor, individuals who are personally liable for the debtor’s debts should not be personally liable for unsatisfied claims following liquidation of the insolvency estate of the debtor. Therefore, Member States should ensure that in simplified winding-up proceedings entrepreneur debtors, as well as those founders, owners or members of an unlimited liability microenterprise debtor who are personally liable for the debts of the microenterprise subject to simplified winding-up proceedings, are fully discharged from their debts. For the purpose of granting such discharge, Member States should apply Title III of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 mutatis mutandis.
(47) It is important to ensure a fair balance between the interests of the debtor and creditors in insolvency proceedings. Creditors’ committees allow for better involvement of creditors in insolvency proceedings, in particular when creditors would otherwise be inhibited from doing so individually, due to limited resources, economic significance of their claims or the lack of geographic proximity. Creditors’ committees can especially help cross-border creditors better exercise their rights and ensure their fair treatment. Member States should allow the establishment of a creditors’ committee once proceedings are opened. A creditors’ committee should be established only provided that creditors agree. Member States may also allow to establish it before proceedings are opened and after the filing for insolvency. In this case, however, Member States should provide that creditors agree to its continuation and composition at the general meeting. If creditors disagree with the composition, they may also establish a new creditors’ committee.
(48) The cost of setting up and operating a creditors’ committee should be commensurate to the value it generates. The establishment of the creditors’ committee should not be justified in those instances where the cost of its set-up and operations is significantly higher than the economic relevance of the decisions it may take. This may be the case where there are too few creditors, where the large majority of creditors has a small share in the claim against the debtor or where the expected recovery from the insolvency estate in insolvency proceedings is significantly lower than the cost of the set-up and operation of the creditors’ committee. This occurs in particular in insolvency cases of microenterprises.
(49) Member States should clarify the requirements, duties and procedures for the appointment of members of the creditors’ committee, as well as the functions attributed to the creditors’ committee. Member States should be given the option to decide whether the appointment should be done by the general meeting of creditors or by the court. To avoid undue delays in the set-up of the creditors’ committee, the members should be appointed expeditiously. Member States should cater for a fair representation of creditors in the committee and ensure that the participation in the creditors’ committee is not precluded to creditors whose claim is not yet admitted or to creditors that are resident in another Member State.
(50) Fair representation of creditors in the creditors’ committee is particularly important in relation to unsecured creditors that are micro, small or medium-sized enterprises, which in the case of insolvency of a debtor which is a large enterprise, if not paid promptly, are also exposed to insolvency (domino effect). Proper representation in the creditors’ committee of such creditors could ensure that in the course of the distribution of the recovered proceeds they receive their parts more expeditiously.
(51) An important task of the creditors’ committee should be to verify that insolvency proceedings are conducted in a way that protects creditors’ interests. The committee’s role in the monitoring of the fairness and integrity of the proceedings can only be performed effectively if the creditors’ committee and its members act independently from the insolvency practitioner and are accountable only to the creditors who established it.
(52) The number of members in the creditors’ committee should, on the one hand, be sufficiently large to ensure diversity of views and interests in the committee and, on the other hand, remain relatively limited to deliver on its tasks effectively and timely. Member States should clarify when and how the composition of the committee needs to be altered, which could happen if representatives are no longer able to act, including in the creditors’ best interests, or wish to withdraw. They should also clarify the conditions for the removal of members that acted relentlessly against creditors’ interest.
(53) Members of the creditors’ committee retain discretion in the organisation of the work, as long as the working methods are lawful, transparent and effective. Member States should therefore require that the creditors’ committee set out the working methods, specifying how meetings should be run, who could attend and vote, and how the impartiality and the confidentiality of the work of the committee is ensured. These working methods should be allowed to also set out a role for employers’ representatives or transparency towards other creditors. Creditors should be able to participate and vote electronically or delegate the voting right to a third person, provided this person is duly authorised. This possibility would be particularly beneficial for creditors resident in other Member States.
(54) Member States should ensure that the court has the power to determine the working methods for the creditors’ committee, if they are not established expeditiously. The Commission should establish standard working methods that should facilitate the task of the creditors’ committee and reduce the need for courts to intervene in the case of missing working methods.
(55) The creditors’ committee should be granted sufficient rights to perform its functions efficiently and effectively. Member States should ensure that the creditors’ committee can interact with insolvency practitioners, courts, the debtor, external advisors and the creditors whom it represents, as necessary, to enable the committee to form and communicate a view on matters of direct interest and relevance to creditors, and for this view to be duly considered in proceedings. Member States could also empower the creditors’ committee to make decisions..
(56) Since the operation of the creditors’ committee incurs expenses, Member States should determine upfront who pays for them. Member States should also establish safeguards to prevent that the costs of the creditors’ committee reduce the recovery value of the insolvency estate in a disproportionate manner.
(57) To encourage creditors to become members of the creditors’ committee, Member States should limit their individual civil liability when they carry out functions in accordance with this Directive. Nonetheless, members of the creditors’ committee acting fraudulently or negligently, when carrying out those functions, can be removed and held liable for their actions. In those cases, Member States should provide that the members are held individually liable for the detriment caused by their misconduct.
(58) To ensure an enhanced transparency of the key features of national insolvency proceedings and help especially cross-border creditors to estimate what would happen if their investments got involved in insolvency proceedings, investors and potential investors should be granted easy access to that information in a pre-defined, comparable and user-friendly format. A standardised key information factsheet should be prepared and made available to the public by Member States. This document would be key for potential investors to make a “glance-through” assessment of the insolvency proceedings rules in a given Member State. It should contain sufficient explanations to allow the reader to understand the information therein without having to resort to other documents. The key information factsheet should in particular include practical information on the insolvency trigger as well as on the steps to take to request the opening of insolvency proceedings or to lodge a claim.
(59) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
(60) Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because differences between national insolvency frameworks would continue to raise obstacles to the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment, but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(61) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter), the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter), the freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work (Article 15 of the Charter), the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter), the right to property (Article 17 of the Charter), workers' right to information and consultation (Article 27 of the Charter) as well as the right to a fair trial (Article 47(2) of the Charter).
(62) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council 38 applies to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Directive. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council 39 applies to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies for the purposes of this Directive.
(63) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council and delivered an opinion on [OP: add data of publication].