Regulation of the insolvency profession should be created both at EU level and via hard law as well as
soft law. This is what the audience found last Friday 20 November 2015, at the occasion of a
conference, where the Institute for Corporate Law, Governance and Innovation Policies (ICGI),
University of Maastricht, celebrated its first lustrum. Theme of the conference ‘Kansen en
bedreigingen bij herstructurering van ondernemingen in financiële moeilijkheden’ (Challenges and
Threats for Companies in Financial Distress). As my research for the European Law Institute is in
English I delivered a paper in English (though spoke in Dutch), published as: B. Wessels, Business
Rescue in Insolvency Law – Changing the laws and challenges for the profession, in: Tijdschrift voor
vennootschapsrecht, rechtspersonenrecht en ondernemingsbestuur (TvOB), December 2015, pp. 207215. For the draft manuscript, see the attachment. Although the voting system (via a voting app for
some 80 participants) could have worked better, around 90% of the voters found that approximation or
harmonisation of insolvency law is in principle a task of the EU in creating a more predictable,
stronger internal market. Will that have repercussion for the creation of professional rules for
insolvency practitioners? From 45 voters, these were the answers to the following proposition: ‘To the
extent that you have identified a need for reform of domestic rules or procedures in matters of rescue
and insolvency, this will influence the position of professionals (know how; skills; integrity;
supervision). Do you believe that any reforms would best be achieved’: (1) A purely at the domestic
level (including selfregulation via national professional associations) 13%; (2) Through some form of
harmonisation at EU Level 31%; (3) Through some form of soft law via a non-binding 'legislative
guide' (mainly addressing national legislators) 7%; (4) A combination of 1,2 and 3: 49%. An outcome
that presently matches with my own thoughts about this topic.