Currently, Ukrainian legislation does not provide for a separate “pre-pack proceeding” as outlined in the draft EU directive for harmonising insolvency law (“Directive Proposal”). However, selling a business is a legally feasible option under the Ukrainian Bankruptcy Code and related laws, both in a pre-bankruptcy phase and during bankruptcy proceeding.

In response to the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers very quickly started working on improving the legal framework to enhance existing and develop new restructuring instruments. Contrary to expectations, not that many restructurings actually took place in 2020, likely because of support made available to businesses.

In May 2020 three years have passed[1] since Ukraine received the last funding of nearly USD 1 billion from the International Monetary Fund (the “IMF”). The funding that the IMF allocated to Ukraine was nearly four times larger than previous funding.

In 2016, the Ukrainian parliament passed the Law on Financial Restructuring (the Financial Restructuring Law) with the aim of creating a workable procedure for voluntarily restructuring debt obligations of Ukrainian borrowers. Technically, the Financial Restructuring Law became effective on 19 October 2016 but did not become operational because the required bodies envisaged in the Financial Restructuring Law were not in place.

In 2016, the Ukrainian parliament passed the Law on Financial Restructuring (the "Financial Restructuring Law") with the aim of creating a workable procedure for voluntarily restructuring debt obligations of Ukrainian borrowers. Technically, the Financial Restructuring Law became effective on 19 October 2016 but did not become operational because the required bodies envisaged in the Financial Restructuring Law were not in place.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.

On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability.  Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

Starting from 22 September 2012, the beneficial owners (aka controllers), substantial shareholders, and senior executive officers of Ukrainian commercial banks could face personal financial liability for the insolvency of banks during liquidation.