In Short
The Situation: Insolvency officeholders increasingly find their investigations into a company's affairs frustrated by the comingling of records on a "group" server. Claims to privilege by other group entities (or even third parties) are then advanced as an obstacle to delivering company records to the officeholder, leading to expensive and logistically complex inspection and review processes that can be a burden on insolvent estates.
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across member states, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across Member States, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings, and
Re Bitumina Industries Ltd (in administration); Manning and another v Neste AB and another [2022].
This was an application by joint administrators for directions on the validity of a floating charge granted to a connected party at a 'relevant time' and seemingly invalid under s245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Background
Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).
Background
Decision
Key takeaways
The recent High Court decision in Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch) considers a scheme of arrangement where creditors are the target of Russian sanctions.
As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)1 proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective
OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background
The recent High Court decision in Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch) considers a scheme of arrangement where creditors are the target of Russian sanctions.
Background
The recent High Court decision in Re Petropavlovsk Plc [2022] EWHC 2097 (Ch) considers the interaction of UK insolvency procedure and the sanctions regime imposed on Russia.
Background
Administrators were appointed to the English holding company of Russian gold mining group, Petropavlovsk Plc, in July 2022. The holding company was not sanctioned but sanctions had affected its ability to refinance and to pay its debts as they fell due.