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.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling,[1] resolving a circuit split on the issue of whether a debtor’s statement about a single asset constitutes “a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Alerts and Updates

The Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because it will encourage creditors to rely on written, rather than oral, statements of debtors as to both their assets and overall financial status, which are better evidence in a nondischargeability case.

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.

Recently, in a split (2-1) decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 111 F. Supp.3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Marblegate II”). The Second Circuit held in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., No. 15-2124, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 782 (2d Cir. Jan.

In its recent decision in Tempnology LLC, n/k/a Old Cold, LLC v. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (In re Tempnology LLC), No. 15-065 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“the BAP”) rejected the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir.

In In re Zair, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49032 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York became the latest to take sides on the emerging issue of “forced vesting” through a chapter 13 plan. After analyzing Bankruptcy Code §§ 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5), the court concluded that a chapter 13 debtor could not, through a chapter 13 plan, force a mortgagee to take title to the mortgage collateral.

Background