In spring 2020, the Czech Republic, like the rest of the world, was severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The spread of COVID-19 outbreaks led to drastic shutdowns and reduced operations in almost all sectors of the economy. The loss of income and suspension of payments threatened to lead to the insolvency of thousands of businesses. So in spring 2020 the Czech Parliament approved temporary statutory measures to prevent the collapse of the business sector due to formal insolvency proceedings (the so-called Lex COVID).

Lockdown, shutdowns, drops in revenue and related negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic faced by companies even still operating and in a healthy state have prompted the Czech government to respond to this situation and implement statutory measures to mitigate such impacts (the so-called LEX COVID), also in the area of insolvency. Most of such measures are only temporary during the extraordinary measures taken by public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. LEX COVID, which brings the below-mentioned changes, has already been enacted and came into force on 24 April 2020.

FT ENE Canada Inc. (“FECI”) was in the nanofibre business, and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Finetex ENE Inc. (“Finetex”). As a result of insolvency difficulties separate and apart from the Canadian business, Finetex was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings in Korea (its home jurisdiction). There was animosity between Finetex and the director of FECI.

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("AP Inc.") and Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. ("APC Inc.") (collectively, the "Applicants") brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court under the CCAA concurrently with a United States Chapter 11 proceeding brought by affiliated entities. the Applicants. desired a managed liquidation process.

The Applicants entered into three stalking horse agreements for approximately $240 million. This compared to the secured claim of $275 million of the major secured creditors of the Applicants.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.