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

The concept of “property of the estate” is important in bankruptcy because it determines what property can be used or distributed for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors. Defined by section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, “property of the estate” broadly encompasses the debtor’s interests in property, with certain additions and exceptions provided for in the Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 541. Difficult questions can arise in a contractual relationship between a debtor and a counterparty about whether an entity actually owns a particular asset or merely has some contractual right.

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

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.

We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.

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 

To encourage parties to transact with debtors in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code in corporate bankruptcies provides highest priority to “administrative expenses,” which include “the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b); id. § 507(a)(2).

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.