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.

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

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. 

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.