The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Insolvency related claims in relation to contracts subject to arbitration agreements continue to result in interesting challenges for the English court. In a recent decision the court had to decide whether an application for a summary judgment amounted to a step in the proceedings such that the applicant had waived its right to seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

Background

The English courts are known for being pro-arbitration. In the recent case of Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (Joint Stock Company) [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm) the English High Court has granted an anti-suit injunction in relation to claims being made in foreign bankruptcy proceedings, where the underlying agreements included arbitration provisions with a London seat.

The parties

On 18 January 2013 the Law of Ukraine on Introducing Changes to the Law on Restoring Debtor Solvency or Declaring Bankruptcy (the “New Bankruptcy Law”) became effective. The new Bankruptcy Law introduces a number of important changes to the bankruptcy procedure in Ukraine.

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law, among other changes, introduced amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring Debtor’s Solvency or Recognising it Bankrupt”, No. 2343-XII, dated 14 May 1992, as amended (the “Bankruptcy Law”).