What do Ukraine, Sri Lanka, and Ghana have in common? They’ve all guaranteed bonds that once traded at a sizeable discount to their sovereign counterparts.

We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).

The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.

KEY POINTS:

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?

There are distinct advantages to investors sitting on the boards of their portfolio companies, not least their ability to look after their investment and work toward maximising their return. The human capital provided by investor directors can be invaluable in driving efficiencies and creating growth opportunities. The interests of investors, investor directors, and the company will generally be aligned in seeking the success of the business.

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.

On 10 March 2022, the UK High Court held the adjourned sanction hearing regarding Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile”) second proposed restructuring plan. Despite Smile Telecoms’ first restructuring plan being sanctioned by the UK High Court back in March 2021, the African telecommunications company still faced liquidity shortages. This prompted the company to propose a second restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”). The second restructuring plan would see the Smile Telecoms’ group senior secured lender, 966 CO S.a. r.l.

MR DOLLAR BILL LTD V PERSONS UNKNOWN AND OTHERS [2021] EWHC 2718 (Ch)

Federal Decree Law No (16) of 2021 (Factoring Law) was issued on 29 August 2021 and came into effect on 7 December 2021. The Factoring Law, whilst laying a legislative framework for a rapidly expanding trade finance industry in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also provided much needed clarity from, and an update to, Federal Law No (4) of 2020 (Moveables Law) and Federal Law No (1) 1987 (Civil Code).

New entrants to the trade finance market

Salem Mohammed Ballama Altamimi & ors v Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, ICICI Bank UK Plc and others [2021] DIFC CFI 085 [1]

This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.

The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.