Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by a Russian trustee in bankruptcy has succeeded in striking out some parts of a defence to a claim that a share transfer was a sham or a transaction defrauding creditors. Other parts of the defence were not, however struck out.

Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by the former administrators of a company for an increase in their remuneration has been dismissed, despite the Court concluding that they had standing to bring the application itself.

Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: In November 2023, Mr Justice Miles sanctioned restructuring plans under section 901F of the Companies Act 2006 in respect of two companies within the Atento group. The plans had significant creditor support, did not involve any cross-claim cram down and achieved a demonstrably better outcome for creditors than the alternative, a group-wide liquidation.

Re Atento UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 3076 (Ch))

What are the practical implications of this case?

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

Can a debtor reinstate a defaulted loan under a Chapter 11 plan without paying default rate interest? This question was analyzed thoroughly in a recent Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court decision by Judge Philip Bentley.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case