On 7 December 2022, the EU Commission issued a proposal for a Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. In this article, we focus on insolvency avoidance rights from a Slovak law perspective and the impact of the Proposed Directive.
Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.
Large-scale privatisation in Ukraine took a hit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and was temporarily suspended in March 2020 as a quarantine measure. On 4 February 2021, the draft law No. 4543, which unblocks the ability to hold large-scale privatisation auctions, passed the first reading in the Ukrainian parliament.
On 17 October 2020, Ukraine enacted changes to the Code on Bankruptcy Procedures in order to protect businesses from the negative financial impact of COVID-19.
These changes provide businesses with additional time to recover from financial difficulties and protection from immediate legal action by creditors.
Upon passage of the amendments, creditors are prohibited from opening court proceedings for claims (matured after 12 March 2020) on the bankruptcy of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs.
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.
Introduction
Regarding M&A deal activity in emerging Europe, 2019 seems to have been a year of mixed sentiments. While both the overall value and volume of M&A deals in the region were down year-on-year, many M&A professionals claim anecdotally that it was a more buoyant year than the previous one. There are also predictions that investment activity in emerging Europe will increase even further in the next 12 months.
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.
Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).
On April 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane issued an opinion in the Waterford Wedgwood bankruptcy discussing at length one of the defenses available to preference defendants. The opinion turns upon the scope of “ordinary business terms,” the objective prong of the ordinary course of business defense.