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. 

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.