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.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

The opening of safeguard or reorganisation proceedings does not automatically terminate a current agreement notwithstanding any contractual clause providing for termination.

Termination by a lessor

The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.

Fixed or floating?

Background

The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.

Once a creditor, always a creditor?

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.

Background

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.

Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

In a recent judgment, the Polish Supreme Court resolved an important question concerning the rights of a creditor to bring legal proceedings after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by a debtor.

Legal issue

The Supreme Court considered whether the declaration of a debtor's bankruptcy results in the loss of a creditor's standing to bring a lawsuit to declare a debtor’s attempt to dissipate its assets ineffective (actio pauliana).

What is actio pauliana?

The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.

Background