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.

En octobre 2020, la Commission européenne a approuvé une mesure de recapitalisation d'environ 833 millions EUR, notifiée par la Suède et le Danemark, en faveur de SAS. Cette mesure était fondée sur l’Encadrement temporaire relatif aux aides d'État dans le contexte de la crise du COVID-19.

In October 2020, the European Commission approved a recapitalisation measure of approximately €833 million, notified by Sweden and Denmark, in favour of SAS. This measure was adopted under the State aid COVID-19 Temporary framework.

Ryanair challenged the Commission decision and secured its annulment by the General Court of the EU in May 2023 (Case T-238/21). In late 2022, SAS entered a collective insolvency proceeding. Following the annulment of the 2020 decision, the Commission approved again in November 2023 the recapitalisation measure.  

On 8 May 2024, the General Court of the EU annulled the Commission decision of 26 July 2021 approving restructuring aid to German airline Condor following an annulment action lodged by Ryanair. The Commission should have opened a formal procedure because of doubts about the compatibility of the aid. The General Court rejected Ryanair’s argument relating to the impact of the aid on its competitive position.

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.

The principles outlined in the European Commission's proposal for a Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law is not expected to lead to extensive reform of Belgian rules since Belgian law already provides a clear set of rules that give creditors and trustees instruments to avoid contestable acts in the context of bankruptcy, which, in some cases, go further than the principles set out in this Proposal.

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.

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.

Belgium is finally about to transpose Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks and regulated pre-pack proceedings are now accessible.

European and Belgian legislative developments

Insolvency law has experienced significant activity in recent years, both at European level and at Belgian level, in favour of a paradigm shift of restructuring through pre-pack proceedings instead of liquidation.

In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.