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.

The number of company insolvencies in 2023 increased by over a third compared to 2022. The hospitality sector was particularly badly affected, with 53% more insolvencies than in 2022.

It appears that 2024 will be similarly challenging for companies in the hospitality sector. The Restaurant Association of Ireland (RAI) has set out the main challenges faced by the industry, including increased energy and labour costs, and the VAT rate reverting to 13.5% after having been reduced to 9% during the covid-19 pandemic.

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.

The High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.

The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.

On 30 November the Supreme Court delivered its written judgment dealing with the correct test for insolvency when considering the eligibility of a debtor for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (as amended).

Background

One of the qualifying criteria for a PIA is that the debtor must demonstrate that the debtor is “insolvent” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. That provision defines the term as meaning “that the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts in full as they fall due”.

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.

While the economy continues to look positive on paper, the underlying issues stemming from recent inflation and ever increasing overheads continue to affect businesses. Against this backdrop and a year on from the commencement of the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (SI 380/2022) (“the 2022 Regulations”) on 29 July 2022, it seems auspicious to remind directors of their duties to wind up a company in a timely manner or simply exercise good corporate governance and wind up companies that are no longer operational.

There are certain circumstances where liquidators can be held personally liable for costs orders made in proceedings taken by them.

Under the so called “Ballyrider Principles[1]”:

The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.

This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.

Background