The Russian government has introduced a bankruptcy moratorium with effect from 1 April to 1 October 2022 in respect of all Russian legal entities and individuals (“Persons“) except for certain residential real estate developers.

The moratorium is intended to protect Russian debtors against creditors’ claims and provide support for players on the Russian market given the challenging environment they operate in.

The key consequences of the introduction of the moratorium regime are as follows:

Introduction

In a hearing yesterday, 6 April 2022, the High Court considered an application of the directors of VTB Capital PLC (VTB UK) for the appointment of Teneo Financial Advisory Limited as administrators.

In what Mr Justice Fancourt described as “an unusual case in all sorts of ways”, the English High Court was faced with a number of questions relating to how the UK’s insolvency regime can interact with the sanctions packages introduced in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

From a civil litigation and insolvency perspective, we look at the key impacts of the Hong Kong Courts’ recent General Adjournment of Proceedings (GAP) from 7 March 2022 to 11 April 2022 and related governmental closures.

Key Takeaways

1. The recent implementation of GAP has resulted in a de facto stay of new actions and proceedings, and adjournment of existing actions, including bankruptcy and winding-up petitions.

Despite a valuation fight, the Senior Lenders primed by Super Senior Debt in RP1 have had their debt written off in full in RP2 without even being given the opportunity to vote on the latter restructuring plan.

The case emphasizes that it is not enough for junior creditors to send letters to the court objecting to the RP and then expect the court to argue their case for them. In the words of Lord Justice Snowden, “they must stop shouting from the spectators’ seats and step up to the plate”.

An analysis of the UK’s corporate rescue tools: The Company Voluntary Arrangement, the Scheme of Arrangement and the Restructuring Plan.

When it comes to options for the rescue of a distressed UK corporate, there had for a very long time been a growing mood of regret amongst practitioners that there was no comprehensive restructuring tool. That all changed with the introduction of the Restructuring Plan (RP).

But, as with all things new, the evitable question is: what happens to the old?

In brief

The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.

In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.¹

In brief

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

In brief

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

The High Court, in its recent judgment In the matter of ipagoo LLP (in administration) [2021] EWHC 2163 (Ch) (Ipagoo), has determined that no statutory trust exists over safeguarded funds held under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMRs). This can be contrasted with the decision In Re Supercapital [2020] EWHC 1685 (Ch) (Supercapital) which found that the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs) create a statutory trust over safeguarded funds.