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. 

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).