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. 

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)