A pre-pack insolvency sale, which is an expedited liquidation proceeding that allow for the sale of all or part of a debtor’s business as a going concern to the best bidder shortly after the insolvency proceedings are opened, is not formally regulated in the Czech Republic.

The success of the recently introduced pre-pack-like rules in Hungary will help determined how the EU Directive on pre-pack sales will be implemented in this country.

Existing pre-pack-like rules

A “pre-pack” is a sale of all or part of a distressed company’s business or assets, negotiated before the company enters a formal insolvency process and executed by the appointed insolvency practitioner immediately after the insolvency process begins.

Emergency legislation has introduced important changes to Hungarian insolvency laws that allow the debtor’s business to keep trading during insolvency.

The new rules apply to those debtors who are considered strategically important to the Hungarian economy and to those whose insolvency is declared under other emergency rules.

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Appellant)v HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 34, striking out a significant claim (£116m) for breach of the Quincecare duty on the grounds that the claimant had suffered no loss.

Finance companies in Slovakia have felt endangered since 2019 when the Regional Court in Košice, acting as a second instance court confirmed a lower-court ruling that a financial party could be qualified as a related party in the eventual insolvency of the borrower as debtor.

The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SAV & Ors [2022] UKSC 25 has considered the nature of the so-called “creditor duty” and whether directors are required to take into account the interests of creditors when the company is “insolvent, bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.”

The Sequana decision also provides guidance about when the so-called “creditor duty” is engaged.

Background

The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)^[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.

The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are:

In the years since its independence, Ukraine's public and private sectors have faced one crisis after another. Notwithstanding different factors causing distress and incomparable peculiarities of each, restructuring has always remained one of the key mechanisms to make it through these difficult periods and get back on track. This includes the current crisis due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even in the present unprecedent environment, inaction is not a solution.

The recent decision of the High Court in Fistonich & Anor v Gibson & Ors [2022] NZHC 1422 considered whether receivers have a right to retain surplus funds to meet the cost of defending actual or forecast claims against the receivers.

Background

The case involves the sale of the business and land associated with Villa Maria winery, which was owned and operated through Villa Maria Estate Ltd and established 60 years ago by Sir George Fistonich. FFWL Ltd was the holding company of Villa Maria Estate Ltd.