NFTs are a hot topic, but their treatment under insolvency law – which will receive more attention due to the recent crisis – has not yet been explored in much detail. This contribution aims to provide a brief overview of the most relevant issues.

NFTs as collateral

What does it mean to own something? When should the law acknowledge that somebody really owns something, even if they don't formally own it?

And when will courts recognize the economic reality that one person — say, a judgment debtor — in truth owns something, notwithstanding that person's painstaking efforts to keep formal legal title in the hands of others?

The law has long recognized doctrines to disregard the existence, or pierc the veil, of corporate entities to which a debtor has transferred assets.

Due to their clear structure and organisation, insolvency proceedings are ideally suited for digitalisation processes. It is therefore more than surprising that despite Austria's pioneering role in the digitalisation of the justice system with its Justice 3.0 project, there has been no significant development in the expansion of digitalisation in insolvency proceedings since the early 2000s. The situation is different in Croatia, however, where the new Insolvency Act came into force in 2015 and was used as an opportunity to open the path towards digitisation.

The Supreme Court confirmed parties' freedom to contractually modify any of the prerequisites for set-off under Bulgarian law, thus permitting various quasi-security arrangements in commercial and financial contracts that creditors may avail themselves of.

Prerequisites for statutory set-off in Bulgaria

As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

The Hungarian government issued a decree that amends certain provisions of the bank's liquidation proceedings. The decree entered into force on 15 April 2022 and affects the solvent liquidation of Sberbank Hungary, a subsidiary of Sberbank Europe AG, the Hungarian member of the Russian Sberbank group.

What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

So far, the Bulgarian economy has encountered various COVID-19-related effects, but a surge in insolvencies is not yet one of them. Although the Bulgarian state was slow in implementing measures to help companies affected by the pandemic – which measures turned out to be insufficient – there has been no visible increase in bankruptcy proceedings since 2020.

There has been a longstanding need in Hungary for a legal instrument to rescue distressed companies. The only legal solution so far for such companies was the unpopular and inflexible bankruptcy procedure, which is also risky for the debtor, as failure will automatically turn into a liquidation proceeding and the company will cease to exist. Bankruptcy, with its formalistic procedures and limited involvement of creditors in the decision-making, has done more harm than good. It also usually stigmatised the debtor.