On 18 January 2013 the Law of Ukraine on Introducing Changes to the Law on Restoring Debtor Solvency or Declaring Bankruptcy (the “New Bankruptcy Law”) became effective. The new Bankruptcy Law introduces a number of important changes to the bankruptcy procedure in Ukraine.

The Government Ordinance no. 10/2004 on the bankruptcy of credit institutions has been recently amended by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 12/2012, published in the Official Journal no. 593 dated 20 August 2012.

The amendment refers to the order of distribution of the bankruptcy proceeds and repeals the former article regarding subordinated claims, insofar as such claims referred to loans made by shareholders holding more than 10% of the share capital of the bankrupt credit institution.  

In the last week of January, the Czech Government passed an amendment to the Insolvency Act, which was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The aim of the amendment is to respond to the growing widespread practice of the filing of unjustified insolvency petitions by creditors. The amendment intends to allow courts to reject such petitions.

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law, among other changes, introduced amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring Debtor’s Solvency or Recognising it Bankrupt”, No. 2343-XII, dated 14 May 1992, as amended (the “Bankruptcy Law”).

A number of changes have been made to insolvency procedure to remove various discrepancies and controversial practices:

On 16 March 2022, the Slovak Parliament approved the anticipated new act on solving threatened bankruptcy (the Act) and also amended related legislative documents. It implements the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring, whose implementation was postponed by one year to 17 July 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act aims to reform insolvency in Slovakia and make preventive mechanisms effective enough to reduce the number of bankruptcies.

To whom does the Act apply?

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

Ashfords successfully acted for the Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Vincent Mascarenhas (deceased) in their application to discharge Freezing Orders, an Interim Charging Order and an Interim Third Party Debt Order obtained by creditors of the late Bankrupt in 2014. The Joint Trustees were not a party to the original proceedings but had standing to make the applications.

The Facts

Following a statutory demand for unpaid council tax in the sum of £8,067, a bankruptcy petition was presented against Ms Harriet Lock. The council provided Ms Lock with evidence of the council tax liability orders confirming the debt. Ms Lock provided evidence in response, which explained that she was living in social housing and was financially dependent on her daughter. At a first hearing, the court adjourned and ordered that Ms Lock provide a skeleton argument to explain why a bankruptcy order should not be made.

The Facts

This case involves an application brought by the trustee in the bankruptcy of Harlequin Property SVG Ltd (the "Company"), property developers incorporated under the laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines ("SVG"). The Company's main asset was a property in SVG, the construction of which was funded by more than 1,900 deposits from individual investors. However, only 116 units were completed.