Details on the application of bankruptcy procedures during martial law
This year, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted two laws that introduced a number of innovations in the bankruptcy procedure. The amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (hereinafter – the Code) were primarily driven by the challenges of martial law in Ukraine and the need to harmonize Ukrainian legislation with EU standards.
Appeal to the court with an application for opening of bankruptcy proceedings is a complex and challenging task. Applicants in such cases must not only take into account the provisions of the law but also a significant number of conflicting positions set forth in the rulings of the Supreme Court. In particular, the existing approach to the category of "dispute over the right" in bankruptcy cases may become a barrier.
Avoidance action is an umbrella term for adversary proceedings that seek to unwind or avoid transactions that occurred before an insolvency filing. These actions are also referred to as “claw-back claims” because, by undoing a transaction, an asset or value is being clawed back into the insolvency estate.
According to Section 1445 of the Belgian Judicial Code (JC), any creditor can, on the basis of authentic or private documents, levy a (conservatory) garnishment on the sums or goods a third party owes to its debtor. After notification of the garnishment order, the third-party garnishee can no longer hand over these sums and/or goods to the debtor (Section 1451 JC).
Conservatory garnishments are typically used by creditors to put pressure on their debtor (eg notifying a garnishee order to a debtor’s bank, which then freezes the debtor’s accounts).
Key Takeaways
This overview is intended as an introductory summary to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), Canada’s principal statute for the reorganization of a large insolvency corporation. The CCAA applies in every province and territory of Canada, and even purports to have worldwide jurisdiction.
Introduction
Following on from the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana (discussed here), the recent UK High Court (UKHC) decision in Hunt v Singh [2023] EWHC 1784 (Ch), further considered the duty of directors to take into account the interests of creditors in certain circumstances.
The purpose of the Vifo Act (the Wet veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames (Vifo)) is to establish rules by which risks arising from certain acquisition activities can be controlled. The Bureau Toetsing Investeringen (BTI) has published three manuals explaining the following three criteria as mentioned in the Vifo Act: internal restructuring, acquisition of assets and active in sensitive technology.