Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused significant changes in all areas of Ukrainian life, and litigation is no exception. Some legal provisions that had previously been fully operational lost their relevance with the onset of martial law, and vice versa – a significant number of issues began to require regulation by the state. The bankruptcy sector in Ukraine has also been affected by this issue, and the legislator has faced a number of issues that have arisen and need to be resolved within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
On 20 November 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Kireeva v Bedzhamov1. The court ruled that a Russian bankruptcy trustee has no claim over a bankrupt's property in Belgrave Square on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction to assist a foreign bankruptcy trustee in respect of immovable property located in England and Wales and that such property is unaffected by a foreign bankruptcy order. This decision reaffirms the immovables rule, which (subject to exceptions) protects immovable property such as land from foreign bankruptcy claims.
Introduction:
In an insolvency case involving both UK trustees and Russian Bank Creditors, the High Court issued guidance in regards to the potential breach of the 2019 Regulations surrounding sanctioned entities. The significant criminal and civil penalties potentially arising from this case make it a consequential and relevant case for UK arbitration and litigation lawyers to consider and understand. The final ruling deals with three key questions, as outlined in the court proceedings and expanded upon below.
Case Summary:
The High Court has considered whether trustees in bankruptcy are in breach of sanctions by allowing sanctioned Russian creditors to participate in UK insolvency proceedings.
Background
A Russian national, resident in London is subject to bankruptcy proceedings both in Russia and the UK. The bankrupt's creditors include four Russian banks in liquidation in Russia. The UK trustees in bankruptcy applied to the court for directions concerning three main questions:
It is essential that any UK individual or entity doing business, managing funds/other economic resources, or providing financing or professional services, keeps abreast of the current UK Russian sanctions regime, which is chiefly set out in the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the "Regulations"). The question of how the Regulations might apply to those with fiduciary duties – either as trustees or as directors – has been considered in two recent High Court cases.
A recent judgment in Kevin Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) the High Court considers the ‘ownership and control’ test in Bankruptcy, involving trustee powers and Russian Bank creditors.
In the recent High Court case of Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch) the Court was asked to answer that very question. David Garner and Owen John of our Commercial Disputes Team analyse the outcome below.
The case is of potential importance to UK businesses that conduct business outside of the UK.
Background
Hellard & others -v- OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & others [202] EWHC 1783 (Ch)
In dealing with whether trustees in bankruptcy might potentially be breaching UK sanctions legislation by allowing Russian creditors to participate in UK liquidation proceedings, the Court has considered recent authorities on whether a designated person can be said to directly or indirectly own or control an entity and has offered its own perspective on how the relevant wording in the legislation should be construed.
The background facts
Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.
In today’s realities, there often arise situations where debtors cannot fulfill their obligations for reasons one way or another related to the war. In addition, many enterprises are located in the temporarily occupied territory, and their owners do not have access to enterprises at all. In such a case, unfortunately, applying to the debtor with a claim is not always an effective option for protecting the creditor’s rights.