Trustees in Bankruptcy seeking to make distributions to a creditor who may be subject to UK sanctions should follow the guidance in the recent case of Thomas, Carter, Nilsson (as the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Nikolay Fetisov and Ilya Yurov) and PJSC National Bank Trust [2025] EWHC 75 (Ch).

Background

TLT were instructed to act on behalf of the joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of two Russian individuals, Nikolay Fetisov and Ilya Yurov.

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:

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.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS SOLVENCY II EIOPA INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION DIRECTIVE (IDD) PRIIPS CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING (AML) AND COUNTERING THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (CFT) DATA PROTECTION FINANCIAL SANCTIONS SUSTAINABILITY MISCELLANEOUS Insurance | Quarterly Legal and Regulatory Update | 1 April 2023 – 30 June 2023 © 2023 Dillon Eustace LLP. All rights reserved. 2 11723734v1 1.

Earlier this year, a group of bondholders advised by William Fry and owed over US$175m by GTLK Europe DAC (GTLK Europe) and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (GTLK Capital) (collectively the Companies) petitioned for the winding up of the Companies on a number of grounds, including that they had failed to discharge scheduled interest payments and the accelerated debt constituted by the bonds following the interest payment defaults.

Sova Capital Ltd (“Sova”) was an FCA authorised and regulated broker. Before it went into Special Administration, Sova provided investment brokerage services to institutional and corporate clients, mostly trading in the Russian market.

The war in Ukraine continues and the economic effect of sanctions against businesses that are connected to the Russian government are now being felt in earnest. Unsurprisingly, sanctions are becoming an increasingly hot topic for insolvency practitioners.

Recent months have seen the Courts hand down some important decisions, which provide helpful guidance on situations where the sanctions regime interfaces with insolvency processes. We have summarised three of the most significant in this article.

Summary

In the recent Cayman Islands case of Re In the Matter of E-House (China) Enterprise Holdings Limited[1], dealing with creditors' schemes of arrangement, Justice Segal gave a helpful decision that provided judicial clarity on, among other matters, the potential impact of the recent sanctions regimes in the US, UK and Europe on the scheme, and the international effectiveness of the scheme.