December 2018 - Liability of Controllers and Insolvency Risks in Russia: The Case of Dalnyaya Step LLC and HSBC
The insolvency case of Dalnyaya Step LLC (Dalnyaya Step, debtor) is well known both in Russia and abroad, particularly in the United Kingdom. It is unique for several reasons. First of all, the case spans across a decade, having started in 2006, closed in 2007 and reopened in 2015 (still pending). Secondly, the Russian insolvency proceedings were first recognized in the UK in 2016, only to have the recognition order set aside ab initio in 2017 on public policy grounds. Thirdly, in August 2018, the Russian Supreme Court refused to approve the settlement agreement reached between the liquidator of Dalnyaya Step and HSBC Bank LLC (HSBC Bank), a Russian entity affiliated with HSBC Bank PLC, and found the latter liable for the debtor’s insolvency with liability exceeding EUR 16 million. This Inside Story by
Ilya Kokorin (of Counsel, Buzko and Partners, Russia; Lecturer, Leiden University) will analyse this recent decision of the Russian Supreme Court and describe the potential risks it entails for members of corporate groups and banks serving their interests in Russia.
Read the full story here.
November 2018 - Latvia: Examinership in Cyprus: A missed opportunity
As part of the new insolvency framework enacted in Cyprus in May 2015 following the near collapse of the economy, the concept of Examinership was incorporated into the Cyprus Companies Law Cap 113, a procedure largely based on Irish legislation. Examinership is a debt restructuring and corporate rescue mechanism for companies which are insolvent or likely to become insolvent but have reasonable prospects of success as a going concern. Following the filing of the petition together with an Independent Expert’s Report, the company gains the protection of the court for 4 months (extendable to 6 months). The purpose of the stay is to give a company a period of protection from its creditors, in order to facilitate its survival as a going concern and to save viable businesses and jobs.
Andri Antoniou, director at CRI Group, a firm specialising in all aspects of corporate recovery reconstruction and renewal in Cyprus. Read the full story here.
October 2018 - Latvia: The Newest and Best Insolvency Law in Europe?
At the INSOL Europe event in Riga in May 2018, the Latvian Justice Minister boasted of the newly overhauled Latvian Insolvency Law, which supposedly now forms “the best regulation in Europe”. That prompts the question whether the new Latvian regulation is indeed an exemplary feast or whether the statement was an exercise in promoting an appreciation of the Government’s (and the Minister’s own) work. It is true that, over the past few years, the Latvian government has been trying hard to bring about a clean-up of the realm of insolvency and to deliver a decisive blow to wide-spread abuse and unlawfulness associated with insolvency proceedings in Latvia. This concern reflects in part the alarm bells sounded by the European Commission, the World Bank and other international institutions about the state of the insolvency environment in Latvia. Their view has been that rapid action is desperately needed to improve the business climate in Latvia. Even the Foreign Investors’ Council, a Latvian organisation, declared prominently in 2016 that some Latvian insolvency administrations have too close a connection to the world of organised crime.
Indulis Balmaks, Lawyer with Rödl & Partner in Riga, examines the evidence here.
September 2018 - Positive Outcome for the Agrokor Case agreed after Legal and Political Moves
On 4 July 2018, a temporary creditors’ council adopted the settlement agreement, marking the end of the first phase of the extraordinary administration procedure involving the Croatian Agrokor Group. A majority of creditors with claims amounting to 80.2% of the total debt agreed to the proposal submitted by the extraordinary commissioner. The Commercial Court in Zagreb subsequently confirmed the creditors’ settlement agreement in its decision dated 6 July 2018. Since the extraordinary administration procedure started over the Agrokor Group in April 2017, this case has become the most significant economic and political issue in Croatia and the West Balkans region. With over 60,000 employees and assets estimated as worth some EUR 7.1 billion, the group was considered “too big to fail”. That is why the Croatian Parliament adopted a special Law on “a procedure of extraordinary administration in companies of systemic importance” on 6 April 2017 in order to save the company, the text immediately being dubbed the Lex Agrokor. Its purpose was chiefly to avoid ordinary bankruptcy proceedings being opened over companies in the Agrokor group.
Djuro M. Djuric and Vladimir M. Jovanovic outline the case here.
July 2018 - Recognition under the Model Law in the UK
This case is about an Azeri (Azerbaijan) law restructuring proceeding and restructuring plan (which under Azeri law binds all creditors), and the position in relation thereto of two creditors under instruments governed by English law. The Azeri proceedings were recognised in England and Wales under the UNCITRAL Model Law, and such recognition carried with it a moratorium. The dispute before the English court was whether the moratorium should be lifted in favour of the two creditors in light of the rule in Antony Gibbs & Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) LR 25 QBD 399 or instead continued on a (near) permanent basis to give effect to the Azeri law restructuring plan. On 18 January 2018, the English Court decided not to impose a stay on any actions that the two aforesaid creditors might take. It follows that the English Court rejected a continuation of the moratorium. The practical effect of the English Court’s decision is to effectively deprive the Azeri law restructuring plan of any effect in England and Wales as regards the two creditors whose debts arose under English law instruments.
Stefan Ramel, Barrister, Guildhall Chambers, Bristol reports on the case here.
June 2018 - The Development of Insolvency Law in Kosovo
Following the end of the Kosovo war in 1999, the country’s governing structures including its banking system had collapsed. The rush to establish legal frameworks and governing mechanisms caused gaps in various areas. One of those areas was insolvency proceedings. Four years after the war ended, in 2003, the provisional Self-Government of Kosovo adopted the UNMIK Regulation No. 2003/7 on Liquidation and Reorganization of Legal Persons in Bankruptcy. In 2016, this Regulation was replaced by the Law on Bankruptcy, which was adopted by the Kosovo Parliament. This law has been harmonized with EU Regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (recast). The new Law on Bankruptcy includes many features left out by the previous regulation. The adoption of this law was positively evaluated, as a result of which Kosovo improved its position in the World Bank Doing Business Report, jumping from 163rd to 43rd place. In addition, in March this year, the Parliament of Kosovo adopted the new Law on Business Organizations, which regulates bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings for limited liability companies, joint stock companies, the enforcement of creditor claims on a limited liability company subject to voluntary dissolution as well as protection of creditors upon a cross-border merger. Yet, the enforcement of the new laws remains questionable, leaving interested parties confronting unwritten practices in the context of different insolvency procedures.
Drini Grazhdani, Legal Specialist, USAID/Millennium DPI Partners, Justice System Strengthening Program in Kosovo; Lecturer, European College Juridica writes this month's Inside Story. Download the full story here.
May 2018 - When Bitcoin meets Insolvency: Is Bitcoin Property? Dutch and Russian Responses
The capital structures of companies in the 21st century will be starkly different from those of the last century. Once driven by hard assets, such as real estate, natural resources and machinery, modern businesses have become highly dependent and valued mostly on the basis of intangible assets – contracts, intellectual property and goodwill. Recent years have seen a rapid development of new technologies allowing for the creation of novel types of intangible assets with their own value and characteristics. There is hardly anyone these days who has not heard about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies in general. As the world’s first decentralised digital currency, Bitcoin has become possible thanks to the blockchain technology – based on publicly distributed, shared and immutable digital ledgers. Anonymity and irreversibility of transactions on blockchain have made it attractive for users.
A lot does, however, depend on public perception (i.e. trust) and government reaction. The latter so far has been rather mixed. Among rising fears of the technology being used for illicit activities (money laundering, extortion, financing of terrorism, etc.) and weak investor protection, state authorities struggle to find a balanced solution. But while regulatory and legislative bodies take their time to establish legal frameworks for the operation of the crypto market, courts have no such time and are faced with the need to expeditiously resolve real disputes. This is particularly so in the context of insolvency cases, in which several questions may arise. For instance, how to treat various types of digital assets belonging to the debtor, how to trace them in cases where the debtor refuses to disclose their existence, transfers them to third parties or simply refuses to provide access to the insolvency practitioner or court? And lastly, how to dispose of them and at what exchange rate, if any?
This Inside Story by Ilya Kokorin (of Counsel, Buzko and Partners, Russia; Lecturer, Leiden University) follows two recent cases, one from Russia and the other from the Netherlands, where the courts considered whether Bitcoin constituted ‘property’ and could provide a valid legal ground to initiate insolvency proceedings. Download the full story here.
April 2018 - Implementing the Recast EIR: Potential Problems in the Hungarian Legislation
Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings has been replaced by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) on 26 June 2017 (“Recast EIR”). The Recast EIR has not revolutionised European insolvency law. Instead, it codified the case law produced by European courts in the last more than one decade and addressed some further issues that emerged since the entry into force of the 2000 EIR. Notwithstanding, the Recast EIR undoubtedly made it necessary to adjust the domestic insolvency regimes on some points. The Hungarian Parliament adopted some amendments (“Amendments”) to the Hungarian Insolvency Act (“HIA”) in October 2017. The purpose of the new legislation is to harmonise the domestic insolvency framework with the new provisions of the Recast EIR. While, admittedly, the legislative proposal went through significant improvements before adoption, there are still several legislative solutions that should be criticised.
In this piece, some of those issues are pointed out by Zoltán Fabók, Counsel, DLA Piper Budapest; Fellow, INSOL Global Insolvency Practice Course. Download the full story here.
March 2018 - Italian Insolvency Reforms: Comments on the Feb. 2018 draft Legislative Decree
During the past three decades, the gradual and fast tendency of the markets to “globalization” have determined the recent tendency of States to adopt legal provisions dedicated to the prevention of financial crises and to avoid insolvencies of market operators. In fact, the adoption of such measures is today one of the essential elements in the determination of international ratings for the evaluation of the integrity of internal market. “Predictability” and “risk management” have gradually become common words, essential for the prevention of crisis, opening also the possibility for entrepreneurs to have a second chance and remerge in the markets after a “dark night” period. In this particular context, therefore, an efficient system for the resolution of issues related to insolvency becomes an essential task for a State in order to guarantee the right balance to the internal market of a country, also with the scope of attracting foreign interested investors and implement the economy. To this extent, various States, including Italy, have recently started to move towards reform projects of insolvency law, in order to facilitate and speed up, efficiently, the approach to insolvency issues.
Carlo Ghia, Partner, Studio Ghia Legale, comments on the reforms. Download the full story here.
February 2018 - A Second-Chance for Consumers in Cyprus: Reorganisations go Virtual
In the last few decades the promotion of a corporate rescue culture has been a key objective for many EU jurisdictions, but particularly since the 2008 financial crisis, corporate rescue has been at the top of the agenda. Although the significance of corporate rescue is not to be underestimated, it can be argued that consumer bankruptcy carries no less significance. The adverse impact of consumer bankruptcy has been intensely experienced at very large scales in countries like Greece and Cyprus. However, as opposed to the sporadic attempts that were made in the shadow of the financial crisis in Greece, Cyprus appears to have approached both corporate and consumer reorganisation in a more methodical manner and has noticeably placed greater emphasis on laying the foundations of a strong second-chance culture. This Inside Story by
Alexandra Kastrinou, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Law School (UK) looks at the steps taken in Cyprus to improve the position of consumer debtors and offers a brief overview of the recently introduced legislative framework, which is now bedding into use following the introduction of an Interactive Reorganisation Tool and accompanying Guide in January 2018.
Download the full story here.
January 2018 - Cross-Border Assistance in Guernsey: Recent 2017 Cases
In a cross-border insolvency, there are likely to be international elements that present themselves during the course of local proceedings in circumstances where an foreign office-holder wishes to seek recognition and exercise their powers in another jurisdiction. There are several English common-law jurisdictions that are party to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (UK SI 2006/1030). These regulations give effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (“Model Law”) and prescribe how the powers of foreign office-holders are recognised. There is also the Recast European Insolvency Regulation (2015/848) that governs cross border insolvency. However, the Channel Islands, and Guernsey in particular, are not parties to either of these instruments. Alex Horsbrugh-Porter and Michael Rogers explain the relevant provisions in Guernsey law.
Download the full story here.