It is axiomatic – at least as a prima facie proposition – that insolvency is only concerned about assets which belong to the insolvent when the insolvency commences (or, as it is often said when a concursus creditorum is established on the commencement of insolvency). South African insolvency law respects property rights which have accrued under our law prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings, including security interests such as mortgages, liens and cessions.

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) issued a Business Rescue Proceedings Report (Business Rescue Report) on business rescue proceedings from its inception on 1 May 2011 to 31 December 2021 – a “ten-year” scorecard. It takes stock of how business rescue has developed over that period and whether South Africa has matured as a late entrant into the playing field of corporate restructuring regimes. The story must be told over the “ten-year” period and dissected into two parts: pre- and post-pandemic.

Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 affords a financially distressed company a fighting chance to restructure its financial obligations and avoid the destruction of value through liquidation for the duration of its formal chapter 6 business rescue proceedings. Such a moratorium is not available if a company seeks to conclude a restructure through a compromise or arrangement with all its creditors or members of any class of creditors.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

Can a foreign business go into business rescue in South Africa?

South Africa’s new corporate restructuring regime – known to many as business rescue – came into operation in May 2011. In it, the provision in chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 provide a business in financial distress with an opportunity to preserve its goodwill. Under the formal chapter 6 business rescue process, breathing space through a moratorium is provided to enable the business to address any temporary liquidity issues, repayment obligations and capital raising.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background