In recent years, there has been an increased interest in obtaining third-party funding to commence legal proceedings. The insolvency sector in particular has seen an increase in applications to court for approval of third-party funding agreements. In this article, we discuss how an insolvent entity may seek approval from the court for third-party funding to pursue legitimate claims.

Third-party funding an important resource for insolvent companies

The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) will have a considerable impact on the enforcement of certain contracts and commercial disputes in Singapore for the next 6 to 12 months. The Act was passed by the Singapore Parliament, and commenced on the same day, 7 April 2020.

The key measures of the Act are:

The Act is meant to give temporary relief to financially distressed individuals, firms and businesses who are facing challenges imposed by COVID-19 but who are otherwise viable and profitable.

It is unsurprising that many of the Act’s sections expressly refer to the relevant provisions of the personal and corporate insolvency legislation applicable in Singapore. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Act refers expressly to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (“IRDA”). This warrants some explanation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain across the whole of the economy and raises the issue of how company directors should balance their obligations to shareholders and creditors while ensuring that they protect themselves from any personal liability.

Companies and their directors in the following sectors of the economy face difficult decisions:

The Ministry of Law in Singapore has announced that it will introduce a bill to the Parliament next week to offer temporary relief to businesses and individuals who are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations because of the COVID- 19 pandemic.

The proposed bill includes:

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”

In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).

On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).