The Singapore High Court recently issued the first-ever super-priority order for debts arising from rescue financing under Section 211E(1)(b) of the amended insolvency laws in the Companies Act. The decision shows that the court is open to adopting relatively unique deal structures, and could be a benefit for more business-centric solutions.
In Part 1, we discussed how, despite widespread usage, termination in the event of bankruptcy clauses (“ipso facto” clauses) are generally unenforceable pursuant to the bankruptcy code. In this second part, we discuss why these clauses are still prevalent in commercial transactions and the exceptions that allow for enforceability in certain situations.
Why Do Ipso Facto Clauses Remain in Most Contracts?
If ipso facto clauses are generally not enforceable, then why do practically all commercial agreements continue to include them? There are several reasons.
Practically all commercial transactions, including licenses, services agreements, and supply agreements, contain a provision that triggers termination rights, without notice, to a party whenever the other party files for bankruptcy or experiences other insolvency-related event. In Part 1 of a two-part series, we discuss how the commonly used termination-on-insolvency clauses are generally unenforceable despite their widespread use.
Standard Ipso Facto Provision
In a major development in BVI insolvency law and practice, the BVI Commercial Court has held in Constellation Overseas Limited (BVIHC (Com) 2018/0206 – 2012), that provisional liquidation is available to facilitate a restructuring. The decision brings the British Virgin Islands broadly into line with Cayman and Bermuda, where restructuring provisional liquidations have been used to support several landmark cross-border restructurings in recent years.
In the recent decision of Alexander Pleshakov v Sky Stream Corporation and Others (Pleshakov), the BVI Court of Appeal considered the scope of its jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact made at first instance. This is the second time this year that the BVI Court of Appeal has addressed this issue.
In the recent BVI Court of Appeal decisions of Wembley and Sutton ‘disabled’ bearer shareholders were found to have a constitutional right not to be deprived of their property without compensation.
In Stanford v Akers the BVI Court of Appeal addressed standing in the context of applications under Section 273 of the Insolvency Act 2003, whereby an aggrieved person can ask the court to reverse or vary a liquidator's decision.
The liquidators of Chesterfield entered the company into a global settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank AG and Kaupthing, which included the admission of Kaupthing's claim in Chesterfield's liquidation.
Facts
First-instance decision
Court of Appeal decision
Comment
In Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited (2018) the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.
In separate but related proceedings, the BVI courts have permitted an applicant to inspect documentation relating to the liquidation of certain BVI companies.
In Robert Tchenguiz v Rawlinson & Hunter Trustee SA (the TFT Trust claim) Tchenguiz sought delivery of all proof of debt and claim documentation submitted by the defendant trustees to the joint liquidators in the liquidation of the companies.