Nature abhors a vacuum. Equipment finance abhors bankruptcy. Whether in securitized or large, single-asset financings, financiers structure transactions to be “bankruptcy remote.” This article will discuss a December 2021 bankruptcy court bench ruling that found certain protective provisions to be unenforceable and describe how those provisions might have been devised to survive the court’s scrutiny.

Facts and Background

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a streamlined process for recognition (a form of comity) of a foreign insolvency proceeding. However, courts are divided as to whether a foreign debtor must satisfy the general definition of “debtor” as that term is used in section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor seeking bankruptcy relief to reside or have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States.

Facts

Facts

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide its order dated 3 January 2022 in Jayanthi Ravi v Chemizol Additives Pvt Ltd ruled that the advance extended by a director to the company which is recorded as a loan in the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors would be classified as financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, the United States adopted the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, promulgated by the United Nations Commission on Internal Trade, under chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In so adopting, Congress intended chapter 15 “to be the exclusive door to ancillary assistance to foreign proceedings.” H.R.Rep. No. 109–31, at 110–11 (2005). Notwithstanding the express congressional intent, not all courts have required chapter 15 relief as a prerequisite to seeking relief in a pending civil litigation against a debtor.

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Others (judgment dated 22 October 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020) dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Chennai (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as barred by limitation.

Facts

Introduction:

Aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to condone a delay of 44 (forty-four) days in filing an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Appellant (i.e., National Spot Exchange Limited) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.