Written by Ashmi Mohan at Clasis Law

In its recent judgment of Kirusa Software Private Ltd. vs. Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 6 of 2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal of India (“Appellate Tribunal”) has adjudicated upon the issue as to what does “dispute” and “existence of dispute” mean for the purpose of determination of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

Since 1956, legislation has required suretyship agreements to be embodied in a written document. A suretyship agreement involves three parties; simplistically if A does not pay B, then C will. C will step into the shoes of A and perform A’s obligations for them.

The introduction of business rescue proceedings by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) created uncertainty on various levels, in particular the extent and nature of certain rights previously enjoyed by creditors.

Our courts are making progress in finding a path through the muddy waters in this regard and every day a judgment is delivered that sheds some light on previous uncertain propositions.

Globalisation has been described as an evolving set of consequences – some good, some bad and some unintended. In this regard, when companies go global, insolvency is perhaps the furthest thing from their minds. Yet, while business failure may be unintended, when a global company becomes insolvent or attempts debt restructuring, its insolvency representative e.g. liquidator or manager, will often have to deal with assets and creditors across the globe.

In the case of First Rand Bank Limited v KJ Foods CC (in business rescue) (734/2015) [2015] ZA SCA 50 (26 April 2017), the main issue that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine was whether the High Court of Pretoria (Court a quo) was correct in setting aside a vote by the appellant, FirstRand Bank Limited (FNB), against the adoption of a business rescue plan (plan) on the basis that it was reasonable and just to do so in terms of s153(7) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act).

There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.

Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrechts

Das Gesetz zur Reform des Insolvenzanfechtungsrechts ist am 05.04.2017 in Kraft getreten. Im Fokus steht mit § 133 InsO die sogenannte Voranfechtung, die bislang in ihrer Ausprägung durch die Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs in der Kritik stand. Im Ergebnis musste ein Gläubiger so bereits dann mit einer Insolvenzanfechtung durch den Insolvenzverwalter rechnen, wenn er seinem Schuldner eine Ratenzahlung gewährte.

BUSINESS RESCUE, RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY: THE COURT’S POWER TO SET ASIDE THE DISSENTING VOTE OF A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS RESCUE PROCEEDINGS If satisfied that it is reasonable and just to do so, a court may set aside a dissenting vote on a business rescue plan. In Collard v Jatara Connect (Pty) Ltd & Others [2017] ZAWCHC 45, the court did exactly that. Explaining his decision, Judge Dlodlo stated that there should be no reason to prefer a winding up application over a business rescue plan that will pay the employees of the company in full and result in a better return for creditors.

Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy

“Whenever any person (hereinafter called the insurer) is obliged to indemnify another person (hereinafter called the insured) in respect of any liability incurred by the insured towards a third party, the latter shall, on the sequestration of the estate of the insured, be entitled to recover from the insurer the amount of the insured’s liability towards the third party but not exceeding the maximum amount for which the insurer has bound himself to indemnify the insured” – s156 of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 as amended (Act).