The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.

Landlord and tenant relationships are likely to come under strain as tenants experience financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For tenant companies such financial difficulties may result in a tenant being placed in examinership, or ultimately in the appointment of a liquidator or receiver. An insolvency event generally constitutes an event of default in a commercial lease.

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

A company incorporated under the Companies Act has its own legal personality and can institute legal proceedings in its own name. However, difficulties can arise where proceedings are commenced on behalf of a company where this has not been properly authorised by the company. In addition, where a company is a party to proceedings, in the absence of certain limited exceptions, it must retain legal representation to act on its behalf.

Authority to Institute Proceedings

Directors of the Company

McCann FitzGerald acted for the Asia Pulp and Paper Group (“APP Group”) in the recent successful restructuring of over US$1 billion of debt.

In a first for the Irish restructuring market, the debt was restructured through a scheme of arrangement under section 676 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2014 (“Part 11 Scheme of Arrangement”). On 23 October 2019, the US Bankruptcy Court granted recognition of the scheme under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

Following the approach of the courts of England and Wales, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that it can no longer be said that the rules of equity are carved in stone, or are express immutable principles, unless changed by the Oireachtas.

In ACC Loan Management v Rickard, the defendant defaulted on a loan. ACC obtained judgment against him and then successfully applied to have a receiver appointed by way of equitable execution over payments which the defendant was due to receive from the Department of Agriculture under an EU farm payments scheme.

A recent judgment by the UK High Court highlights the potential risks for directors in making a solvency statement about a company without having made a full inquiry into its affairs. This briefing looks at issues a director should consider before making the equivalent Irish-law declaration of solvency as part of the summary approval procedure.

The Case

Credit servicing firms, the Bankers' Book Evidence Acts 1879-1959 (“BBEA”), and the evidential requirements of an application for summary judgment were recently considered by the High Court in Promomtoria (Aran) Ltd v Burns. 1 The decision issued by Noonan J shows a practical use of Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts in managing evidential requirements, where the BBEA cannot be utilised.

Background

The Irish Government is planning to take measures in the areas of settlement finality, insurance, and insurance distribution in the event of a 'no-deal Brexit'. The relevant measures are set out in Parts 7 and 8 of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2019 (the “Withdrawal Bill”), which was published on 22 February 2019. These measures are in addition to a number of measures already taken at EU level.

Settlement Finality