Background

1 NEWSFLASH 4 April 2017 Introduction By way of background, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted with the primary objective to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporates, firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The genesis of the Code is rooted in the long-term vision of providing an effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy, which would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship.

In a recent order admitting a petition for insolvency resolution filed by Essar Projects India Limited (Operational Creditor) against MCL Global Steel Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) (NCLT) has clarified what constitutes a ‘disputed debt’ within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Facts of the case

Background

The Board constituted under the chairmanship of Mr MS Sahoo has recently rejected an application for registration as an insolvency professional (IP) under regulation 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations) through its first regulatory order.

Factual Matrix

“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).

In the case of BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Intertrans Earl SA (Pty) Ltd & Others (34716/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 310 (25 November 2016), the court had to consider two important issues: firstly, whether suspension of a contract by the business rescue practitioner in terms of s136(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Companies Act, No 1971 of 2008 (Act) suspends not only the obligations of the business rescue practitioner to perform in terms of the contract entered into between the parties, but whether it also suspends the obligations of the other contracting parties.

The creditors of a company in financial distress are often faced with various options. A debtor company can either be liquidated, placed in business rescue or enter into a compromise with its creditors without first being placed in liquidation. Although an offer of compromise, at first glance, may seem very attractive to creditors, there may be many pitfalls of which creditors must be aware.

Creditors face daily uphill battles when trying to collect money from debtors. Not only has the National Credit Act, No 34 of 2005 made it more onerous on creditors to recover debts due to them, but creditors must constantly be aware of the threat of a claim prescribing.

The Prescription Act, No 68 of 1969 (Act) provides that a debt is extinguished by prescription after the period set out in the Act.

Background

In Freshvest Investments (Pty) Ltd v Marabeng (Pty) Ltd (1030/2015) [2016] ZASCA 168, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was afforded the opportunity to pronounce on the so called Badenhorst rule which assumes its name from Badenhorst v Northern Construction Enterprises (Pty) Ltd 1956 (2) SA 346 (T).