This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.
Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period April - June 2021.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
In Walchuk v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the stay of all proceedings against a bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act applies to a contempt motion brought by a judgment creditor where the contempt arises after the bankruptcy.
In Walchuk Estate v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the lower court’s adjournment of a contempt motion was a final order. The decision also provides guidance, yet again, on the proper test for distinguishing between final and interlocutory orders.
Background
On Friday 21 October 2011, the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York handed down an important decision, confirming that foreign (groups of) companies can use Chapter 11 without any significant threshold as to their nexus with the United States. This may be good news for corporates that seek to use Chapter 11 for restructuring their business or capital structure.
It is now clear that even very limited property in the U.S. is sufficient to qualify for a reorganisation through Chapter 11.
Mercedes Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic (Ont. SCJ)
February 26, 2009: Finding of contempt of Court: [2009] O.J. No. 783
March 3, 2009: Sentencing hearing and order of five days in jail [2009] O.J. No. 888
Mr. Kovacevic (the “Debtor”) entered into a conditional sale contract to finance a Mercedes vehicle with
Mercedes Benz Financial. After seven of forty-eight payments, he defaulted in payment. He refused to pay or return the vehicle.
- Introduction
Most reading this will know that freezing orders are granted to prohibit defendants from disposing of or dissipating their assets in a way that will prevent the claimant from enforcing any judgment he obtains. If the defendant disobeys, he is at risk of contempt. But the primary purpose of contempt is to punish the defendant. Many claimants will simply be concerned to ensure that the defendant’s money is frozen.
In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.
Implementation of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 continues apace. 22 April 2009 saw the most recent instalment with the passing of Commencement Order NO.4 including Parts 5 and 10 of the Act: namely the parts relating to inhibition, arrestments in execution and actions of furthcoming.
Part 5 - Inhibition