This article examines the emerging trend of U.S.-based companies with Canadian ties initiating primary insolvency proceedings in Canada and seeking recognition in the United States under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As described herein, this two-step strategy enables debtors to take advantage of the flexibility and efficiency of Canadian restructuring regimes, while securing key U.S. bankruptcy protections.
A Strategic Shift in Cross-Border Insolvency
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, examined two (2) important issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The first concerned the parameters governing the admission of a real estate project into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), while the second related to the locus standi of a homebuyers’ association or society seeking to intervene or participate in insolvency proceedings against the developer.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not like the Bankruptcy Code. It never has. Two examples are:
As general economic trends since COVID continue to cause turmoil in the construction industry, the value of surety bonds as a performance and financial backstop has become increasingly apparent. While contractors may encounter difficult conditions in the course of their operations, sureties are not only well-capitalized and capable of weathering the storm but also, depending upon the relevant bond wording, are able to step in proactively when their principals experience financial troubles affecting the performance of the work and payment of the subcontractors.
1 | 15 Introduction The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is a landmark legislation which was enacted in 2016 to put in place a consolidated and holistic legal framework for resolution of stressed assets in India. Since its enactment, IBC has been one of the most dynamic legislations which has undergone several revisions on account of various learnings arising out of resolution of large volume of stressed assets in its initial phases.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Private Limited1 (with connected appeals) (collectively “Appeals”) clarified the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.
1 r October, 2024（No. 26） ムシス バシリ / 金子 涼一 / パップワース チャールズ / 田村 允 1. 欧州委員会、排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関するガイドライン案を 公表 本ガイドライン案の背景 EU の機能に関する条約（Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union、以下「EU 機能条約」） 102 条は、EU の域内市場で活動する事業者による市場支配的地位の濫用を禁止しています。 2024 年 8 月 1 日、欧州委員会は、EU 機能条約 102 条の排除型市場支配的地位の濫用 （exclusionary abuse）に関するガイドライン案（以下「本ガイドライン案」）を公表しました 1。本ガイドライン案 は 2024 年 10 月 31 日を期限とした意見公募（パブリックコメント）に付されています。 本ガイドライン案は、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関する EU 裁判所 の判例について、欧州委員会の理解を整理するものであり、欧州委員会は本ガイドライン案の公表により、 「法的安定性を高め、事業者が、自らの行為について、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的 地位の濫用に該当するか否かを自ら判断することに資する」ことを意図しています 2。
Welcome to our latest quarterly bulletin which contains updates on commercial litigation developments over the past three months, largely by reference to articles posted to our Litigation Notes blog in that period. Other posts are available on the blog, which you can visit any time. Or subscribe to be notified of the latest updates: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation.