In the matter of BRS Refineries vs. . Mr. Supriyo Kumar Chaudhari, the NCLAT New Delhi upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench, rejecting an appeal filed by BRS Refineries. The earlier appeal had challenged the action of the liquidator for JVL Agro Industries Ltd., to forfeit the earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 96 lakhs pursuant to the e-auction of the assets of JVL Agro Industries Ltd.
Five best practices for retailers to manage cash, cut costs, and stay afloat as debt comes due
In late 2017, a Bloomberg headline read, “America’s ‘Retail Apocalypse’ Is Really Just Beginning.” The main culprit, the authors suggested, was the amount of high-yield debt on company balance sheets, which would balloon just as a record wall of debt across all industries came due.
本稿では、近年のシンガポールの事業再生/倒産に関連する法・実務の発展を概観しつつ、シンガポール国際商事裁判所(以下｢SICC｣といいます。)における国際事業再生/倒産案件の取扱いについて解説します 。
1. 近年のシンガポール事業再生/倒産に関連する法・実務の発展
シンガポールは、様々なビジネス分野において東南アジア(又はグローバル)におけるハブを指向していますが(例えば、国際仲裁の分野において、シンガポール国際仲裁センター(SIAC)は国際仲裁機関として高い評価を得ています。)、事業再生/倒産の分野も例外ではありません。以下の年表からも分かるとおり、2010年代以降、政府・金融機関・実務家等が一丸となって、①グローバルスタンダードに合致し、かつ、国際倒産への対応も可能な倒産法制度を整備しつつ 、②シンガポールの裁判所を、東南アジアにおける国際事業再生/倒産案件のフォーラムとして確立しようとする動きが顕著に見られます 。
In the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd (on appeal from the BVI), the Privy Council has found that Salford Estates (No.2) Limited v Altomart Limited was incorrectly decided.
This case is not only important for BVI lawyers, as the Privy Council has directed pursuant to Willers v Joyce (No 2) [2016] UKSC 44 that the decision in the present case in respect of Salford Estates now represents the law of England and Wales.
Background
In times of financial difficulty, the Personal Insolvency (Personal Repayment Plans and Debt Relief Order) Law of 2015 in Cyprus provides a structured way for debtors to manage their debts while protecting their principal residence. This law is designed to balance the interests of both debtors and creditors.
However, what happens when creditors seek to cancel these repayment plans?
In Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16, Lords Briggs and Hamblen, delivering judgment on behalf of the Board, endorsed the traditional approach to winding-up petitions. Their Lordships confirmed that a debtor’s duty to show that the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds (“Triable Issue Standard”) remains undiluted even if the contract from which the debt arose contains an arbitration clause.
ACT WHICH ENHANCES PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY INSOLVENCY NOW LAW
An important decision on the “boundary issue” between arbitration and insolvency came out this week. One that has troubled me in the past.
Question: Can you wind up a company for a debt due under a contract containing an arbitration agreement or do you have to go through arbitration first? Up until now, you had to get an arbitral award first, regardless of whether the debt was disputed.
But now, unless the debt is disputed on genuine and substantial grounds, you can press ahead with applying for a winder. So said the Privy Council today.
Insolvency set-off is an important quasi-security device for parties engaging in trade or other dealings with a company. It enables mutual debts owed between a party and a company to be set off against each other if the company goes into judicial management or liquidation.
A guarantor’s rights of subrogation are provided for in Sections 140 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). These rights allow a guarantor to step into the shoes of the creditor, upon fulfilling the debtor’s payment obligations to the creditor. This means that the guarantor assumes all the rights including the security that the creditor enjoyed against the principal debtor.