Creditors can set aside fraudulent conveyances of their debtors by a revocatory action, also known as actio pauliana. This action is not the same if the debtor is bankrupt. There is the non-bankruptcy actio pauliana and the bankruptcy actio pauliana. Civil codes govern the former and the Bankruptcy Law covers the latter. Creditors under the non-bankruptcy actio pauliana have fewer rights and benefits than those under the bankruptcy actio pauliana.
Across the world, government support has kept insolvency rates down but as jurisdictions look to loosen restrictions and ease back into some kind of normality, governments can't foot the bill forever.
As financial support is withdrawn, restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery practitioners will likely see a spike in activity, and offshore firms are braced for an increase in demand from clients. After that, there'll likely be lender enforcement resulting in formal insolvencies by the end of the year and into next year.
The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).
Background
I. Supreme Court: Entries made in balance sheet amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated April 15, 2021 (“Judgement”), in the matter of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Another [Civil Appeal No.323/2021], held that entries in balance sheets amount to acknowledgement of debt for the purpose of extending limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“1963 Act”).
Highlights:
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied Thelma McCoy’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, passing up a golden opportunity to bring uniformity to the “important and recurring question” of how to determine the sort of “undue hardship” that qualifies a debtor for a discharge of student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
Last year I published an article about “COVID-19’s Impact on Chapter 11 Cases”, suggesting its impact for debtors, secured lenders, unsecured creditors, and equity interest holders may be to turn the Chapter 11 process into true reorganizations of companies, rather than mostly asset sales of the Debtor’s assets as has been the situation for many years.
The cautious and prudent approach for distressed companies pursuing a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement is to simultaneously pursue a parallel scheme in their home jurisdiction, even if most if not all of its debts are governed by Hong Kong laws. The rationale is to prevent hostile creditors from disrupting the implementation of the scheme in another jurisdiction, thereby better insulating the distressed company.
In Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] SGCA 60 (“Sun Electric”), the Singapore Court of Appeal (per Justice Judith Prakash) addressed in its written ground of decision (“GD”) the questions of: (i) what is the applicable test for the purpose of determining insolvency under s 254(2)(c) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Companies Act”); and (ii) who should be the appropriate party to control the conduct of the appeal, as well as to bear the responsibility of any costs incurred during and after the appeal, following a company’s right