The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code^[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.

With increased stress in global, domestic, and regional economies, the number of Australian businesses at risk of bankruptcy is approaching a three-year high.

The approval of the creation of an administrative convenience class (Administrative Convenience Class) comprising low value creditors to reduce the administrative burden on restructuring entities by the General Division of the Singapore High Court (High Court) in Re Zipmex Pte Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 88 (Re Zipmex) is a positive step in promoting Singapore as a preferred restructuring destination, particularly for crypto restructurings.

Background

“How did you go bankrupt?

“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

- Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

Whether from internal or external factors, every company at some point will experience financial stress. The key to avoiding the extreme zone of financial distress—insolvency and “suddenly” bankruptcy—is to be proactive early on—when financial challenges are progressing “gradually.”

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., has held that, while commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) must be respected, certain factors having a material bearing on the process of approval of the resolution plan should also be borne in mind.

Insolvency legislation is full of trade-offs—chief among them is expediency versus fairness. On the one hand, insolvencies are often urgent matters with the fate of the debtor’s business or the value of its assets resting on a speedy and efficient resolution of its creditors’ claims. On the other hand, those creditors expect to be treated fairly and receive a real opportunity to advance and resolve their claims, which often entails a slow, deliberate process.

The arrangements in Israel’s Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation Law, enacted in 2018, include a series of special characteristics that must be taken into account when engaging with an Israeli corporation.

The relatively new law incorporates various rulings from previous years, and the legal practice deriving from it is still evolving. Thus, some uncertainty still exists regarding how the courts are likely to implement some of the arrangements prescribed in the law.

In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the Court of Appeal’s decision in Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes [2023] NSWCA 88 and the challenges faced by lenders in accepting representations as to solvency and the financial position of borrowers.

Key takeaways

As the economic outlook remains uncertain, businesses of all sizes and their boards are experiencing mounting pressure from various sources. In particular, directors of companies in financial difficulty face a number of challenges. Primarily, they must decide what they can do to keep the company in business without running the risk of committing an offence or incurring personal liability, and at what stage they must stop trading.

This article outlines some key issues and strategies that directors should consider when times are tough.