The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

The Privy Council endorsed the Commercial Court's approach in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) in staying insolvency proceedings, even when faced with a pre-existing arbitration agreement, only when a debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.

Introduction

Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) (Appellant) v Halimeda International Ltd (Respondent) (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16

How does an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, affect insolvency proceedings?

The effect of an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, on insolvency proceedings has been a topic of longstanding debate in the Courts of Hong Kong, England and other common law jurisdictions.

In the twelfth edition of the Going concerns, we cover set-offs and the net result of a creditor dealing with a company in liquidation; the first cross-border pre-pack scheme filed in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") by a foreign unregistered company that has been successfully sanctioned in Singapore: Re No Va Land Investment Group Corporation [2024] SGHC(I) 17 ("No Va Land"); and UAE's new bankruptcy law that came into effect on 1 May 2024, a relatively substantial overhaul of the onshore insolvency and restructuring regime in the UAE.

The recent Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd[2024] (SPC) has overturned a principle of English law relating to the interaction between a contractual agreement to arbitrate and traditional insolvency measures where a debt is said to be disputed without substantial grounds.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.

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.

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