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.

In a decision handed down by Downes J on 4 July 2024, the Federal Court of Australia provided guidance on the treatment of capital gains in bankruptcy, and endorsed the approach that has been taken by the ATO: Robson as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Lanning v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 720 (Decision).

Key takeaways

The issue of release/enforcement of third party guarantees as part of a resolution plan of the borrower has been the subject of litigation across various judicial forums in India.

To clarify this issue, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed amendments to IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 as part of its recent discussion paper.

Certain amendments to the reckless trading provisions of section 610 of the Companies Act 2014 contained in the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024Opens in new window (the “Act”) came into force on 1 July 2024 (pursuant to S.I. 303 of 2024).

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

Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in December 2016, India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also produced desirable results under the new statutory debt resolution regime.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The issue before the Court was whether the Bankruptcy Code permits nondebtors to obtain a release of third-party claims through a debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. An issue that had divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The nondebtors set to receive releases under Purdue’s plan were members of the Sackler family — the owners of Purdue Pharma — and their other entities.

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Highlights

Long-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Purdue Pharma shakes up the scope of bankruptcy releases

Insurers get increased ability to participate in bankruptcy cases

Overpayment of bankruptcy fees is not refundable to Chapter 11 debtors

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