2007 BCSC 267 (B.C. Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2007)
Trustee in bankruptcy must affirm swap contracts to take advantage of them but is not personally liable if the contracts end up being out of the money - While contract gave buyer a termination right on bankruptcy, it could choose not to exercise this option and leave it to the trustee to decide whether or not to affirm the swap and take the risk that the estate will end up out of the money
When a corporate borrower faces financial difficulties, there are a variety of enforcement, restructuring and insolvency options available to creditors. From a creditor’s perspective, the choice of procedure will depend on whether the borrower has granted security. If security has been granted over the shares or the assets and undertakings of a Cayman Islands incorporated company pursuant to a Cayman Islands law governed security document, the most appropriate enforcement choice for any secured creditor may be receivership.
Reasoning behind the changes
In the two years that the "new" bankruptcy regime – the Bankruptcy Act of September 2015 (Stečajni zakon; the "BA") – has been in place, the number of pre-bankruptcy procedures initiated in Croatia has plummeted to only 273, with 58 restructuring plans being accepted. By comparison, under the previous pre-bankruptcy regime from 2012 to 2015, 8,262 pre-bankruptcy procedures were initiated, with 2,224 restructuring plans being reached.
The enactment of Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law) in the context of insolvency proceedings − reorganization and liquidation − has substantially restated the legal scope of creditors’ rights in at least three aspects: (i) the existence or not of a new creditor type; (ii) the compatibility of that possible new type of creditor and the current system of creditors hierarchy, and (iii) the specific rights of that new creditor, should there be one, in creditors arrangement proceedings.
(i) Is the secured creditor a new type of creditor?
The Czech Supreme Court recently issued two decisions having significant impact on the position of secured creditors (i.e. generally financial institutions) within insolvency proceedings. Both decisions stem from one of the first major insolvencies conducted under the (then new) Czech Insolvency Act effective from 2008 in respect of the group of companies in a glass-making business. This article briefly reviews those decisions and points out their practical effects on the rights of secured creditors.
Security interest in rental income
The amendment to the Hungarian Insolvency Act came into force on 1 July 2017, with the aim of enhancing the protection of beneficiaries of security interests, and clarifying the position of creditors in liquidation proceedings, which are secured by call option, security assignment or pledge over future receivables.
Introduction
Questions around the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 and the Companies Act 1956 have frequently arisen in various high courts and the Supreme Court.
Introduction
From an investor's standpoint, a robust and effective bankruptcy regime is a prerequisite for the development of the corporate debt market. However, the existing insolvency and bankruptcy framework is highly fragmented, which has led to complex issues on how to reconcile various statutes with one another.
The Supreme Court of India ("SC") has held that in the event of liquidation of a company, claims of employees have to be considered by the Official Liquidator of the company and not by the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT"). The SC made this decision in the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar & Ors.1, and laid down certain rules for deciding employee claims.
FACTS
Section 530 under the Chapter V of Part VII of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for the sequence of the payments which shall be made in the course of winding up of a company. However, Section 529A is an exception to Section 530 which starts with a notwithstanding clause providing for the overriding preferential payments. Section 529A was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 in order to provide a protection to the workmen and the secured lenders of the Companies.