OVERVIEW: CONCEPT OF CROSS-BOUNDARY INSOLVENCY
The recent judgment on Jet Airways v SBI & Ors is a strike on the previously closed doors of the Cross Border Insolvency regime in India under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred as ‘IBC’). The Indian jurisdiction has time and again questioned with respect to it’s competence in handing cross border insolvency proceedings. The advent case of Jet Airways has given Indian an eccentric window to exhibit its potential and capabilities for handling the cross border insolvency disputes. The Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘NCLT’) has set aside a non-arbitrary order towards the disputed position of Jet Airways and recognized that the resolution of the party which has the operations and stakeholders across the globe shall have implications if parties are spread across jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal has also set aside the order upholding the recent cross-border protocol agreed between NCLT appointed Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as RP) and the Dutch insolvency trustee and deciding that the Dutch trustee is equivalent and analogous to the RP. Thus, clearly stating that the trustee has a right to attend the meeting of the committee of creditors as per the provisions of the insolvency law. However, it is pertinent to highlight that the NCLT specifically pointed out a quintessential cross-swording between two emblematic concepts of universalism and territorialism. These two conceptual terms are intertwined with each other in their basic sense.
The basic idea behind adverting these two concepts was due to the undemonstrated provisions in the cross border insolvency regime in IBC and clueless reasoning and deliberate abandonment of a United Nation Commission on International Trade model law on Cross Border insolvency (‘Model Law’) by the Indian jurisdiction. The notion of cross border insolvency comes into delineation when the insolvent debtor has assets located in more than one jurisdiction or in a circumstances where some of the creditors of such debtor are not located in a jurisdiction where the insolvency proceedings has been commenced.
CROSS-BORDER REGIME: INDIAN JURISDICTION
In 2000 the aforementioned difficulty was acknowledged by the Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi Committee which called for urgency in adoption of the Model Law, partly or in whole for an effective cross border regime. Subsequently, N.L Mitra Committee report reiterated the need for adoption of the Model Law. Earlier in India, as regards to Cross Border Insolvency under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Companies Act, 2013, a court could order winding up of a foreign company limited to the extent of its assets in India. However, there were no specific statutory provisions in case an Indian company having is assets abroad was sought to be wound up. Therefore, it was done through a mutual recognition of foreign decrees as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the absence of such recognition it was a tricky situation for the liquidator in gathering information with regards to foreign assets and disposing them under the liquidation.
Presently, Section 234 and 235 of the IBC provides the legal framework under the IBC with respect to Cross Border Insolvency and envisage entering into bilateral agreements Finalizing such bilateral treaties require time consuming negotiations and every treaty made would be distinct which will create ambiguity for foreign investors. However, the provided legal framework has not been notified yet and therefore is not into effect and any orders passed in India with respect to Cross Border Insolvency will not have any effect in a foreign country. IBC is silent on the position of a foreign creditors’ right to approach NCLT to initiate corporate insolvency proceedings. However, in the matter of Macquarie Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a clarity that rights of the foreign creditors are similar to the rights of the domestic creditors with respect to initiating and participating in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC.
MODEL LAW & INDIA’S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITS ADOPTION
Model Law was recognized as a framework which was globally accepted. The Model Law got its consensus by UNCITRAL in 1997 and since then it has become as the most widely accepted framework which deals with the Cross Border Insolvency issues and therefore, around 44 countries and in total 46 jurisdictions have adopted the legislation based on the Model Law. Under the Model Law, recognition is given to both the proceedings i.e. remedies provided under the foreign proceedings as well as the remedies provided under the Domestic proceedings. Relief can be provided if the foreign proceeding is either a main or non-main proceedings. It provides coordination between the foreign and domestic insolvency proceedings by encouraging cooperation between the courts. It allows the foreign insolvency professionals and foreign creditors to participate in the domestic insolvency proceedings against the debtor. Presently, on perusal of Section 234 of IBC it is clear that there is direct access with regards to the foreign creditors has been provided under the IBC. However, with respect to the foreign insolvency professionals no such provisions have been envisaged under the IBC.
The Model Law endows basic legal framework for cooperation between the domestic and foreign courts/ insolvency professionals. In India Insolvency Law Committee in its report recommended adoption of Model Law, as it provides for a wide-ranging framework to deal with Cross Border Insolvency issues. However, few carve out were suggested by the Insolvency Law Committee in order to ensure that there is no contradiction between the current domestic insolvency framework and Model Law framework.
Further, Countries which enact the Model Law are allowed to exempt certain entities from the application of the Model Law therefore; the Committee recommended to exclude the banks and insurance company from the scope of Model Law. The rationale provided behind this exclusion was that the insolvency of those entities requires particularly prompt and circumspect action and may be subject to a special insolvency regime. Further, the Committee was of the view that Section 234 and 235 of IBC should be amended so that it is applied only to individuals and partnership firms since the content relevant to the Corporate Debtor has already been captured under the Proposed Model Law. With respect to dual regime, the Committee noted that at present the Companies Act, 2013 already contain provisions related to insolvency of foreign companies.
In the Model Law, reciprocity indicates that a domestic court will recognize and enforce a foreign court’s judgment only in the case if the foreign country has adopted an akin legislation to the domestic country. Thus on Reciprocity, the committee recommended that the Model Law may be adopted initially on a reciprocity basis which may be diluted upon reconsideration. Foreign proceedings and its relief are duly recognized under the Model Law. Relief will be provided irrespective of the fact that the proceeding is a main proceedings or non-main proceeding. Therefore, if the domestic court determines that the debtor has its centre of main interest in a foreign country; such foreign proceedings will be recognized as the main proceedings. This recognition will allow foreign representative greater powers in handling the debtor’s estate.
CONCLUSION: TWO-STEP FORWARD APPROACH
Cross Border Insolvency regime is a road talked boastfully about, but is a road not taken yet. Cross Border Insolvency, the less travelled road would make all the difference in India. It encircles three major circumstances: firstly, the debtor’s assets that are located in diverse jurisdictions and the creditors want to cover those assets for the purpose of insolvency proceedings, secondly, in safeguarding the creditors’ rights who have interest in the assets of the debtor located in the different jurisdiction, and thirdly, in cases when the insolvency proceedings have been initiated in more than one jurisdiction on the same Corporate Debtor. It is pertinent to mention that the majority of countries are yet to agree upon an amicable and a singular code or a treaty which is pivotal for bestowing and uncovering the blanket on such cases without inviting any difference of opinion or interest of the related parties.
In the era of neoliberalism, the proposed draft by the Insolvency Law Committee will empower Indian jurisdiction to deal with the matters pertaining to Indian companies having their assets overseas and vice versa. The balance in inclusion and exclusion will be a major game changer for the Indian jurisdiction. The chapter of Cross Border Insolvency under IBC is much awaited and would enable the legal framework to have effective assistance in situations of concurrent proceedings. Therefore, it is paramount for us to clean our lenses and take the road less travelled, the road which would yield our nation the benefit of lost battles in past and untimely progress in future.
