With the increase in international trade and globalisation, it is imperative to have a well-structured cross-border legal framework for cooperative resolution of insolvency-related disputes is a necessity. In India, the insolvency framework is designed to protect stakeholders, encourage economic recovery, and shape how insolvency is managed and resolved. This article explores the role of Public Policy in the Insolvency outcomes.
The Intersection of Public Policy and Insolvency
Definition and Scope:
Public Policy in the Insolvency refers to government strategies and laws to achieve economic and social objectives. It covers various topics, including healthcare, employment, finance, economics, etc. In insolvency, Public Policy in the Insolvency ensures fairness, transparency, and economic stability throughout the insolvency process.
Key Objectives in Insolvency:
The objectives of insolvency law in India are explained in the Preamble of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). As per the Preamble and the IBC provisions, insolvency aims to protect stakeholders’ rights, promote economic stability, and prevent abuse of insolvency frameworks.
Read more : Addressing the Issue of Delay in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law
Role of Government in Shaping Insolvency Outcomes
Government plays a crucial role in shaping insolvency outcomes by enacting and enforcing insolvency laws, establishing regulatory frameworks, appointing oversight bodies, and influencing the process through policy decisions. The role of government in shaping insolvency outcomes can be summarised as:
Policy Formation and Legislative Frameworks:
Aligning with the objectives of insolvency law, governments can create and amend insolvency laws, define procedures for initiating proceedings, manage creditor rights, and outline options like liquidation or corporate restructuring. Introducing the insolvency framework in India, it has promoted creditor-driver resolutions and improved the ease of doing business by streamlining the insolvency process, leading to better outcomes for distressed companies.
State Intervention in Insolvency Cases:
Governments may intervene in high-profile insolvency cases to protect the public interest. For instance, public sector banks have a role in resolving corporate debt through a mechanism that helps them manage their non-performing assets (NPAs).
Public Interest Considerations:
Public Policy in the Insolvency ensure that resolutions do not jeopardize public assets or employment and balancing corporate restructuring with socio-economic goals. It implements mechanisms that prioritise the continuation of operations, facilitate asset sales to viable entities, and provide support to employees.
Cross-Border Implications of Public Policy in the Insolvency
Cross-border implications of public policy in insolvency relate to the ability of foreign courts and insolvency practitioners to access and manage a debtor’s assets in India when a company is undergoing insolvency proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. These implications can be understood by the points below:
Read more : Doctrine of Commercial Wisdom of CoC
Reciprocity in Cross-Border Insolvency:
The principle of reciprocity means that a domestic court will only recognise and enforce a foreign court’s judgment or insolvency proceedings if the foreign jurisdiction has adopted similar legislation. This principle ensures mutual recognition of insolvency proceedings across jurisdictions. India’s limited adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law, particularly regarding cross-border insolvency, is due to potential conflicts with domestic Public Policy in the Insolvency relating to creditor rights and corporate governance.
Challenges in Harmonization:
The main challenges to harmonising cross-border insolvency with Public Policy in the Insolvency include jurisdiction conflicts and a lack of comprehensive cross-border insolvency law. Diverse legal systems and Public Policy in the Insolvency may complicate global insolvency resolutions. The United States has a unified framework based on the UNCITRAL Model Law while India’s approach is fragmented and relies on civil procedural remedies. The IBC does not directly deal with cross-border insolvency cases, unlike other countries’ frameworks.
Case Studies:
The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case exemplifies the complexities of cross-border insolvency due to the company’s vast global operations, which resulted in multiple, simultaneous insolvency proceedings across various jurisdictions. This case highlighted the challenges of coordinating legal processes under different national insolvency laws, creditor protection priorities, and potential conflicts of Public Policy in the Insolvency between the countries involved.
Implications for Key Stakeholders
In an insolvency process, key stakeholders such as creditors, debtors, and investors are impacted by Public Policy in the Insolvency:
For Creditors:
Public policy ensures equitable treatment of creditors while prioritizing public welfare. Efficient insolvency processes can ensure timely and maximised debt recovery, encouraging future lending practices. For instance, public policy may safeguard small creditors in large corporate resolutions.
For Debtors:
Policies may prevent debtors from exploiting insolvency frameworks to evade obligations. These policies establish enhanced scrutiny of fraudulent transactions under the IBC, holding debtors accountable for their actions, protecting other stakeholders, and ensuring that the resolution process is fair and transparent.
For Investors:
By ensuring a stable legal environment, public policy significantly impacts investor confidence. The streamlined insolvency processes result in foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows.
Challenges in Implementing Public Policy in Insolvency
Implementing public policy in insolvency can face challenges, including balancing public and private interests, political influence, and cross-border complexities:
Balancing Public and Private Interests:
Insolvency proceedings require navigating the competing needs of creditors seeking maximum debt recovery and debtors seeking a chance to restructure and remain operational. Therefore, it is difficult to strike a balance between creditor rights and socio-economic objectives, particularly when dealing with large companies.
Political Influence:
Political influence poses a significant challenge to implementing effective insolvency public policy due to the risk of political interference in high-profile insolvency cases. Politicians may be pressured to protect certain industries or large employers by introducing legislation that hinders efficient insolvency proceedings against them, delaying liquidation or allowing for preferential treatment of certain creditors.
Cross-Border Complexities:
When a company faces insolvency, it has assets or operations spread across multiple jurisdictions. It makes it difficult to manage the insolvency process due to differing legal frameworks, jurisdictional disputes, and the need for international coordination between courts and insolvency practitioners across borders. Cross-border complexities make it difficult to align domestic public policies with international legal frameworks.
Practical Takeaways for Insolvency Professionals
Insolvency professionals should align resolution with socio-economic objectives, particularly in cross-border insolvency and public policy, because it allows for a more holistic approach to managing distressed businesses. This is important for the financial interests of creditors but also the impact on employment, local economies, and stability of the nation. Whether you are an IP aspirant preparing for the Limited Insolvency Examination or an insolvency professional looking to enhance their current knowledge in skills, Tranzission can help you. Visit https://tranzission.com/ to access recorded modules, publications, and other resources to guarantee you understand the impact of public policy on insolvency proceedings.
Conclusion
Public policy is integral to insolvency frameworks, shaping outcomes for stakeholders and promoting economic stability. It establishes a legal and regulatory environment that governs how insolvent companies are dealt with. Thereby, directly impacting the outcomes for creditors, debtors, and the broader economy. This ultimately contributes to overall economic stability by facilitating efficient debt restructuring and minimising disruption to markets when businesses fail.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the role of public policy in insolvency?
Public policy has a crucial role in insolvency by establishing the legal framework that governs how insolvent companies are dealt with.
2. How does public policy affect cross-border insolvency?
Public policy impacts cross-border insolvency by allowing a country to refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign insolvency proceeding if it would be ‘against’ to its public policy.
3. What challenges arise from public policy in insolvency?
The challenges that arise from public policy in insolvency include cross-border complexities, balancing creditor protection and debtor rehabilitation, and identifying and addressing fraudulent transactions.