3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

The Limits of Comity:

Refusal to Recognise
Foreign Insolvency
Proceedings
By Guest / January 23, 2020 / 10 Min read / Add comment

[Aditi Mozika is a IV year B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Gujarat

National Law University]

The recent decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

(NCLAT) in the Jet Airways case has ushered in the era of cross border
insolvency in India.[1] Accordingly, the Resolution Professional and the
Dutch Trustee – the administrator in bankruptcy of Jet Airways appointed
by the Dutch Bankruptcy Court – have come up with a ‘Cross Border
Insolvency Protocol’ to govern the resolution process of Jet Airways and to
extend cooperation to each other in the process.[2]

History of Cross-Border Insolvency in India

In October 2018, the Insolvency Law Committee constituted by the Ministry

of Corporate Affairs submitted its Report, wherein it recommended
amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the existing
provisions in the Code (sections 234 and 235) did not provide a
comprehensive framework to effectively deal with cross-border insolvency
matters.[3] It suggested the adoption of the provisions of the UNCITRAL
Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, with certain modifications to suit the
https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 1/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

Indian insolvency environment. The Model Law is designed to provide an


internationally uniform approach to the recognition of foreign insolvency
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

proceedings based upon the concepts of ‘foreign main proceedings’ and

‘foreign non-main proceedings’.[4] Recognition is based on the principle of
comity, which is “the recognition which one nation allows within its territory
to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due
regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its
own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.”[5]

The Interpretation of “Public Policy”

The Insolvency Law Committee recommended the inclusion of a new

chapter- Part Z- in the Code to specifically govern cross-border insolvency in
India. The proposed law bestows upon the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT) the power to grant recognition to foreign proceedings and describe
them as either a main proceeding (where the debtor has its “centre of main
interests”, or COMI) or a non-main proceeding (where the debtor has an
establishment or place of operation). Clause 4 of the draft Part Z mirrors
article 6 of the Model Law that provides countries receiving applications for
recognition the right to deny recognition or relief, if such action would be
“manifestly contrary to the public policy” of the country.[6]

The UNCITRAL Guide to Enactment explains that article 6 does not attempt
to define public policy because the notion of public policy is grounded in
national law and may differ from state to state.[7] Further, it recommends
that the interpretation of the term must be narrow.[8] Accordingly, the Model
Law states that the relevant action must be “manifestly” contrary to public
policy for a court to deny recognition under this provision. Several countries
like the United States (US),[9] United Kingdom,[10] and South Africa[11] have
retained the word “manifestly”. However, certain countries such as
Singapore[12] have omitted it. The Committee noted that the Indian law
should also follow a narrow stance and thus recommended retention of the
term.[13]

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 2/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

How the Indian courts would interpret “public policy” when actually faced

with an application for recognition is yet to be seen. According to the
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Committee, the judiciary must rely on two considerations: existing

international jurisprudence along with domestic interpretations of public
policy.[14] This post seeks to provide an overview of the existing
international jurisprudence, focusing mainly on the jurisprudence that has
developed in the US.

Existing International Jurisprudence

In the few cases in the US to date in which attempts have been made to avail
public policy violations and invoke § 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code (Public
Policy Exception), courts have to a great extent respected the intent of the
Congress and almost always rejected the claims, indeed regarding the
provision as a “safety valve”.[15] The District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia in Qimonda AG[16] has delineated a three-part test to assist courts in
determining whether an action is manifestly contrary to US public policy.
First, the mere existence of a conflict between foreign and US law, in the
absence of other considerations, “is insufficient to support the invocation of
the public policy exception.” Second, a court should refrain from submitting
to a foreign proceeding if “the procedural fairness of the foreign proceeding
is in doubt or cannot be cured by the adoption of additional protections.”
Lastly, “[a]n action should not be taken… where taking such action would
frustrate a US court’s ability to administer the Chapter 15 proceeding and/or
would impinge severely a US constitutional or statutory right.”[17] A District
Court in Ephedra Prods. Liability Litig. held Canadian procedures to not be
contrary to public policy even though they were deficient in certain common
components of a US proceeding, such as a jury trial.[18] Likewise, the fact
that the British Virgin Islands proceeding did not provide unfettered access
to court records did not warrant the conclusion that recognizing the
proceeding would be contrary to public policy.[19]

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 3/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

On the opposite side of the spectrum, it is observed that an action that would

thwart a US court’s ability to administer the proceeding or encroach upon
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

constitutional or statutory rights would violate public policy and merit the
invocation of the exception.[20] In Gold & Honey,[21] recognition of the
foreign proceeding was refused due to violations of US procedural
requirements in the appointment of the representatives. In Toft,[22] the
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to recognise
a German insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding, on the
ground that the chapter 15 proceeding had been initiated by the foreign
representative solely to gain access to a German debtor’s email accounts
stored on US servers. The Court held that “the relief sought would directly
compromise privacy rights subject to a comprehensive scheme of statutory
protection, available to aliens, built on constitutional safeguards
incorporated in the Fourth Amendment as well as the constitutions of many
States.”

In Vitro, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had occasion to decide a
case involving the enforcement of a Mexican plan of reorganisation that
extinguished objecting creditors’ guarantee claims under an indenture
issued in the US against non-debtor subsidiaries of the debtor.[23] In
addressing this issue, the Fifth Circuit first noted that a “central tenet of
Chapter 15 is the importance of comity in cross-border insolvency
proceedings.”[24] However, the Court went on to affirm the decision of the
Bankruptcy Court to enforce the plan, holding that the relief claimed was not
warranted under §§ 1521, 1507 and 1506 of the Bankruptcy Code.[25] The
Court also held that the protection of third-party claims in an insolvency
proceeding is a fundamental public policy of the US, and that because the
Mexican plan does not recognise such rights, the “plan is manifestly
contrary to such policy of the United States and cannot be enforced here”.
Further, in Jaffé, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit broadly invoked
the public policy defence in a situation where relief under § 1521 would have
imposed relief on other creditors not available within the US law.[26]

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 4/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

The most recent decision involving this aspect was delivered in 2019 in Zetta
Jet Pte Ltd.[27] Here, the Singapore High Court had initially granted only 
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

limited recognition to foreign insolvency proceedings, on the ground that the

trustee flouted a Singapore injunction by pursuing US bankruptcy
proceedings, thereby undermining the administration of justice in
Singapore. Subsequently, the injunction was discharged by the consent of all
parties, after which it was observed by the High Court that “[n]o reason
remains to deny recognition on the basis of public policy following the
consensual discharge of the injunction.” Although the breach of the
injunction formed a ground for contempt, the Court held that this would not
in itself form a ground to continue refusal of recognition under the
Singapore Model Law.

Conclusion

As manifested in the above-mentioned cases, the burden to surmount the

presumption in favour of recognition of a foreign proceeding based on the
public policy exception is difficult to meet. It is not sufficient that a different
result or outcome would be allowed to the creditor under the domestic law.
Likewise, even the fact that there is a conflict between the domestic law and
the foreign law in question is not enough. It is only in cases depicting
elements of egregiousness and lack of fundamental fairness that this burden
has been and can be met.

As the Insolvency Law Committee recommends retention of the term

“manifestly” in relation to the public policy exception, it will become
mandatory that Indian courts follow suit, applying this provision narrowly
and invoking the exception only where a fundamental public policy is
implicated. Indeed, as the proposed Part Z, or the law on cross-border
insolvency, is based on the principle of comity, applying clause 4 to deny
recognition to a foreign proceeding or a foreign ruling in a broad array of
circumstances would defeat the main purpose of Part Z, which is the
promotion of international cooperation and collaboration.

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 5/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

– Aditi Mozika
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

[1] Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India , CA (AT) (Insolvency) No.
707 of 2019 (NCLAT, 26 September 2019).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, ‘Report of Insolvency Law Committee on

Cross Border Insolvency’ (2018), at p. 5.

[4] Neil Hannan, Cross-Border Insolvency: The Enactment and Interpretation

of the UNCITRAL Model Law (1st edn, Springer Singapore, 2017), at p. 23.

[5] Hilton v. Guyot 159 US 113, 164 (1895).

[6] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, ‘Report of Insolvency Law Committee on

Cross Border Insolvency’ (2018), at para. 3.1.

[7] UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to

Enactment (1997) U.N. Sales No. E.99.V.3 [30].

[8] Ibid.

[9] 11 U.S.C. §§ 1506 (2016).

[10] Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations art 6 (2006) (UK).

[11] Cross-Border Insolvency Act s 6 (2000) (SA).

[12] Companies Act, art 6, tenth schedule (2006) (Singapore).

[13] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, ‘Report of Insolvency Law Committee on

Cross Border Insolvency’ (2018), at para. 3.4.

[14] Ibid.

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 6/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

[15] Re Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) 381 BR 37 (Bankr. SDNY 2008); See
also, Re Ernst & Young, Inc. 383 BR 773, 781 (Bankr. D Colo 2008). 
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

[16] Re Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig. 433 BR 547 (EDVa 2010); Re Qimonda AG

462 BR 165 (Bankr. EDVa 2011) (Appeal); See also Look Chan Ho (ed), Cross-
Border Insolvency: A Commentary on the UNCITRAL Model Law (4th edn,
Global Business Publishing 2017), at p. 623.

[17] Qimonda AG Bankr. Litig. (above).

[18] 349 BR 333 (SDNY 2006).

[19] Re Fairfield Sentry, Ltd. 714 F.3d 127, 139 (2013).

[20] Re Gold & Honey, Ltd. 410 BR 357, 373 (Bankr. EDNY 2009).

[21] Ibid, at 367.

[22] Re Toft 453 BR 186 (Bankr SDNY 2011).

[23] Re Vitro SAB De CV 701 F3d 1031, 1053 (5th Cir 2012).

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Jaffé v. Samsung Elecs. Co. 737 F.3d 14 (4th Cir 2013); See also Re OAS
S.A., 533 BR 83, 103 (Bankr. SDNY 2015).

[27] [2018] SGHC 16.

Civil Procedure Insolvency International Developments

    

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 7/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

About the author

HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

Guest

VIEW ALL POSTS

Add comment

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 8/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

SUBMIT COMMENT
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Read more

A
Analysis of CCI’s Market
Study on the Indian Telecom
Sector
January 28, 2021

Online Certificate Course on

O
the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016
January 26, 2021

S
Social Stock Exchange in
India: Scrutinizing the Vision
January 25, 2021
https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 9/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM

S
The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw
Ja ua y 5, 0

V
HOME ABOUT US SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

Validity of Arbitration Clause

in Unstamped Instruments:
The Saga Continues
January 24, 2021

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed herein are those of the

contributors (which shall, for these purposes, include
guests) in their personal capacity and do not, in any
way or manner, reflect the views of the organizations
that the contributors are presently associated with, or
that have previously employed or retained the
contributors. Postings on this blog are for
informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be
deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment
advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog
between contributors and other persons shall not
create any attorney-client relationship.

Many of the links on this blog will take you to sites

operated by third parties. The contributors of this blog
have not reviewed all of the information on these sites
or the accuracy or reliability of any information, data,
opinions, advice, or statements on these sites. The
contributors do not endorse these sites, or opinions
they may offer. These third-party links are offered
https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 10/11
3/8/22, 8:32 AM The Limits of Comity: Refusal to Recognise Foreign Insolvency Proceedings - IndiaCorpLaw

solely for the purpose of discussion and thinking on

Indian corporate law and other
HOME relatedABOUT
topics.USIt is also
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 
possible that some of the pages linked may become
inactive after the lapse of a period of time.

Developed and Maintained by Legalify

https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/01/limits-comity-refusal-recognise-foreign-insolvency-proceedings.html 11/11