Abstract
A situation of insolvency hinders a firm’s ability to obtain external finance. As a result, viable but financially distressed firms might be unable to keep operating and pursuing value-creating investment projects. Consequently, value can be destroyed for debtors, creditors, employees, suppliers and society as a whole. To address this problem, several jurisdictions around the world have adopted a system of rescue or debtor-in-possession (‘DIP’) financing that seeks to encourage lenders to extend credit to viable but financially distressed firms. They do so by providing DIP lenders with different forms of priority that typically range from a basic administrative expense priority to the possibility of becoming a junior or, in some jurisdictions, even a senior secured creditor. After analysing the regulatory framework of DIP financing in more than 30 jurisdictions in Asia, Latin America, Europe, Africa and North America, this article shows that there are many similarities in the regulation of DIP financing around the world. Yet, there are also significant divergences, especially when it comes to the type of priority that DIP lenders can obtain as well as the system for the approval of DIP financing. The article concludes by examining the risks and costs potentially created by a DIP financing regime. It also discusses whether, and if so how, countries should adopt DIP financing provisions taking into account their legal, economic and institutional environment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
A situation of insolvency hinders a firm’s ability to obtain external finance. As a result, viable but financially distressed firms might be unable to keep operating and pursuing value-creating investment projects. Consequently, value can be destroyed for debtors, creditors, employees, suppliers and society as a whole. To address this problem, several jurisdictions around the world have adopted a system of rescue or debtor-in-possession (‘DIP’) financing that seeks to encourage lenders to extend credit to financially distressed firms.Footnote 1 They do so by providing DIP lenders with different forms of priority that typically range from a basic administrative expense priority to the possibility of becoming a junior or, in some jurisdictions, even a senior secured creditor. Thus, insolvency law can serve as a liquidity provider for viable but financially distressed firms.Footnote 2
This article seeks to provide an economic and comparative analysis of DIP financing provisions in reorganisation procedures. To that end, Sect. 2 starts by analysing the rationale of DIP financing. Section 3 examines the different approaches and regulatory models for the treatment and approval of DIP financing generally observed around the world. Section 4 highlights some of the risks and costs potentially created by a DIP financing regime. Section 5 discusses whether, and if so how, countries should adopt DIP financing provisions. Section 6 concludes.
2 Rationale of DIP Financing
The existence of a DIP financing regime can be justified on the basis of several arguments. First, when a firm becomes insolvent, employees, lenders and suppliers may have incentives to terminate their business relationships with the insolvent firm even if it is economically viable. In the absence of any mechanism to incentivise the debtor’s counterparties to keep providing labour, loans, goods and services, value can be destroyed.Footnote 3 In many cases, this loss of value can make viable firms become non-viable businesses that should be shut down.Footnote 4 Therefore, a DIP financing regime can contribute to the preservation of viable businesses that would otherwise disappear.
Second, the inability of financially distressed companies to obtain new financing may also prevent these firms from pursuing investment projects with positive net present value (‘NPV’), leading to an underinvestment problem.Footnote 5 As a result, the lack of financing will hamper the maximisation of the value of the firm as well as the creation of jobs and wealth in society.Footnote 6 Moreover, when a company is heavily indebted, the shareholders may have no incentive to fund new investment projects with positive NPV as they know that, due to the company’s financial situation, most (if not all) of the project’s payoff will go to the creditors while the shareholders will bear any losses associated with the new investments.Footnote 7 Thus, the existence of this problem may lead to another situation of underinvestment that can destroy value for the creditors and society as a whole.Footnote 8
Third, the loss of value – in terms of actual losses or at least opportunity cost – experienced by viable but financially distressed firms unable to obtain credit will reduce the recovery rate of creditors in insolvency proceedings. Ex post, this situation will undermine the financial position of the creditors involved in an insolvency proceeding, even leading to other insolvencies – especially among non-diversified creditors highly exposed to the debtor’s default.Footnote 9 Moreover, the inability of the insolvency system to minimise losses for financial creditors may increase the levels of non-performing loans in the banking sector, sometimes jeopardising the stability of the financial system.Footnote 10Ex ante, the expectation of receiving lower recoveries in a hypothetical event of insolvency will make lenders more reluctant to extend credit.Footnote 11 As a result, this will lead to an undesirable increase in the cost of debt that can ultimately harm firms’ access to finance and the promotion of economic growth.Footnote 12
Fourth, obtaining new financing can send a positive signal to the market by showing that lenders believe in the viability of the company.Footnote 13 Consequently, it can encourage other lenders, suppliers, and employees to keep dealing with the firm, increasing the likelihood of completing a successful reorganisation.Footnote 14
Lastly, a DIP loan can often lead to an improvement in the corporate governance of insolvent firms.Footnote 15 Namely, DIP lenders may impose certain conditions that can create value.Footnote 16 In fact, where the company has an inefficient management team, the power of DIP lenders to replace or influence management can contribute to the survival and successful reorganisation of the insolvent firm. Footnote 17
3 Regulation of DIP Financing: A Comparative Perspective
3.1 The Treatment of DIP Financing
The treatment of post-petition financing and the type of priority potentially obtained by DIP lenders differ across jurisdictions. Depending on the different forms of priority available to DIP lenders, this article distinguishes four regulatory models of DIP financing, summarised in Table 1. The first model includes jurisdictions, or procedures within a jurisdiction, that do not provide any form of DIP financing provisions. The second regulatory model includes regimes where DIP lenders can obtain an administrative expense priority and, in some jurisdictions, a security interest over unencumbered property.Footnote 18 Due to the limited forms of priority potentially offered to DIP lenders, this regulatory approach will be classified as a weak DIP financing regime. The third regulatory model, classified as a semi-strong DIP financing regime, includes systems where DIP lenders can get several forms of priority, including an administrative expense priority, a security interest over unencumbered property, and a junior lien over encumbered property. Finally, the fourth regulatory model includes regimes with strong or comprehensive DIP financing provisions where DIP lenders can enjoy several forms of priority that generally include an administrative expense priority, a priority over all other administrative expenses, a security interest over unencumbered property, as well as junior and senior liens.
However, it should be noted that, for the purpose of this article, the classification of a DIP financing regime as weak, semi-strong or strong does not depend on the ranking of DIP lenders in the event of liquidation or the level of protection that pre-existing creditors may get under a particular DIP financing regime. Instead, the proposed classification of DIP financing regimes is exclusively based on how comprehensive the system of DIP financing is from the perspective of the different forms of priority potentially offered to DIP lenders. For instance, in some countries, DIP lenders can only obtain an administrative expense priority and a new lien. Under the proposed classification of DIP financing regimes, countries adopting this approach would be classified among those with weak DIP financing provisions due to the limited forms of priority potentially offered to DIP lenders. Nonetheless, in some jurisdictions, administrative expenses are paid ahead of most (if not all) creditors, including secured creditors.Footnote 19 Thus, even if DIP lenders cannot get many forms of priority, this ‘weak’ DIP financing regime can still be more attractive to DIP lenders than other regimes potentially offering other forms of priority that may rank lower. Similarly, the proposed classification of DIP financing regimes does not take into account how attractive a DIP financing regime is from the perspective of the debtor’s pre-existing creditors. As will be explored below, this aspect will depend on the system for the approval of DIP financing, as well as a variety of country-specific factors.
3.2 The Approval of DIP Financing
As shown in Table 2, this article also identifies several systems for the approval of DIP financing. First, there are systems where the new financing needs to be authorised by the court in charge of managing the insolvency proceeding. This type of court-led model for the approval of DIP financing is the approach traditionally existing in the United States, and it has also been adopted in other jurisdictions around the world, including Brazil, Colombia, Singapore and the Philippines. Second, other jurisdictions require that the new financing needs to be approved by the insolvency practitioner (‘IP’) appointed to manage or supervise the procedure. This type of IP-led model for the approval of DIP financing is generally followed in administration-style procedures existing in countries like the United Kingdom, Ghana, Nigeria and Australia. It has also been adopted in some civil law countries where insolvency proceedings often require the appointment of an insolvency practitioner to replace or supervise the debtor, as happens in Spain.Footnote 20 The third approach consists of providing creditors with the power to approve or veto the new financing. This type of creditor-led approach has been adopted in jurisdictions such as Chile (for DIP loans exceeding 20% of the debtor’s liabilities), India and the Dominican Republic.Footnote 21 Finally, a fourth approach for the approval of DIP financing consists of allowing the debtor itself, without the approval of any third party acting as a ‘gatekeeper', to obtain new financing and grant priority status to DIP lenders. This debtor-led model often applies in the context of debts in the ordinary course of business, as happens in the United States.Footnote 22
3.3 A Closer Look at DIP Financing Regimes
3.3.1 Regimes with no DIP Financing Provisions
Jurisdictions not providing any form of DIP financing provisions in formal reorganisation procedures are rare.Footnote 23 In most jurisdictions, post-petition debts and expenses enjoy some forms of priority. As a result, jurisdictions without any type of DIP financing provisions are generally those without formal reorganisation procedures, such as Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands.Footnote 24 Despite the lack of a formal reorganisation procedure, however, jurisdictions like Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands still provide debtors with a debt restructuring tool: a scheme of arrangement.Footnote 25 This procedure also exists in many other jurisdictions around the world, including Australia, Bermuda, Canada, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Virgin Islands.
Traditionally, a scheme of arrangement has only provided debtors with very limited tools to achieve a debt restructuring.Footnote 26 In the typical scheme of arrangement, the primary tool existing to facilitate a debt restructuring is a majority rule (or intra-class cramdown). Based on this provision, a scheme of arrangement can be approved even if there are some dissenting creditors within a class. Therefore, the majority rule can reduce some of the holdout problems potentially existing in an out-of-court restructuring (‘workout’). In some jurisdictions, however, the scheme of arrangement may include additional features. For instance, in Malaysia, debtors can enjoy a moratorium.Footnote 27 Also, an approved liquidator is appointed to assess the viability of the scheme.Footnote 28 In Singapore, the scheme of arrangement existing prior to the 2017 reforms provided debtors with a limited moratorium.Footnote 29 Since 2017, debtors conducting a scheme of arrangement in Singapore have access to many other restructuring tools, including a more powerful moratorium and a comprehensive system of DIP financing.Footnote 30 However, with the exception of Singapore, most schemes of arrangement around the world do not provide any form of DIP financing provisions.
Another procedure potentially used for debt restructuring that generally lacks DIP financing provisions is the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) existing in several jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Nigeria and Brunei. As happens with the scheme of arrangement, this procedure provides debtors with very limited tools to facilitate a debt restructuring. Essentially, the CVA generally provides a majority rule that facilitates the adjustment of the debtor’s liabilities or certain types of liabilities (e.g., unsecured creditors). Depending on the country or the type of company using the procedure, it can also provide a moratorium and may require the appointment of a supervisor.Footnote 31 DIP financing provisions, however, are not generally available in this procedure.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that the fact that a country or a particular procedure does not provide DIP financing provisions does not necessarily mean that DIP lenders might not enjoy a priority. For example, during a scheme of arrangement, the law does not generally prevent new lenders from getting either a security interest over the debtor’s unencumbered assets or even a junior lien. In some jurisdictions, however, this type of transactions can be challenged ex post, especially if the debtor was already insolvent at the moment of providing the security interest. For that reason, various jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, have adopted certain provisions to protect these transactions from future avoidance actions and facilitate new financing in hybrid procedures.Footnote 32
3.3.2 Regimes with Weak DIP Financing Provisions
3.3.2.1 Regimes with Weak DIP Financing Provisions in Formal Reorganisation Procedures
Due to the importance of facilitating new financing to viable but insolvent firms, formal reorganisation procedures are generally designed to embrace at least a weak DIP financing regime.Footnote 33 Under this regulatory model, DIP lenders can get an administrative expense priority. Additionally, jurisdictions adopting this model often allow DIP lenders to obtain a security interest over the debtor’s unencumbered property.
DIP lenders can get an administrative expense priority in the formal reorganisation procedures existing in most jurisdictions around the world, including Argentina, Australia, Brunei, Chile, China, Ecuador, Italy, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.Footnote 34 In some of these countries, such as Australia, Italy, Spain, Uruguay and the United Kingdom, the debtor can also provide DIP lenders with a security over unencumbered property.
The approval of new financing significantly differs among those jurisdictions that have adopted this regulatory model. For example, in jurisdictions with an administration-style procedure, such as the United Kingdom, Brunei and Malaysia, the insolvency practitioner appointed to manage the procedure is typically the actor entitled to borrow money and grant security over the property of the company.Footnote 35 In other jurisdictions that have implemented this weak form of a DIP financing regime, however, the approval of new financing may require the involvement of courts, the committee of creditors, or both. For instance, in China, new financing should be approved by the court or the creditors’ committee.Footnote 36 In Uruguay, court approval is required when the debtor seeks to grant a security interest over property whose value exceeds 5% of the debtor’s assets.Footnote 37 In Chile, insolvent debtors can borrow provided that the loans do not exceed 20% of the company’s liabilities. Otherwise, the new financing needs to be approved by a majority of the company’s creditors.Footnote 38
Finally, jurisdictions adopting this approach also differ on how to deal with the harmful effects potentially generated by the approval of new financing. This problem may exist, for example, when the new financing does not end up creating or preserving value and the priority given to the DIP lender reduces the pie available for unsecured creditors. To address this problem, countries have adopted different approaches. For instance, in jurisdictions where the new financing has been authorised by courts or committees of creditors, the actor in charge of approving the DIP financing is not generally liable for these decisions. Thus, the losses potentially associated with the decision to approve new financing will be borne by the general body of unsecured creditors. In jurisdictions where the new financing is approved by an insolvency practitioner, however, the situation might be different. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the administrator is not automatically liable for the new debts. Nonetheless, given that the administrator acts as an agent of the company, it can be held liable if, for example, it is shown that the new financing was obtained in a negligent manner.Footnote 39 By contrast, in Australia, the administrator automatically becomes personally liable for the debts and expenses incurred during the procedure.Footnote 40 As a result, it is not surprising that the use of DIP financing is very rare in Australia.Footnote 41
3.3.2.2 Regimes with Weak DIP Financing Provisions in Hybrid Procedures
Many jurisdictions around the world have adopted various forms of hybrid procedures over the past years.Footnote 42 Generally, a hybrid procedure provides debtors with some of the advantages associated with informal workouts (especially in terms of flexibility, confidentiality, low stigma and minimal court involvement) while offering some of the tools traditionally found in formal reorganisation procedures such as a moratorium and a majority rule.Footnote 43
Some hybrid procedures, such as the traditional scheme of arrangement existing in most common law countries, do not provide DIP financing provisions. Other hybrid procedures, however, include certain provisions to facilitate DIP financing. For example, under the new restructuring procedure adopted in Germany and the Netherlands, lenders extending new credit to financially distressed firms can obtain a security interest that, under certain conditions, is protected against a potential avoidance action if the debtor ultimately ends up in a formal insolvency proceeding.Footnote 44 This protection against avoidance actions also exists in Spain and Italy.Footnote 45 In certain hybrid procedures, such as the French conciliation proceeding, new financing enjoys preferential treatment in the ranking of claims provided that various requirements are met.Footnote 46
3.3.3 Regimes with Semi-strong DIP Financing Provisions
Other jurisdictions around the world, including Brazil, the Dominican Republic, India and the Philippines, have adopted a semi-strong DIP financing regime where DIP lenders can enjoy various forms of priority.Footnote 47 Yet, there are significant divergences among these regimes, especially when it comes to the approval of new financing.
In Brazil, a recent insolvency reform has allowed debtors to provide DIP lenders with various forms of priority, including an administrative expense priority, a lien over unencumbered assets, and a junior lien.Footnote 48 It also allows debtors to provide DIP lenders with a ‘fiduciary lien’ consisting of a temporary transfer of property until the debt has been paid in full.Footnote 49 All forms of priority associated with new financing require court approval in Brazil. Nonetheless, following the approach existing in the United States, post-petition debts and expenses in the ordinary course of business can enjoy an administrative expense priority without requiring court approval.Footnote 50
Under the court-supervised rehabilitation procedure existing in the Philippines, DIP lenders can enjoy several forms of priority. First, they can enjoy an administrative expense priority.Footnote 51 Second, debtors can provide DIP lenders with a security interest over unencumbered property.Footnote 52 Third, DIP lenders can obtain a junior lien provided that it is approved by the secured creditor with a security interest over the encumbered property.Footnote 53 Regardless of the type of priority potentially granted, the new financing needs to be approved by the court upon the recommendation of the rehabilitation receiver.Footnote 54
In India, the new financing obtained during a formal insolvency proceeding enjoys an administrative expense priority.Footnote 55 Moreover, nothing prevents the interim resolution professional from obtaining new financing using unencumbered property and even encumbered assets provided that the affected secured creditor consents.Footnote 56 Therefore, the Indian insolvency legislation allows post-petition lenders to obtain different forms of priority. Unlike the regime existing in the Philippines and Brazil, however, any form of new financing in India needs to be authorised by the committee of creditors.Footnote 57 At first glance, it seems that, under the Indian regime, the new financing needs to be approved by those ultimately bearing the costs and gains associated with this decision – that is, the creditors. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the committee of creditors is usually formed by financial creditors. Consequently, as many financial creditors are often secured creditors and DIP lenders get paid ahead of secured creditors,Footnote 58 they might not always have incentives to approve DIP financing even when it creates or preserve value. Thus, the Indian model for the approval of DIP financing can lead to an inefficient outcome.
In the Dominican Republic, DIP lenders can get several types of priority. As a general rule, the new financing will enjoy an administrative expense priority.Footnote 59 However, subject to the approval of the court and, if applicable, the affected secured creditors, DIP lenders can also obtain a lien over the debtor’s encumbered and unencumbered assets.Footnote 60 When the type of priority enjoyed by the DIP lender consists of a security interest, a majority of creditors can veto the approval of DIP financing.Footnote 61 Moreover, the approval of new financing needs to be requested by the insolvency practitioner.Footnote 62 Thus, the involvement of several gatekeepers makes the system for the approval of new financing in the Dominican Republic one of the most protective ones observed around the world. Yet, that does not mean that this system is necessarily desirable. The optimal design of a DIP financing regime will depend on a variety of country-specific factors, as discussed in Sect. 5.
3.3.4 Regimes with Strong DIP Financing Provisions
3.3.4.1 Introduction
Under the strong DIP financing regime existing in jurisdictions such as the United States and Singapore,Footnote 63 post-petition lenders can enjoy different forms of priority.Footnote 64 First, they can enjoy an administrative expense priority.Footnote 65 Thus, in the event of liquidation, they will get paid ahead of the general body of unsecured creditors.Footnote 66 Second, DIP lenders can enjoy a priority over other administrative expenses.Footnote 67 In this case, the DIP lender will also get paid ahead of other administrative expenses. Third, DIP lenders can also obtain a lien over unencumbered assets.Footnote 68 This priority will make the DIP lender a secured creditor entitled to be paid with the value of the collateral. Fourth, DIP lenders can also obtain a junior lien.Footnote 69 In such cases, the DIP lender will also become a secured creditor. However, it will only get paid with the proceeds of the collateral if the secured creditor with a senior lien has been paid in full. Finally, the United States and Singapore also allow DIP lenders to obtain a senior lien over the debtor’s encumbered property.Footnote 70 In these scenarios, the DIP lender will also become a secured creditor. Moreover, by ‘priming’ an existing lien, the DIP lender will get paid ahead of the pre-existing secured creditor.
3.3.4.2 DIP Financing Provisions in the United States and Singapore: Similarities and Divergences
Despite the similarities existing in the types of priority potentially obtained by DIP lenders in the United States and Singapore, there are various divergences between both DIP financing regimes. First, the United States does not provide a formal definition of DIP financing. In Singapore, however, the concept of ‘rescue financing’ is defined in the insolvency legislation and refers to the financing that meets either or both of the following conditions: (i) it is necessary for the survival of the company that obtains the financing or of the whole or any part of the undertaking of that company, as a going concern; and (ii) it is necessary to achieve a more advantageous realisation of the assets of a company that obtains the financing than on a winding-up of that company.Footnote 71 Thus, any attempt to provide a priority to DIP lenders should first meet the definition of ‘rescue financing’.Footnote 72
Second, in the United States, court approval is not required to incur debts and expenses in the ordinary course of business where new lenders get an administrative expense priority.Footnote 73 In Singapore, however, any form of ‘rescue financing’ requires court approval.Footnote 74 Nonetheless, as mentioned in Sect. 3.3.1, in the context of a scheme of arrangement, nothing seems to prevent debtors from providing DIP lenders with a junior lien or a security interest over unencumbered property even if the transaction has not been approved by the court.Footnote 75 This is due to the hybrid nature of the scheme of arrangement – as opposed to a formal insolvency proceeding such as the U.S. Chapter 11 – and the fact that debtors are generally allowed to keep managing and selling assets during this procedure.Footnote 76 Yet, getting approval from the court may protect lenders from future avoidance actions or even liability for wrongful trading.Footnote 77 Therefore, even if court approval is not formally required to provide new lenders with a new lien or a junior lien during a scheme of arrangement, subjecting the transaction to court approval under the formal DIP financing regime will provide additional protection to the lender.
Third, in the United States, when the new financing is not in the ordinary course of business or the DIP lender is expected to get a priority other than a basic administrative expense priority, debtors need to obtain court approval. In those scenarios, they need to show that they were unable to obtain credit otherwise.Footnote 78 In Singapore, this latter condition is required for all forms of priority except for new financing that provides DIP lenders with a basic administrative expense priority. Even if the proof of the debtor's inability to obtain credit otherwise is not formally required to provide DIP lenders with an administrative expense priority, Singapore courts have still asked debtors to show some ‘reasonable attempts’ to obtain new financing on an unsecured basis.Footnote 79
Fourth, despite the criticism over the practice of allowing DIP lenders to get a priority not only for the new financing but also for some pre-petition debts (‘roll-ups’),Footnote 80 sometimes in the form of a security interest provided to cover a pre-existing unsecured debt (‘cross-collateralisation’),Footnote 81 roll-ups and cross-collateralisations are not uncommon in the United States.Footnote 82 In Singapore, since the adoption of the regime for rescue financing in 2017, there has only been one reported case that dealt with roll-ups.Footnote 83 In that case, the DIP lender was granted an administrative expense priority to be paid ahead of other administrative expenses.
It remains unclear, however, whether cross-collateralisations will be allowed in Singapore. While it has been argued that the approval of a roll-up has left the door open for cross-collateralisations,Footnote 84 a literal interpretation of the law seems to reject this hypothesis.Footnote 85 Indeed, under the current regulatory framework for rescue financing in Singapore, an administrative expense priority – including the administrative expense priority to be paid ahead of other administrative expenses – can be granted to financing ‘obtained or to be obtained’ by the debtor.Footnote 86 Thus, the law allows the possibility of giving a priority to pre-petition lenders, and therefore roll-ups, provided that the priority consists of an administrative expense priority. In the case of security interests, however, the law requires that the financing needs ‘to be obtained’ by the debtor.Footnote 87 Thus, the possibility of granting a new lien, a junior lien or a senior lien under the regime for rescue financing in Singapore only seems to be possible for new financing obtained after initiating the procedure and obtaining court approval. As a result, Singapore insolvency law does not seem to allow cross-collateralisations.
A different discussion is whether cross-collateralisations should be allowed. To answer that question, it should be kept in mind that the policy justification for allowing cross-collateralisations and roll-ups is very similar: the need to preserve or create value even if that leads to favouring some pre-petition creditors.Footnote 88 Nonetheless, DIP lenders obtaining an administrative expense priority still bear certain risks if, for example, the debtor ends up in liquidation without any unencumbered assets. By contrast, DIP lenders obtaining a new lien or a senior lien will secure the repayment of their loans provided that the value of the collateral exceeds the value of the debt. Put differently, DIP lenders obtaining a new lien or a senior lien will unlikely bear any losses potentially associated with the continuation of the company. Moreover, by securing part of their pre-existing unsecured debt, they will improve their overall position in the insolvency proceeding. Under this scenario, DIP lenders may have incentives to extend new credit regardless of the viability of the company. Hence, cross-collateralisations could undesirably contribute to the continuation of non-viable businesses. As a result, the higher risks existing in the context of cross-collateralisations compared to roll-ups seem to justify the implied prohibition of cross-collateralisations in Singapore.
If cross-collateralisations were hypothetically allowed in Singapore, they would have to be subject to stricter scrutiny by courts. Namely, in addition to the requirements generally imposed for the authorisation of DIP financing, courts should be required to verify that the company obtaining the new financing is economically viable.Footnote 89 Still, due to the difficulties associated with determining this aspect as well as the fact that the costs or benefits created by the new financing will be ultimately experienced by the creditors, it would be more desirable if the decision to authorise DIP financing, including any cross-collateralisation, were made by the creditors as suggested in Sect. 5.2.3.
Apart from these divergences in the regulation of DIP financing in the United States and Singapore, both jurisdictions require similar conditions for the approval of DIP financing. First, the new financing should create or preserve value.Footnote 90 Second, the terms of the proposed financing should be fair, reasonable and adequate.Footnote 91 Third, the injection of new financing should be based on a sound and reasonable business judgement.Footnote 92 Fourth, the debtor should be unable to obtain other forms of financing, and other offers or proposals are not available.Footnote 93 Fifth, the new financing should be in the best interest of the company and the creditors as a whole.Footnote 94 This last requirement seems to reflect the economic rationale of DIP financing: the ability of the new financing to create or preserve value for the creditors as a whole.Footnote 95 As a result, the courts in the United States and Singapore should make sure that the new financing makes everybody better off. In other words, the DIP financing needs to represent a Pareto improvement, that is, a transaction making everybody or at least somebody better off without making anyone worse off.Footnote 96
Finally, both regimes impose very stringent conditions for the authorisation of a senior lien over encumbered property. Namely, along with the general requirements needed for the approval of DIP financing, a senior lien can only be granted if the affected secured creditors are ‘adequately protected’.Footnote 97 For that purpose, both countries adopt a similar concept of adequate protection that includes cash payments, replacement liens, and indubitable equivalent value.Footnote 98 This latter form of adequate protection can generally be shown when there is an equity cushion over existing encumbered assets,Footnote 99 or when the company has a going-concern surplus,Footnote 100 even though the latter can be more subjective as it depends on several factors determining the value of the firm.Footnote 101 By requiring adequate protection, the new financing will not make the pre-existing secured creditor worse off. Therefore, if the new financing makes the creditors as a whole better off and does not make anyone worse off, the Pareto improvement principle inspiring the regime of DIP financing will be respected. As a result, the new financing should be authorised. Moreover, as the pre-existing secured creditors would not be worse off, the existence of this form of priority should not lead to an ex ante increase in the cost of debt, provided that the creditors are confident that the courts will not deviate from this value-enhancing principle that justifies the authorisation of DIP financing. Hence, as can be observed, the desirability and success of the DIP financing regime existing in the United States and Singapore heavily rely on the ability of the court to distinguish between value-creating DIP financing that should be authorised and DIP financing that destroys or only redistributes value and thereby should be rejected.Footnote 102
4 The Perils of a DIP Financing Regime
By obtaining a new lien, a junior lien or an administrative expense priority, DIP lenders will get paid ahead of the general body of unsecured creditors. As a result, if new financing does not end up creating or preserving value, the authorisation of DIP financing will make the debtor’s pre-existing unsecured creditors worse off. Thus, paradoxically, insolvency law will ultimately reduce, rather than increase, the recoveries of the debtor's pre-existing creditors. A similar problem occurs when DIP lenders obtain an administrative expense priority paid ahead of other administrative expenses. Indeed, if the debtor’s assets are insufficient to cover all the administrative expenses, some post-petition creditors interacting with the debtors on the basis that they would be paid in full will suffer some losses. Therefore, from an ex ante perspective, they will be reluctant to do business with a viable but financially distressed debtor, leading to the underinvestment problem that DIP financing provisions seek to solve. Finally, if an insolvency system allows the possibility of priming an existing lien,Footnote 103 the affected secured creditor faces the risk of not being paid in full if it is not adequately protected and the value of the collateral is insufficient to cover both the DIP loan and the debt owed to the pre-existing secured creditor. As a result, the value of a security interest will be diluted, and lenders will be reluctant to extend credit or they will significantly increase the cost of debt from an ex ante perspective.Footnote 104 Hence, the existence of a DIP financing regime may end up harming firms’ access to finance and the promotion of economic growth.
Additionally, there are other risks and challenges that need to be addressed when adopting a DIP financing regime. First, the new financing obtained by insolvent debtors may be used to keep non-viable firms alive or just postpone an inevitable liquidation. If so, the expenses incurred and any loss of value experienced until the liquidation of the firm will reduce the returns to creditors. Moreover, the possibility of keeping non-viable firms alive will also hamper the efficient reallocation of resources in the economy.
Second, while it seems clear that DIP financing should only be authorised if it creates or preserves value,Footnote 105 distinguishing between value-enhancing and value-destroying DIP financing is not always easy. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that the actors in charge of authorising the new financing might not have the expertise, resources or incentives to make value-maximising decisions. Therefore, the risk of being subordinated to new lenders in a hypothetical event of insolvency may encourage lenders to increase the cost of debt. In jurisdictions where pre-existing secured creditors can also be subordinated without their consent, the authorisation of new financing can be even more problematic. Indeed, since a security interest is specifically provided to protect secured creditors against the debtor’s risk of insolvency, the possibility of altering the position of pre-existing secured creditors may adversely affect lending markets. For these reasons, jurisdictions such as the United States and Singapore require the adoption of several safeguards when this form of priority is provided, and other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have traditionally been sceptical about the implementation of a strong form of DIP financing provisions that would allow the possibility of priming existing liens.Footnote 106
Finally, some empirical studies have shown that the imposition of certain conditions in DIP loans can make DIP lenders very powerful in the restructuring process.Footnote 107 This power may lead to an undesirable outcome for the creditors as a whole,Footnote 108 sometimes in the form of fire sales.Footnote 109 Therefore, if the terms of the DIP loans are not carefully examined before the DIP financing is approved, the approval of DIP financing will actually exacerbate, rather than improve, some of the problems among creditors that insolvency law seeks to solve.Footnote 110
These risks can be minimised, at least in theory, through the existence of an independent, reliable and sophisticated third party authorising DIP financing. Yet, it has been shown that the approval of value-diverting or value-destroying DIP financing can even take place in jurisdictions such as the United States, where the third party in charge of approving the new financing meets those criteria.Footnote 111 Thus, if independent and sophisticated gatekeepers, such as a bankruptcy judge in the United States, often err when it comes to the approval of new financing, this risk will be exacerbated in jurisdictions with poor institutions and unsophisticated actors assessing whether, and if so under what conditions, DIP financing should be approved. Therefore, as will be analysed in Sect. 5, this article argues that the traditional systems for the approval of new financing need to be revised.
5 Policy Recommendations for the Adoption of DIP Financing Provisions
5.1 Introduction
The inability of viable but insolvent firms to obtain new financing can destroy value for debtors, creditors and society as a whole. In countries with a developed financial system comprising a strong capital market, a competitive banking sector, and a deep market for distressed assets and alternative finance, viable firms – even if they face financial trouble – may have more chances to obtain external finance. Unfortunately, not many countries have this type of dynamic financial system. Even if they do, lenders may still be reluctant to extend credit to many viable but financially distressed firms. Hence, countries should ideally adopt a strong system of DIP financing that can provide DIP lenders with several forms of priority.
5.2 Optimal Design of DIP Financing Provisions
5.2.1 Rethinking the System of Approval of New Financing
In order to minimise the risks and costs potentially created by the adoption of a strong DIP financing regime, the design of a regulatory framework for DIP financing should be tailored to the particular features of the country. Therefore, the key policy question to be addressed is not whether countries should adopt DIP provisions but how these provisions should be designed, especially when it comes to the actors in charge of approving the new financing.
5.2.2 Towards a System of DIP Financing Approved by Creditors in Countries Without Sophisticated Courts and Insolvency Practitioners
In jurisdictions without sophisticated, independent, efficient and reliable courts, which is the scenario often found in emerging economies and even in some advanced economies,Footnote 112 courts should not be involved in the approval of DIP financing.Footnote 113 Otherwise, the inability of the court to accurately distinguish between value-enhancing and value-destroying DIP financing, or the lack of independence and predictability of the court, will generate several costs. Ex post, it can destroy or opportunistically redistribute value. Additionally, if the new financing is used to keep non-viable firms alive, the decision to authorise new financing will destroy value for the creditors and will also hamper the efficient reallocation of resources in the economy. Ex ante, a system favouring the approval of DIP financing that can destroy or opportunistically redistribute value will make lenders more sceptical to extend credit, leading to an undesirable increase in the cost of debt. Consequently, the adoption of a DIP financing regime may end up doing more harm than good.
The same problem occurs when the decision to authorise DIP financing is made by non-sophisticated insolvency practitioners. When insolvency practitioners do not have a high level of expertise, credibility and independence, they will unlikely be able to distinguish between value-enhancing and value-destroying new financing. In those situations, insolvency practitioners should be prevented from making the decision to authorise new financing unless they are held personally liable for this decision, as happens in certain countries such as Australia.Footnote 114 In those cases, however, it is very unlikely that the insolvency practitioners will borrow, even if the new financing is value-enhancing. Thus, if this system is adopted, the remuneration of insolvency practitioners should be ideally linked to the returns obtained by the creditors.Footnote 115 Thus, the system would incentivise insolvency practitioners to obtain new financing when it can be value-enhancing. At the same time, it will also discourage insolvency practitioners from borrowing when it is not clear that the new financing will be beneficial for the creditors as a whole.
Most emerging countries have weak institutional environments that generally comprise an inefficient judiciary, a weak rule of law and even problems of corruption.Footnote 116 Additionally, emerging economies do not usually have a strong body of sophisticated insolvency practitioners.Footnote 117 Therefore, the involvement of the judiciary and insolvency practitioners should be avoided in these jurisdictions. In other countries, including many advanced economies, corruption might not be a significant problem. Yet, judges and insolvency practitioners might not have a high level of expertise in commercial and financial matters. Thus, they will unlikely be able to make value-maximising decisions when it comes to the approval of DIP financing. Finally, even if a country has competent judges, the judicial system may not be very efficient, and the delay associated with getting court approval can end up destroying value and even jeopardising the survival of viable but financially distressed firms. For that reason, in all of these jurisdictions, including both emerging economies and advanced economies with any type of institutional weakness, the decision to approve DIP financing should be made by the creditors.
5.2.3 The Need to Confer Veto Rights on Creditors in Countries with Sophisticated Courts and Insolvency Practitioners
For countries with efficient, reliable and competent courts and insolvency practitioners, it can be argued that the decision to authorise DIP financing can be made by courts or insolvency practitioners. Yet, as the empirical literature on DIP financing shows,Footnote 118 even sophisticated gatekeepers — such as bankruptcy judges in the United States — can often make decisions that may lead to inefficient outcomes. For that reason, creditors should always be allowed to veto the decision to approve new financing made by third parties such as courts and insolvency practitioners. Thus, in countries with sophisticated courts and insolvency practitioners, these third parties would have the opportunity to add value by providing their credibility and expertise and reducing the costs associated with the decision made by the creditors. Nonetheless, the actors experiencing the costs and benefits of the approval of DIP financing – that is, the creditors – would ultimately decide whether the new financing should be authorised.
Due to a variety of factors, including asymmetries of information and lack of expertise, it can be argued that many creditors might not be well equipped to accurately assess the desirability of the new financing. As a result, creditors would face similar problems to those mentioned in the context of unsophisticated judges and insolvency practitioners.Footnote 119 Against this potential criticism, however, it is important to note that, unlike courts and insolvency practitioners, creditors have skin in the game. Thus, even if they may not always make a value-maximising decision, the fact that they are the residual claimants of the firm and thereby they will experience the costs and benefits associated with the company’s actions makes creditors the most suitable actors to decide whether the new financing should be authorised.Footnote 120 Put differently, even if courts and insolvency practitioners have the expertise, credibility, independence and resources to assess the desirability of the new financing, they might not have incentives to make value-maximising decisions. After all, unlike the company’s creditors, judges will not be rewarded or punished depending on the value potentially created or destroyed by their decision. And the same applies to insolvency practitioners, unless their remuneration is based on the recoveries received by creditors and, as in Australia, they are personally liable for the authorisation of new debts.
Finally, it could also be argued that other problems potentially faced by creditors, such as collective action problems and passive behaviour, may also justify the approval of new financing by courts or insolvency practitioners. Yet, that explanation does not sound entirely convincing either. First of all, the existence of an insolvency proceeding that provides a single forum for the resolution of a debtor’s financial distress already reduces the collective action problems generally faced by creditors.Footnote 121 Second, any coordination problems potentially faced by creditors can also be reduced by adopting several strategies, such as the creation of a creditors’ committee. Finally, the problems associated with coordination costs and passive behaviour of the company’s creditors can also be minimised by reducing the costs of being involved in the insolvency proceeding (for instance, facilitating disclosure and favouring the use of electronic devices), designing voting rules exclusively based on the value of the claims and not on any headcount test, or delegating the decision to authorise the new financing to a committee formed by the largest creditors among those most directly affected by the approval of DIP financing. As discussed in the following section, the group of creditors most directly affected by the approval of DIP financing will depend on the type of priority potentially offered to the DIP lender. Identifying the group (or groups) of creditors most directly affected by the approval of new financing will be essential for the optimal design of a DIP financing regime.
5.2.4 Type of Creditors Involved in the Approval or Veto of DIP Financing
The type of creditors involved in the approval or veto of DIP financing should depend on the type of priority potentially obtained by the DIP lender. Thus, the decision would be made by the creditors most directly affected by the approval of new financing. For instance, in countries where secured creditors get paid first, followed by administrative expenses and then unsecured creditors,Footnote 122 the creditors most directly affected when the debtor grants an administrative expense priority to DIP lenders are the general body of unsecured creditors. Indeed, as DIP lenders obtaining an administrative expense priority will get paid ahead of unsecured creditors, any new financing that does not end up creating or preserving value will make unsecured creditors worse off. As a result, the new financing should be approved by unsecured creditors.Footnote 123 When the priority offered to the DIP lender consists of a new lien, a junior lien or an administrative expense priority to be paid ahead of other administrative expenses, the approval of value-destroying DIP financing will be detrimental to both unsecured creditors and pre-existing administrative expense claimants. Therefore, the new financing should be approved by both groups of creditors directly affected by the approval of new financing, that is, unsecured creditors and pre-existing administrative expense claimants.
Finally, if the priority offered to DIP lenders consists of a senior lien over encumbered property, the creditor most directly affected by this priority is the pre-existing secured creditor with a lien over that property.Footnote 124 Hence, the decision to authorise DIP financing should be approved or vetoed by the affected secured creditor.Footnote 125 This solution should also be adopted in countries where, as happens in Brazil, DIP lenders obtain an administrative expense priority and administrative expenses are paid ahead of secured creditors.Footnote 126 In these latter scenarios, the new financing would prime all pre-existing liens. Thus, it should also be approved or vetoed by the company’s pre-existing secured creditors. It can be argued that, given that the approval of the affected secured creditor is required, this form of priority will not be commonly used. Yet, this outcome would not be very different from what is observed in countries allowing courts to individually prime an existing lien such as the United States and Singapore. Indeed, as granting a senior lien over an encumbered asset in Singapore and the United States is subject to various stringent conditions including the ability of the debtor to provide adequate protection to the affected secured lender, this priority is not often provided in the United States and has not been granted in Singapore since the rescue financing provisions were adopted in 2017. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that if the new financing really creates value, the affected secured creditors should not be worse off. Additionally, secured creditors often have unsecured claims against the debtor. Therefore, provided that the new financing can increase their overall recoveries, secured creditors may have incentives to approve DIP loans potentially priming their pre-existing liens. More importantly, this system for the approval of DIP financing affecting pre-existing secured creditors would provide more certainty in lending markets. Thus, it can be a more desirable approach to facilitate firms' access to finance and the promotion of economic growth.
6 Conclusion
A situation of insolvency hinders a firm’s ability to obtain external finance. As a result, viable but financially distressed firms might be unable to keep operating and pursuing value-creating investment projects. Therefore, value can be destroyed for debtors, creditors, employees, suppliers and society as a whole. To address this problem, several jurisdictions around the world have adopted a system of DIP financing that seeks to encourage lenders to extend credit to viable but financially distressed firms. They do so by providing DIP lenders with various forms of priority that typically range from a basic administrative expense priority to the possibility of becoming a junior or, in some jurisdictions, even a senior secured creditor. After analysing the regulatory framework of DIP financing in more than 30 jurisdictions in Asia, Latin America, Europe, Africa and North America, this article has shown that there are many similarities in the treatment of DIP financing around the world. Namely, based on the type of priority potentially offered to DIP lenders, it has been shown that most DIP financing regimes can be summarised into four primary models.
The article has examined the risks and costs potentially created by a DIP financing regime, and has concluded by analysing whether, and if so how, countries should adopt DIP financing provisions. To that end, it has been argued that the adoption of DIP financing provisions should be considered a desirable policy even in countries with developed financial systems. Moreover, countries should ideally adopt a strong DIP financing regime. Thus, the key policy question to be addressed is not whether DIP financing provisions should be adopted but how. In this regard, it has been pointed out that the optimal design of DIP financing provisions should depend on the particular features of a country. In jurisdictions with sophisticated judges and insolvency practitioners, these actors may play a role in the approval of new financing. Yet, since even sophisticated courts and insolvency practitioners can err and they might not have incentives to make value-maximising decisions, creditors should have the ability to veto the decision to authorise DIP financing. By contrast, in jurisdictions without sophisticated courts and insolvency practitioners, the decision to approve DIP financing should be exclusively made by the creditors. It has been argued that the type of creditors entitled to approve or veto the new financing should depend on the priority potentially granted to the DIP lender and therefore on the creditors most directly affected by the approval of DIP financing.
Data availability
N/A
Notes
This article will use the terms ‘DIP financing’, ‘rescue financing’, ‘new financing' and ‘post-petition financing’ interchangeably. Likewise, the terms ‘insolvency law’ and ‘bankruptcy law’ will be used as synonyms.
See Ayotte and Skeel Jr (2013).
For the benefits and rationale of DIP financing, see Triantis (2020).
A firm is no longer viable when the value of the assets on a break-up basis exceeds the value of the business as a going concern. See Armour (2001). This definition seems consistent with the concept of ‘economically inefficient firms’ also used in the economic literature. See White (1989); White (1994). For other authors, however, a business is not economically viable if the firm’s revenues cannot cover its costs, exclusive of financing costs. See Schwartz (2005), pp 1200–1201. Regardless of the definition of viability potentially chosen, the loss of suppliers, employees, lenders and other stakeholders can reduce the firm’s ability to generate revenues, ultimately destroying going-concern value and making viable firms become non-viable businesses.
See Myers (1977).
See Ayotte and Skeel Jr (2013).
From an empirical perspective, analysing the harmful ‘domino effect’ potentially generated by a situation of insolvency, see Benmelech et al. (2014).
See Menezes et al. (2021).
Armour et al. (2015).
Ibid.
Elayan and Meyer (2001).
Ibid.
Skeel Jr (2003).
Ibid., at p 919.
Ibid., at p 931.
For the purpose of this article, the term ‘administrative expense priority’ will be used broadly. Namely, it will include expenses generated by the procedure, such as fees charged by insolvency professionals, as well as debts and expenses incurred during the procedure. While administrative expenses generally enjoy a priority in most jurisdictions, the precise treatment of administrative expenses in the ranking of claims differs across jurisdictions. For example, in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, the proceeds generated by the sale of encumbered assets cannot be used to pay administrative expenses. Nonetheless, administrative expenses enjoy the highest level of priority over the debtor’s unencumbered assets. In other jurisdictions, however, such as Brazil, administrative expenses are paid ahead of secured creditors. Thus, in the context of DIP financing, DIP lenders extending credit on an unsecured basis can ironically enjoy a better treatment than those obtaining a senior lien. For that reason, some authors have argued that, even if priming an existing lien is not formally allowed under the DIP financing provisions existing in Brazil, the controversial ranking of claims existing under Brazilian insolvency law leads to a de facto priming of existing liens when DIP lenders obtain an administrative expense priority. See Cavalli (2023). This situation leads to two general approaches to prime existing liens in the context of DIP financing. First, existing liens can be primed directly and individually by providing DIP lenders with a lien that will immediately affect the position of a particular secured creditor. Second, existing liens can also be primed indirectly and collectively by providing DIP lenders with a priority over the debtor’s pre-existing secured creditors. Since this latter scenario is generally the result of a policy decision made when defining the ranking of claims rather than the design of DIP financing provisions, this article will focus on the former approach to prime existing liens, which is the approach followed in countries with more comprehensive DIP financing regimes such as the United States and Singapore. Yet, Sect. 5.2.4 will provide various policy recommendations for countries where obtaining new financing indirectly means priming pre-existing liens.
For example, this scenario can be found in Brazil. See Cavalli (2023). It can also be found in India. See Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, ss 5(13) and 53.
See Insolvency Act 2020, Art. 242 − 10º.
In Chile, see Insolvency Act of 2014 (Law 20,720), Art. 74. In the Dominican Republic, see Law 114 − 15 of 2015 on Restructuring and Liquidation of Companies, Art 87. In India, see Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, s 25I.
Bankruptcy Code, s 364(a). In other countries, such as Spain, expenses generally incurred as part of the debtor’s ordinary course of business enjoy an administrative expense priority. See Insolvency Act 2020, Art. 242 − 11º. Nonetheless, new debts need to be authorised by the insolvency practitioner appointed to manage or supervise the insolvency proceeding, see Insolvency Act 2020, Art. 242 − 10º.
For the concept of formal reorganisation procedures, and how they differ from completely out-of-court restructuring and hybrid procedures, see Garrido (2012), pp 1–52.
Ibid.
For a comprehensive analysis of the scheme of arrangement, see Payne (2014).
Ibid.
Companies Act 2016, s 368.
Companies Act 2016, s 367.
Secured creditors were not affected by this moratorium though.
The possibility of obtaining a moratorium exists, for example, under the CVA in Brunei. It used to exist in the United Kingdom but only for small companies. Since the enactment of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, this moratorium is no longer available. Instead, a moratorium for all types of companies is available under the new restructuring framework.
These countries include Spain and Italy. See n. 45.
For the purposes of this article, formal reorganisation procedures will exclude hybrid procedures (including scheme of arrangements) and out-of-court restructuring procedures (‘workouts’).
For Argentina, see Art. 240 of the 1995 Insolvency Act (Law 24,522). For Australia, see Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part 5.3 A, ss 443D and 443E. For Brunei, see Insolvency Order 2016, s 147(1)(a). For Chile, see Insolvency Act 2014 (Law 20,720), Art. 74. For China, see Asian Business Law Institute (2020), pp 182–183, at para. 65. For Ecuador, see Corporate Reorganization Law of 1997, Art 48. For Italy, see Germinario et al. (2019). For Indonesia, see Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Act, Art. 69. For Japan, see Civil Rehabilitation Act (Act No. 225 of 22 December 1999), Arts. 120.1, 120.4 and 119(v) and Corporate Reorganization Act (Act No. 154 of 13 December 2002), Arts. 128.1, 128.2 and 127(v). See also Asian Business Law Institute (2020), p 382, at para. 44. For Mexico, see Commercial Bankruptcy Law, Art. 224. For Myanmar, see Insolvency Law 2020, s 196(b). For New Zealand, see Insolvency Act 2006, ss 273–274. For Nigeria, see Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, Tenth Schedule (3). See also Idigbe (2022), p 72. For South Africa, see Companies Act 71 of 2008, s 135(3). See also Calitz and Freebody (2016). For South Korea, see Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Art. 179(1)1. For Spain, see Insolvency Act 2020, Art. 245 − 12. For Thailand, see Bankruptcy Act BE 2483 (1940), ss 24, 114, 130. For the United Kingdom, see Schedule B1 of Insolvency Act 1986, para. 3. For Uruguay, see Insolvency Act 2008, Art. 91.
For the United Kingdom, see Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule 1, para. 3. For Brunei, see Insolvency Order 2016, Second Schedule, para. 3. For Malaysia, see Insolvency Act 1967, s 61(e).
For example, in China, new financing must be approved by a resolution from the creditors’ meeting or by the People’s Court before the first creditors’ meeting, see Shanghai High People’s Court, Shanghai High People’s Court (2019), Provisions (III) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People’s Republic of China, Fa Shi [2019] No. 3, http://www.hshfy.sh.cn/shfy/web/xxnr_yshj.jsp?pa=aaWQ9MjAyMjYyNzMmeGg9MSZsbWRtPUxNMTIxNAPdcssPdcssz&zd= (accessed 14 September 2022).
See Insolvency Act 2008, Art. 75.
See Insolvency Act 2014 (Law 20,720), Art. 74.
See Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1, para. 69. See also Stewart v. Engel [2000] BCC 741, 744D.
See Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 443 A.
Recognising the risks borne by administrators seeking to borrow in administration, see Intergen Energy Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2016] FCA 1585, at paras. 8–9.
Gurrea-Martinez (2022b).
See Clifford Chance (2021). In the Netherlands, the debtor can seek court approval to obtain emergency financing to continue the daily operations of the business during preparation of the plan. Such court approval insulates the transaction against the risk of clawback in the event the restructuring fails and the debtor is declared bankrupt. See Berkenbosch et al. (2021).
In Spain, see Insolvency Act 2020, Art. 667. For an analysis of the Italian regime, see Germinario et al. (2019).
In France, see Art. L. 611 − 11 of the French Commercial Code.
These forms of priority generally include an administrative expense priority, a security interest over unencumbered property, and a junior lien. In some jurisdictions included in the semi-strong model of DIP financing provisions, such as the Dominican Republic, the law does not clarify whether a senior lien over an encumbered property can be provided. See Law 114 − 15 on Restructuring and Liquidation of Companies of 2015, Arts. 86(iii) and 87. If this interpretation were adopted, however, the veto right enjoyed by a majority of creditors would not provide an effective protection to the secured creditors potentially affected by the senior lien granted to the DIP lender. Therefore, it would be more desirable if those veto rights were enjoyed by the affected secured creditors. In other jurisdictions, such as India, this possibility seems to exist, but it is subject to the approval of the affected secured creditors. See Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, s 20(c).
While the regime for DIP financing in Brazil does not formally allow the possibility of priming an existing lien, this outcome can be indirectly achieved if DIP lenders get an administrative expense priority. See n. 18. Moreover, it should be noted that, even if DIP lenders get an administrative expense priority, they will still be subordinated to certain labour claims as well as the essential expenses needed for the management of the bankruptcy estate, see Brazilian Bankruptcy Act, Art. 84, I-B.
Machado (2022), pp 13–14.
This administrative expense priority, however, ranks lower than other administrative expenses. See Brazilian Bankruptcy Act, Art. 84, I-E.
Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act 2010, s 55.
Ibid.
Ibid. In Brazil, however, a junior lien does not need to be approved by the pre-existing secured creditors but just by the court. See Brazilian Bankruptcy Act, Art. 69-C.
Ibid.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, ss 5(13) and 53.
Ibid., s 20(c).
Ibid., s 25I.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, ss 5(13) and 53. This policy choice adopted in India can lead to some of the paradoxical outcomes mentioned in the context of Brazilian insolvency law. See n. 18.
This administrative expense priority, however, is subordinated to the payment of other debts, including salaries owed to employees as well as the costs of the procedure (including the remuneration of insolvency practitioners). See Law 114 − 15 on Restructuring and Liquidation of Companies of 2015, Arts. 86(iii) and 87.
Law 114 − 15 on Restructuring and Liquidation of Companies of 2015, Art. 87.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Colombia has also adopted a strong system of DIP financing. See Law Decree 560/2020, 15 April 2020, Art. 5. However, this regime has only been implemented temporarily as a response to the COVID-19 crisis.
For the forms of priority offered under the insolvency framework in the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 364. In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67 and 101. For a deeper analysis of the rescue financing provisions in Singapore, see Chioh and Singh (2020); Ee and Tay (2022); Chew (2020). For an analysis of the regulation of DIP financing in the United States, see Triantis (1993); Skeel Jr (2004); Adler et al. (2007), pp 475–520; Squire (2016), pp 235–260.
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(1)(a) and 101(1)(a). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, ss 364(a) and 364(b).
In some jurisdictions, such as Brazil, administrative expenses are also paid ahead of secured creditors. See n. 18.
Bankruptcy Code, s 364(c)(1).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(1)(c)(i) and 101(1)(c)(i). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 364(c)(2).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018., ss 67(1)(c)(ii) and 101(1)(c)(ii). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 364(c)(3).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(1)(d) and 101(1)(d). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 364(d).
See Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, s 67(9) (for the definition of ‘rescue financing' for the purpose of the scheme of arrangement). See also Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, s 101(10) (for the definition of 'rescue financing' for the purpose of judicial management).
See Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850. See also Chew (2020).
Bankruptcy Code, s 364(a).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(1) and 101(1).
These restrictions can exist contractually though. For example, they can be included in the covenants potentially imposed by some of the debtor’s pre-existing creditors.
In some jurisdictions, however, debtors can be subject to certain restrictions during the scheme of arrangement. For example, in Singapore, on an application made by any creditor of a relevant company at any time during a moratorium period in a scheme of arrangement, the court can issue either or both of the following orders: (i) an order restraining the relevant company from disposing of the property of the relevant company other than in good faith and in the ordinary course of the business of the relevant company; (ii) an order restraining the relevant company from transferring any share in, or altering the rights of any member of, the relevant company. See Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, s 66(1).
Under the new regime for wrongful trading existing in Singapore, the debtor’s counterparty can also become liable under certain scenarios, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, s 239.
Bankruptcy Code, s 364(c).
Re Attilan Group Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 898, [61].
Distinguishing between roll-ups and cross-collateralisations, see Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850. In this case, cross-collateralisations were defined as ‘the granting of the debtor’s assets as collateral for both the new and pre-existing loans’. Therefore, they can be understood as a subcategory of roll-ups, i.e., a type of roll-up in which the DIP lender gets a security interest instead of other forms of priority.
See Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850.
Chua et al. (2020).
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67 and 101.
Ibid., ss 67(1)(a) and 67(1)(b), as well as ss 101(1)(a) and 101(1)(b).
See Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(1)(c) and 67(1)(d), as well as ss 101(1)(c) and 101(1)(d).
See Triantis (2020).
See Re Attilan Group Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 898, Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850, and re Mid-State Raceway, Inc 323 BR 40 (Bankr. ND New York, 2005). See also Triantis (2020), p 184.
See Re Attilan Group Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 898, Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850, and re Mid-State Raceway, Inc 323 BR 40 (Bankr. ND New York, 2005).
Ibid.
See Re Attilan Group Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 898, Re Design Studios [2020] 5 SLR 850, and In re Western Pacific Airlines, Inc 223 BR 567 (Bankr. D Colo, 1997).
Ibid.
See Triantis (2020).
For the concept of Pareto improvements and Pareto efficiency, see Varian (2010). See also Posner (2011), pp 17–20; and Mokal (2003). Arguing that a court must ensure that DIP financing is authorised when it is efficient, and therefore when value is created or preserved so that no party is made worse off as a result of the DIP financing, see Triantis (2020).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(6) and 101(7). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 364(d).
In Singapore, see Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, ss 67(6) and 101(7). In the United States, see Bankruptcy Code, s 361.
See In re YL West 87th Holdings I LLC, 423 B.R. 421, 441 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010); Wilmington Trust Co. v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.), 490 B.R. 470, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); In re Big Dog II, LLC, 602 B.R. 64, 70 (Bankr. N.D.Fla. 2019). Although the amount of equity sufficient to constitute an equity cushion differs on a case-by-case basis, courts have generally found that an equity cushion of less than 10% is insufficient to constitute adequate protection. See In re LeMay, 18 B.R. 659 (Bankr. D.Mass. 1982); In re Castle Ranch of Ramona, Inc., 3 B.R. 45 (Bankr. S.D.Cal. 1980); In re McGowan, 6 B.R. 241 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1980); and In re Tucker, 5 B.R. 180, 12 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1980). On the other hand, an equity cushion of more than 20% has generally been held to constitute adequate protection. See In re Ritz Theaters, Inc., 68 B.R. 256 (Bankr. M.D.Fla. 1986); In re Dunes Casino Hotel, 69 B.R. 784 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1986); In re Lake Tahoe Land Co., Inc., 5 B.R. 34, 37 (Bankr. Nev. 1980); In re Nashua Trust Co., 73 B.R. 423 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1987); and In re San Clemente Estates, 5 B.R. 605 (Bankr. S.D.Cal. 1980).
See In re Residential Capital LLC, 501 B.R. 549, 591–595 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013); In re Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 962 (1997).
Emphasising the importance of having courts with the ability to distinguish between both types of DIP financing, see Triantis (1993), p 919.
This outcome can be achieved directly, through the DIP financing regime, or indirectly through the system of priorities in the ranking of claims existing in the insolvency legislation. See n. 18.
For an empirical analysis of the effects associated with an unattractive treatment of secured creditors in insolvency proceedings, see Davydenko and Franks (2008).
Triantis (2020), p 179.
See UK Insolvency Service (2016), s 5.2.
According to Ayotte and Ellias (2021), 86% of DIP financing agreements currently include ‘milestones’ setting – for instance, sale of the company’s assets if the debtor does not propose a restructuring plan within a few months of filing for bankruptcy. Other studies have shown that more than 90% of DIP loans include these conditions, see Eckbo et al. (2020).
See Ayotte and Ellias (2021).
Some advanced economies may not have the problems of corruption and lack of independence existing in many emerging economies. However, their judicial systems may suffer from the lack of competent judges to deal with insolvency matters. Alternatively, even if the country has competent judges, the judicial system may not be very efficient. Therefore, any of these weaknesses would also justify the proposed approach for DIP financing suggested for emerging economies.
Gurrea-Martinez (2020a).
See Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 443 A.
Mentioning this model for the remuneration of insolvency practitioners, see INSOL International (2017).
Some exceptions can include Uruguay and, to a lesser extent, Costa Rica and Chile. According to the 2022 Rule of Law Index prepared by the World Justice Project, Uruguay ranks 25th out of 140 jurisdictions. Costa Rica and Chile rank 29th and 33rd, respectively, see World Justice Project (2022). In the 2022 Corruption Perception Index, Uruguay, Chile and Costa Rica rank 14th, 27th and 48th, respectively, out of 180 jurisdictions, see Transparency International (2022).
In the past years, however, some emerging economies such as India have taken significant steps to develop expertise in insolvency and restructuring and create a sophisticated body of insolvency professionals.
They would have skin in the game if, for example, they were made personally liable for poor decisions and their remuneration were linked to the returns received by the creditors. However, not many insolvency systems provide such a combination of sticks and carrots for insolvency practitioners. In the cases of judges, this system of incentives is even more rare.
Jackson (1986).
This is the ranking of claims existing in jurisdictions such as the United States and Singapore.
Gurrea-Martinez (2020a).
Technically speaking, administrative expense claimants and unsecured creditors can also be affected if a DIP lender gets a senior lien. Nonetheless, they are not the creditors most directly affected by the priority given to the DIP lender. In fact, they will only be affected if the value of the collateral exceeded the value of the debt owed to the pre-existing secured creditor before the senior lien was granted. In those cases, however, granting a senior lien will be less likely because the debtor could have provided a junior lien.
A similar solution exists in various jurisdictions, such as India and the Philippines. As regards the Philippines, see Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act 2010, s 55(b). In India, see Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, ss 25(2)(c) and 28(1)(b).
See n. 18.
References
Adler EB, Baird GD, Jackson HT (2007) Bankruptcy: cases problems and materials, 4th edn. Foundation Press, St. Paul
Armour J (2001) The law and economics of corporate insolvency: a review. ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper 197. https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/wp197.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2021
Armour J, Menezes A, Uttamchandani M, van Zwieten K (2015) How do creditor rights matter for debt finance? A review of empirical evidence. In: Dahan F (ed) Research handbook on secured financing of commercial transactions. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 3–25
Asian Business Law Institute (2020) Corporate restructuring and insolvency in Asia. ABLI Legal Convergence Series, Singapore
Ayotte K, Ellias AJ (2021) Bankruptcy process for sale. Yale J Regul 39(1):1–60
Ayotte K, Morrison ER (2009) Creditor control and conflict in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. J Legal Anal 1(2):511
Ayotte K, Morrison ER (2018) Valuation disputes in corporate bankruptcy. Univ Pa Law Rev 166:1819
Ayotte K, Skeel DA Jr (2013) Bankruptcy law as a liquidity provider. Univ Chic Law Rev 80:1557
Bauer A, Craig S, Garrido J, Kang HK, Kashiwase K, Kim SJ, Yan L, Rafiq S (2021) Flattening the insolvency curve: promoting corporate restructuring in Asia and the Pacific in the post-C19 recovery. IMF Working Paper No. 2021/016
Benmelech E, Bergman N, Milanez A, Mukharlyamov V (2014) The agglomeration of bankruptcy. NBER Working Paper 20254
Berkenbosch J, Pepels S, Schuurs E (2021) Legislative update: the Dutch scheme has arrived. Jones Day Business Restructuring Review. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2021/03/legislative-update-the-dutch-scheme-has-arrived. Accessed 15 March 2022
Berkovitch E, Kim EH (1990) Financial contracting and leverage induced over- and under-investment incentives. J Finance 45(3):765
Calitz J, Freebody G (2016) Is post-commencement finance proving to be the thorn in the side of business rescue proceedings under the 2008 Companies Act? De Jure 49(2):265
Casey A (2020) Chapter 11’s renegotiation framework and the purpose of corporate bankruptcy. Colum Law Rev 120(7):1709
Cavalli C (2023) DIP finance regime in Brazil and the Escher’s paintings: a dialogue with Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez. 10 March 2022. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dip-finance-regime-brazil-dialogue-aurelio-c%2525C3%2525A1ssio-cavalli%3FtrackingId=rnuxWanmQuq2%252FCf8ii7pVw%253D%253D/?trackingId=johlHl7MSvCt%2F308GlZ6Sg%3D%3D. Accessed 18 March 2023
Chew D (2020) Super priority rescue financing in Singapore. Singapore Global Restructuring Initiative Blog, 19 November 2022. https://ccla.smu.edu.sg/sgri/blog/2020/11/19/super-priority-rescue-financing-singapore. Accessed 26 March 2022
Chioh A, Singh A (2020) Rescue financing in Singapore: navigating uncharted waters. Singap Acad Law Pract 1:1
Cho SH (2018) Roll-up & cross-collateralization in DIP (debtor-in-possession) financing as measures of creditor control. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Joseph Wharton Scholars. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=joseph_wharton_scholars. Accessed 18 March 2023
Chua Z, Han K, Phoon A, Tan M (2020) Recent developments in Singapore’s restructuring regime. Global Restructuring Review, 16 November 2020. https://globalrestructuringreview.com/review/asia-pacific-restructuring-review/2021/article/recent-developments-in-singapores-restructuring-regime. Accessed 25 Aug 2021
Clifford Chance (2021) New German restructuring scheme—a revolution of German restructuring law. 8 January 2021. https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2021/01/new-german-restructuring-scheme-a-revolution-of-german-restructuring-law.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2022
Daniels R, Triantis GG (1995) The role of debt in interactive corporate governance. Calif Law Rev 83:1073
Davydenko S, Franks JR (2008) Do bankruptcy codes matter? A study of defaults in France, Germany, and the U.K. J Finance 63(2):565–608
Eckbo BE, Li K, Wang W (2020) Rent extraction by super-priority lenders. Tuck School of Business Working Paper 3384389. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3384389
Ee JM, Tay J (2022) Singapore. In: INSOL International. Comparative review of approaches to ‘rescue’ or ‘debtor-in-possession’ (DIP) financing in restructuring and insolvency regimes, pp 91–103. https://insol.azureedge.net/cmsstorage/insol/media/document-library/books/comparative-review-of-approaches-to-rescue-or-dbtor-in-possession-finance-in-restructuring-and-insolvency-regimes.pdf. Accessed 14 Sep 2022
Elayan AF, Meyer OT (2001) The impact of receiving debtor-in-possession financing on the probability of successful emergence and time spent under Chapter 11 bankruptcy. J Bus Finance Acc 28(7):934
Franks JR, Sanzhar VS (2006) Evidence on debt overhang from distressed equity issues. EFA 2005 Moscow Meetings Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570068
Garrido MJ (2012) Out-of-court debt restructuring. World Bank Studies. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2230/662320PUB0EPI00turing09780821389836.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 30 Jan 2023
Germinario T, Novarese A, Pirisi GGF (2019) The Italian Insolvency Code: new rules on ‘debtor-in-possession’ financing. Latham and Watkins restructuring, insolvency and workouts practice. https://www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=842116e9-6cba-42e4-84c4-fd1f68ae2f97. Accessed 15 April 2023
Gropper A, Menezes A (2021) Overview of insolvency and debt restructuring reforms in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and past financial crises: lessons for emerging markets. World Bank Group. Equitable Growth, Finance and Institutions: COVID-19 Notes, Finance Series. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35425. Accessed 15 April 2023
Gurrea-Martinez A (2020a) Insolvency law in emerging markets. Ibero-American Institute for Law and Finance, Working Paper 3/2020. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3606395. Accessed 15 April 2023
Gurrea-Martinez A (2020b) The future of reorganization procedures in the era of pre-insolvency law. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 21(4):829
Gurrea-Martinez A (2022a) Building a restructuring hub: lessons from Singapore. Singapore Management University School of Law Research Paper No. 16/2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3940512. Accessed 30 January 2022
Gurrea-Martinez A (2022b) The future of insolvency law in a post-pandemic world. Int Insolv Rev 31(3):385
Idigbe A (2022) Nigeria. In: INSOL International. Comparative review of approaches to ‘rescue’ or ‘debtor-in-possession’ (DIP) financing in restructuring and insolvency regimes. https://insol.azureedge.net/cmsstorage/insol/media/document-library/books/comparative-review-of-approaches-to-rescue-or-dbtor-in-possession-finance-in-restructuring-and-insolvency-regimes.pdf. Accessed 14 Sep 2022
INSOL International (2017) Office-holder remuneration—some international comparisons. Special Report
Jackson HT (1982) Bankruptcy, non-bankruptcy entitlements, and the creditors’ bargain. Yale Law J 91(5):857
Jackson HT (1986) The logic and limits of bankruptcy law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Jenkins M, Smith CD (2014) Creditor conflict and the efficiency of corporate reorganization. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444700
Machado L (2022) Brazil. In: INSOL International. Comparative review of approaches to ‘rescue’ or ‘debtor-in-possession’ (DIP) financing in restructuring and insolvency regimes. https://insol.azureedge.net/cmsstorage/insol/media/document-library/books/comparative-review-of-approaches-to-rescue-or-dbtor-in-possession-finance-in-restructuring-and-insolvency-regimes.pdf. Accessed 14 Sep 2022
McCormack G, Wai YW (2019) Transplanting Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code into Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws: opportunities and challenges. J Corp Law Stud 19(1):69
Menezes A, Muro S, Pereira MC, Uttamchandani M (2021) How insolvency and creditor/debtor regimes can help address nonperforming loans. World Bank Group. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/163151612172227669/pdf/How-Insolvency-and-Creditor-Debtor-Regimes-Can-Help-Address-Nonperforming-Loans.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2022
Mokal JR (2003) On fairness and efficiency. Mod Law Rev 66(3):452
Myers CS (1977) The determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5(2):147
Parrino R, Weisbach M (1999) Measuring investment distortions arising from stockholder-bondholder conflicts. J Financ Econ 53(1):3
Payne J (2014) Schemes of arrangement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Posner AR (2011) Economic analysis of law, 8th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia
Schwartz A (2005) A normative theory of corporate bankruptcy. Va Law Rev 91(5):1199
Skeel DA Jr (2003) The ‘new’ new corporate governance in Chapter 11. Univ Pa Law Rev 152(2):917
Skeel DA Jr (2004) The past, present and future of debtor-in-possession financing. Cardozo Law Rev 25:1905
Sontchi C (2012) Valuation methodologies: a judge’s view. Am Bankruptcy Inst Law Rev 20(1):1
Squire R (2016) Corporate bankruptcy and financial reorganization. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia
Transparency International (2022) Corruption Perceptions Index. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/20221. Accessed 6 April 2023
Triantis GG (1993) A theory of the regulation of debtor-in-possession financing. Vanderbilt Law Rev 46:901
Triantis GG (2020) Debtor-in-possession financing in bankruptcy. In: Adler BE (ed) Research handbook on corporate bankruptcy law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts, pp 177–192
Tung F (2020) Financing failure: bankruptcy lending, credit market conditions, and the financial crisis. Yale J Regul 37(2):651
UK Insolvency Service (2016) Summary of responses: a review of the corporate insolvency framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/578524/Summary_of_responses_26-10-16_Redacted.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2022
Varian RH (2010) Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach, 8th edn. W.W. Norton and Company, New York
White JM (1989) The corporate bankruptcy decision. J Econ Perspect 3(2):129
White JM (1994) Does Chapter 11 save economically inefficient firms? Wash Univ Law Q 72(3):1319
World Justice Project (2022) World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/20212022/ranking. Accessed 6 April 2023
Acknowledgements
For valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ken Ayotte, Tony Casey, Cássio Cavalli, Richard Squire and two anonymous referees. For excellent research assistance, I would like to thank Samantha Lim, Sheena Heng, Sean Lee, Elza Lim and Rachel Toh. For helpful comments and discussions, I am very grateful to Paul Apáthy, Pamela Benzán, David Chew, Smitha Menon, Nydia Remolina and the participants of the international insolvency conference jointly organised by the University of Chicago, the University of Cambridge, Singapore Management University, INSOL International and the Asian Development Bank, held in Manila on 15–16 December 2022. All errors are mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he is not subject to any conflict of interest, he did not receive any funding to conduct this project and he did not use any database.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gurrea-Martinez, A. Debtor-in-Possession Financing in Reorganisation Procedures: Regulatory Models and Proposals for Reform. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 24, 555–582 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-023-00289-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-023-00289-z