BAHRAIN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Noor Radhi, Mohamed Ali Shaban and Mohamed Altraif, Hassan Radhi & Associates
• Dramatic asset depletion before filing – in one case, a company (operating in the healthcare sec - tor) filing for bankruptcy claimed it had used large sums to pay off worker wages and rent prior to the filing. However, upon investigation, the company could not produce any proof – no worker receipts or bank transfers evidencing those payments. Even more telling, the company failed to disclose that it still had income flowing into other bank accounts which were not reported to the court. These find - ings suggested that assets had been diverted or concealed, a strong sign of foul play. • Lack of a genuine reorganisation plan – in several instances, debtors petitioned ostensibly for “reor - ganisation” but presented no viable business plan or prospect of turning the business around. For example, a family-owned food and retail business sought bankruptcy protection while offering no path to profitability or restructuring – essentially using the law as a way to stall creditors despite the business having no going-concern value. Where a petition lacks a credible reorganisation proposal and offers no realistic prospect of value for credi - tors, the courts have concluded that it should not proceed and have dismissed it accordingly. • Insolvency caused by mismanagement or insider misconduct – Bahrain’s courts have scrutinised whether the debtor’s dire financial state was the result of external adversity or the debtor’s own making. In a notable case involving a local com - pany, the judge found that the company’s bank - ruptcy was brought about by the partners’ poor management, including taking out numerous bank loans and mishandling funds. The company’s financial collapse was essentially self-inflicted dur - ing favourable conditions (even around the time of the pandemic support measures), raising suspi - cion that the bankruptcy filing was an attempt by the owners to wash their hands of debts they had irresponsibly incurred. Courts have signalled that bankruptcy is not a haven for culpable manage - ment to escape the consequences of their actions. • No remaining assets to distribute to creditors – perhaps the clearest indicator of an abusive filing is when the debtor’s assets are practically nil, mean - ing creditors would get little to nothing out of a bankruptcy process. If the cupboard is bare – often because assets were transferred away before filing
– then the only effect of a bankruptcy would be to trigger an automatic stay or eventual discharge of debts, with no benefit to creditors. In such scenari - os, the courts view the petition as pointless at best and fraudulent at worst. As one judgment put it, the case “would not achieve any legitimate bank - ruptcy purpose and thus was worthy of dismissal”. In other words, if there is nothing to reorganise or distribute, there is no valid reason to invoke the bankruptcy regime. These red flags prompt the court to scrutinise the debtor’s true motives. Bahraini judges have shown they are willing to look behind the insolvency petition to ask: Is this filing genuinely aimed at rehabilitation or an orderly liquidation for creditors’ benefit? Or is it a tactic to avoid obligations after the value has been siphoned off? If the evidence tilts toward the latter, the courts have consistently leaned toward dismissal of the case. The courts’ response – investigate and reject When an insolvency petition appears suspect, the courts have responded proactively. Typically, a tem - porary trustee (insolvency administrator) is appointed at the outset of a reorganisation or bankruptcy filing. This court-supervised trustee acts as the eyes and ears of the court – examining the company’s books, assets and financial affairs. In the recent abusive-filing cases, trustees’ investigations have been pivotal. In each case, the trustee filed a detailed report flagging the issues: missing assets, unexplained payments, or the lack of any feasible reorganisation scenario. Bah - raini judges have expressly relied on these findings. For instance, in one High Court of Appeal decision, the panel noted it was “reassured by” the trustee’s report and adopted its reasoning in full. The report in that case uncovered undisclosed bank accounts and unproven payouts, leading the court to conclude that “the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was to evade paying [the] due debts”. Armed with such evidence, the court had little difficulty affirming the dismissal of the petition. In its blunt words, the filing was nothing more than an attempt to “avoid paying... debts”, and thus had to be thrown out.
61 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook