BAHRAIN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Noor Radhi, Mohamed Ali Shaban and Mohamed Altraif, Hassan Radhi & Associates
through ordinary channels (eg, civil enforcement or claims against those responsible) rather than through a hollow bankruptcy proceeding that yields nothing. Consistently, judges have used unambiguous lan - guage to make their point. To quote a representative ruling: “the case in its current state will not achieve any legitimate bankruptcy purpose and is deserving of dismissal”. Here the court explicitly invoked the word - ing of Article 31 – “no legitimate purpose” – as the rationale, underscoring that continuing the process would be futile. In another case, the court similarly concluded that the only “purpose” of the debtor’s fil - ing was to “evade payment of debts”, which is not a purpose the law can endorse. Such statements under - score that Bahraini courts see themselves as guard - ians of the law’s intent: bankruptcy is a shield for the honest but unfortunate debtor, not a sword for the dishonest to cut down their creditors. Notably, the courts have also maintained a fair proce - dure in reaching these outcomes. Debtors have been given opportunities to rebut the trustees’ findings or justify their position – but those arguments have large - ly fallen flat. In one case, the debtor’s representative objected to the trustee’s dismissal request and even accused the trustee of bias or collusion with a credi - tor. The court firmly rejected these accusations, not - ing that the trustee was a qualified, court-appointed professional performing his lawful duty, and it ordered improper allegations struck from the record. The judg - es’ tone in such instances reflects a broader judicial commitment to professionalism and integrity in the insolvency process: trustees are trusted as neutral investigators, and debtors cannot derail a dismissal recommendation with baseless claims once the evi -
and that the temporary stay, expense and delay are kept to a minimum. However, one may ask: is dismissal alone a sufficient deterrent in the long run? At present, a debtor who files in bad faith faces the loss of the filing fee, some reputational damage, and possibly an order to pay the trustee’s fees or legal costs. These consequences, while not trivial, might not always outweigh the poten - tial benefit the debtor sought (eg, delaying enforce - ment or hoping for a favourable settlement under the cover of bankruptcy). After all, if a company’s prin - cipals have stripped significant assets prior to filing, simply having their case dismissed does not recover those assets for creditors – it just stops the attempt to wipe the slate clean. The wrongdoers might still retain the value taken, leaving creditors to chase them through other legal avenues. Comparatively, many jurisdictions impose harsher penalties for fraudulent or abusive bankruptcy con - duct, such as fines, director disqualifications, or even criminal liability for deliberate asset concealment. Bahrain’s current framework does not yet explicitly provide such penalties within the bankruptcy law’s proceedings for a debtor who files abusively (aside from general provisions in other laws that might apply to fraud). The recent cases suggest that Bahraini judg - es are keenly aware of this gap. Their rulings imply that while they can shut down a wrongful bankruptcy case, they cannot impose further sanctions within the bank - ruptcy case beyond costs. As one judge lamented in substance, every party has the right to litigate, but that right should not extend to misusing court processes – and the court’s only remedy in the bankruptcy context is to refuse the debtor’s request. Going forward, Bahrain may consider bolstering its insolvency regime with stronger deterrents against abuse. This could include legislative amendments or regulations introducing consequences for debtors (and their directors or managers) who attempt to game the system. Possible measures might be: explicitly empowering courts to penalise bad-faith filings, refer - ring egregious cases to public prosecutors (if fraud is involved in asset stripping, for example), or creating provisions to hold owners personally liable to creditors when they empty a company, then seek bankruptcy
dence indicates the petition is abusive. Closing the loophole – need for stronger deterrents?
By dismissing asset-stripped or sham bankruptcy fil - ings, Bahrain’s courts have effectively closed the door on a potential loophole in the 2018 law. The judiciary’s stance sends a strong deterrent message: filings that do not meet the law’s purpose do not proceed. By terminating them promptly under Article 31, the courts ensure no discharge or continuing shelter is obtained
63 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook