Introduction
In a recent ruling of Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited Vs Sbs Holdings, Inc. And Ors. CM No. 14793/2023 & 14794/2023 the Delhi High Court has discussed the rights and liabilities of third-party funders in cross-border arbitration proceedings. The Hon’ble Court’s comprehensive analysis of Sections 234[i] and 238[ii] of IBC in conjunction with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, has established a crucial precedent that safeguards the interests of third-party funders, who are non-signatories to an arbitration agreement.
Background
The case before the Hon’ble Court involved a complex cross-border insolvency matter where an Indian corporate debtor was the subject of arbitration proceedings encompassing multiple jurisdictions. Foreign creditors sought recognition of the Indian insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law to protect their interests in the debtor’s assets.
The Legal Conundrum
The pivotal question before the Hon’ble Court was whether third-party funders, who had supported a party in the arbitral proceedings but were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, could they be held liable to pay the awarded amount merely based on their funding involvement. Additionally, the Hon’ble Court needed to address whether the application of Section 238 of the IBC, which stipulates the Code’s provisions take precedence over anything inconsistent in other laws, could unfairly expose third-party funders to unforeseen liabilities.
Preserving Third-Party Funder Protections
In this judgement, the Delhi High Court explored the interplay of Sections 234 and 238 of the Code to address the legal conundrum. The court astutely emphasized that recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under Section 234 was essential to fostering international cooperation. It aimed to achieve a harmonious and uniform approach to managing the debtor’s assets and distributing them equitably among creditors, regardless of their geographical location.
The Hon’ble Court, however, noted that Section 238’s application should not lead to an unjust outcome for third-party funders who had not expressly accepted the risk of liability. The Hon’ble Court was steadfast in its stance that enforcement of an arbitral award against a non-party who had not consented to such exposure was neither desirable nor permissible.
In recognition of the invaluable role played by third-party funders in ensuring access to justice, the Hon’ble Court underscored that without such funding support, individuals with valid claims might be financially unable to pursue rightful recovery of legitimately due amounts. Often, claimants become impecunious due to the very circumstances for which they seek redressal. Given the substantial costs associated with arbitration, it is crucial to have third-party funding available as an option for impecunious parties.
Moreover, the Hon’ble Court deemed it essential for third-party funders to have full awareness of their potential exposure to liabilities. The Hon’ble Court upheld the principle that third-party funders could not be unfairly burdened with liabilities that they had neither undertaken nor were aware of. Any uncertainty in this regard would create a chilling effect, deterring third-party funders from providing crucial funding support for litigation.
The Case in Focus
The Hon’ble Court’s pronouncement came during an appeal filed against the Single Judge’s order in a petition under Section 9[iii] of the A&C Act, where the award holder sought interim measures to enforce the Arbitral Award.
The Single Judge had held that the third-party funder, Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited (“TSA”), who had financed the claimants to pursue the arbitral proceedings, was liable to pay the costs imposed on the claimants by the Arbitral Tribunal after their unsuccessful outcome.
However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court strongly disagreed with the Single Judge’s view. The court concluded that TSA, being a third-party funder, was not a party to the Arbitral Award and, therefore, could not be treated as a judgment-debtor. As a non-party to the arbitration proceedings, TSA could not be held accountable for the award’s enforcement under Section 36(1)[iv] of the A&C Act.
The Hon’ble Court’s ruling was firmly rooted in the understanding that an arbitral award could only bind parties who had been compelled to arbitrate and was actively involved in the arbitration proceedings. A non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, who was neither compelled to arbitrate nor joined as a party to the arbitral proceedings, could not be held responsible for the award’s enforcement.
Importantly, the Hon’ble Court observed that TSA’s involvement in funding the claimants’ arbitration proceedings was transparent and disclosed. SBS, the award holder, had neither attempted to include TSA as a party to the arbitration proceedings nor sought any order against TSA before the arbitral tribunal.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that TSA had no obligation to pay the awarded amount, as the Arbitral Tribunal had explicitly ordered costs against the claimants and not against TSA. Moreover, TSA’s funding agreement, the ‘Bespoke Funding Agreement’, did not impose any obligation on TSA to bear the expenses of an adverse award.
In its observations, the Hon’ble Court also acknowledged that no procedural rules in the Delhi High Court contemplated cost recovery from third parties who were not parties to the suit or action. The court emphasized that third parties could only be implicated in determining costs if a substantive action against them was instituted and tried separately.
K Singhania’s Comments
In our opinion, the Delhi High Court’s seminal ruling is a watershed moment in preserving the rights and protections of third-party funders in cross-border arbitration proceedings. The Hon’ble Court has set a strong precedent for future cases involving third-party funding.
This judgment reinforces the sanctity of arbitration agreements and the significance of transparent and informed third-party funding. It safeguards the role of third-party funders in ensuring access to justice and promoting international cooperation in cross-border insolvency cases as well as protects and limits their interest. This will also ensure more funders invest in arbitration in India and more Indian’s will be able to choose arbitration as an option without much hesitation with funding.
The Hon’ble Court’s enlightened approach not only establishes India’s adherence to international best practices but also showcases the judiciary’s astute understanding of the intricacies involved in cross-border arbitration. This ruling will undoubtedly bolster India’s standing as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and bolster its appeal for foreign investors seeking fair and just resolution of cross-border disputes.
This ruling reinforces India’s commitment to international cooperation and adherence to the UNCITRAL Model Law, signalling its willingness to foster a robust cross-border arbitration. It sends a clear message to foreign investors that India remains a jurisdiction that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and the protection of creditors’ rights in cross-border arbitration proceedings.
[i] Section 234: “(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for enforcing the provisions of this Code. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of provisions of this Code in relation to assets or property of corporate debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, as the case may be, situated at any place in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangements have been made, shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified.”
[ii] Section 238: “The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”
[iii] Section 9: “[(1)] A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court…”
[iv] Section 36(1): “Enforcement–(1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.”
Leave a Reply