IBBIによる管財人の報酬体系規定

2016年破産倒産法の下、管財人または暫定管財人（総称してRP）は、企業債務者の事業を継続企業として運営し、企業倒産解決プロセス（CIRP）を実施する責任を負います。また、RPは、CIRP が期限内に実施され、企業債務者の資産価値が最大化されるように努める必要があります。

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has held that the Notification dated 15 November 2019 (‘Notification’), which notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (Rules), is ‘legal and valid’.

The said Notification was challenged before several High Courts and therefore, the Supreme Court had directed transfer of petitions from High Courts to itself to provide uniform interpretation on the said Notification and the Rules.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of May 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and various benches of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has restructured the economy by promoting its objectives namely the maximization of value of assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests of the stakeholders. Since the commencement and effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on 28 May 2016, the Adjudicating Authorities have upheld the objectives of IBC through a catena of judgements. One such case is the matter concerning Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.

With the exponential increase in the number of Covid-19 cases in the second wave of the pandemic and the overall economic slowdown, demands are being made for further tweaks the insolvency regime equipped to tide over the crisis.

On May 21, 2021, the Apex Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors.¹, upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification dated November 15, 2019, allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (“Notification”).

The COVID-19 pandemic has led successful resolution applicants to seek withdrawals of, or modifications to, approved resolution plans. This article examines the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on claims of force majeure in the resolution process of Amtek Auto.

INTRODUCTION:

Abstract

The question whether the institution or continuation of a proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act  can be said to be covered by the moratorium provision, namely, Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been a crucial issue in the legal domain. Various High courts have had dissenting opinion in relation to this concerning matter. However the Apex court has now put an end to all doubts and confusions.