Court closures
India was in complete lockdown from 24 March until 31 May, a situation that inevitably impacted the functioning of Indian courts. Even though most implemented measures to conduct virtual hearings, these hearings have been limited to only the most urgent cases. Once courts return to business as usual, they are likely to receive a surge in filings, which will increase the backlog in a country that already has 30 million pending cases.
Co-Author - Jehangir N. Mistry Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe
Co-Author - Shireen Pochkhanawalla Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe
This article was published in Bankruptcy Law360 and Corporate Finance Law360 on May 23, 2011. © Copyright 2011, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360.
In response to the global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments in many countries have issued emergency legislation to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on companies’ day-to-day operations. Since March 24, 2020, the Indian government has been announcing various measures aimed to ease corporate and tax compliance for companies doing business in India, as well as other measures pertaining to employment and bankruptcy matters. Below is a high-level overview of some of the most relevant aspects of these measures as they pertain to India subsidiaries of US companies.
PRA consults on capital adequacy. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority proposed changes to the PRA’s Pillar 2 framework for the banking sector, including changes to rules and supervisory statements. The proposed policy is intended to ensure that firms have adequate capital to support the relevant risks in their business and that they have appropriate processes to ensure compliance with the Capital Requirements Regulation and Capital Requirements Directive.
Does an arbitration agreement protect a
debtor from the threat of liquidation?
27 July 2020
In several Commonwealth jurisdictions, the corporate legislation allows creditors to petition a court to order the winding up of a debtor in circumstances where that debtor is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Such legislation generally presumes that the debtor is insolvent if it has failed to comply with a statutory notice requiring the debtor to pay a certain debt within a given period of time (a statutory demand).
In 2016, the insolvency and bankruptcy landscape in India was radically overhauled by the introduction of the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In addition to consolidating the complex set of existing laws and regulations on insolvency and bankruptcy into a single law, the IBC introduced time bound and creditor driven resolution process for distressed companies overseen by the newly formed National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The giants of Asia – Indonesia, China, and India – raise many opportunities and challenges for insolvency practitioners. Baker McKenzie’s own Andi Kadir spoke this morning about some of the solutions to those problems, showcasing his significant experience with insolvency reforms and opportunities in Indonesia.
Andi highlighted the benefits of the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang regime as a restructuring tool in Indonesia. A PKPU is a debtor in possession mechanism, somewhat like a blend of a US Chapter 11 administration with aspects of the insolvency laws of the Netherlands.
For several years, India has had various overlapping laws and adjudicating authorities for dealing with financial distress and insolvency, which has often resulted in multiple proceedings being initiated before different forums in situations of distress. This in turn has resulted in ineffective and delayed recovery or restructuring and placed excessive strain on lenders.
The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the IBC) represents a radical rewriting of India’s corporate insolvency procedures, enabling creditors to restructure bad debts and rehabilitate corporate debtors within specified timelines.