This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.

Against the backdrop of recent judicial precedent, this article delves into the need for a group insolvency framework in India, and analyses the report published by the CBIRC in 2021.

Globalisation has led to a significant increase in the number of enterprises which comprise of several closely connected entities that may operate as a single economic unit. As a consequence, difficulties may arise when 1 or more entities in that single economic unit become insolvent as the inability of 1 entity to pay its debts may impact stakeholders in another entity within the group.

This article analyses India’s proposal to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

GoFirst’s insolvency has highlighted issues surrounding the insolvency resolution of commercial airlines. This article analyses the issues facing stakeholders, and the adequacy of extant regulations to address these.

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.