Introduction

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”¹ Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation² breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.

Executive Summary

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.

OVERVIEW

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 13 November 2020 issued the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (Amendment) which introduced seminal changes to the liquidation regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Amendment has been introduced on the back of the discussion paper issued by IBBI on 26 August 2020 on Corporate Liquidation Process (Discussion Paper).

A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.

In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.

The Government of India (GOI) announced a nationwide lock down on account of Covid-19 pandemic with effect from 25 March 2020. This has severely disrupted regular business activities across all sectors of the economy in the country. The quarterly newsletter issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for the quarter October – December 2019, states that as on 31 December 2019, there are approximately 1,961 entities which were undergoing a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC) delivered its judgment in the matter of Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd v Union of India through the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.