In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
Introduction
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Code) provides the right to a financial creditor to make an application to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor in the event the debtor fails to repay its debt owed to the creditor. The Code as well as precedents developed by insolvency courts have consistently held that the test for admission of an insolvency application of a financial creditor is twofold, existence of a debt and default on that debt.
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016（2016年インド破産倒産法）は、それまで経済的に実現不可能なオンデマンド処理であった倒産処理のワンストップ・ソリューションとして導入されました。Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにおいて、インド最高裁判所は、同法の憲法上の正当性を支持しつつ、同法は債権者のための単なる回収法ではなく、むしろ企業債務者の再建のためのものであることを強調してきました[i]。Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v.
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。