BACKGROUND
Background
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has on 24 September 2024 published the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024 (Amendment Regulations) with the primary aim to streamline and reduce the delays faced in insolvencies containing class of creditors.
Amendments Introduced
In many of the recent insolvencies of digital asset companies, liquidators have been appointed over companies in which digital assets have been fraudulently transferred from wallets controlled by an insolvent company into other unidentified wallets in foreign jurisdictions.
The anonymity of cryptoassets causes serious difficulties for insolvency practitioners in identifying the third parties who received funds and the location of the digital wallets.
BACKGROUND
Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。
この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法（Companies Act）第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。
監督命令に適用される審査基準
監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。
会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。
BACKGROUND
Since its inception the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has been an evolving legislation with regular updation(s) being brought about in the form of rules and regulations with a view of streamlining the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
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.
Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.
This morning, the Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., which clarifies that any party with a "direct financial stake in the outcome" of a reorganization has standing as a "party in interest" to object to a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. 1109(b). Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor held that the debtor's insurer has standing to object even if the plan purports to preserve the insurer's legal rights and thus is said to be "insurance neutral."