The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.

One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.

In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

As you know from our prior alerts, creditors of borrowers formed as Delaware LLCs (as opposed to corporations) lack standing under Delaware law to sue directors for breaching fiduciary duties even when, to the surprise of many, the LLC is insolvent. See our prior Alert. The disparity of substantive creditor rights depending entirely on corporate form results from two aspects of Delaware law.

For industry professionals in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has been a game-changer. The introduction of a formal framework for insolvency resolution has brought much-needed clarity and efficiency to dealing with financial distress. However, the 2019 Regulations introduced a new dimension - the ability for personal guarantors (PGs) to initiate insolvency proceedings. This has significantly impacted the role of Resolution Professionals (RPs).

There is a growing trend of bankruptcy courts approving structured dismissals of chapter 11 cases following a successful sale of a debtor’s assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. A structured dismissal is a cost‑effective way for a debtor to exit chapter 11 and is an alternative to (a) confirming a post‑sale liquidating plan, which is expensive and not always viable, or (b) converting the case to chapter 7, which introduces significant uncertainty and unpredictability with the appointment of a chapter 7 trustee to replace management.

In the concluding part of our exploration into the 2023 insolvency landscape, Part 5 delves into two significant cases that shape the dynamics of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), offering insights into constitutional challenges and the treatment of properties acquired through auction sales.

Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India

Constitutional Validity of Sections 95 to 100 in Part III of IBC

Background:

Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 4 examines two pivotal cases that further shape the legal framework surrounding insolvency proceedings in India.

M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr

Secured Creditor Rights and Treatment of Pledged Shares

Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 3 delves into two more landmark cases that further define the legal contours of insolvency proceedings in India.

M. Suresh Kumar Reddy vs. Canara Bank & Ors

Clarification on NCLT's Discretion in Admitting Section 7 Applications

As we continue our journey through the evolving insolvency landscape of 2023, we will delve into two landmark cases that further shaped the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings in India. Building upon the foundations laid in Part 1 of this series, we now turn our attention to M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd.

M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.