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).
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.
In the intricate tapestry of corporate insolvency, the year 2023 unfurled a saga of legal intricacies that left an indelible mark on the evolving insolvency landscape in India. This blog, the first of a five-part series, will be exploring the cases that not only shaped the insolvency regime but also defined pivotal aspects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). From the sectors affected to the geographical intricacies, we'll dissect the diverse facets that contributed to the evolution of insolvency laws. Additionally, we'll analyze two significant cases – RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v.
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.