Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Matter of Falcon V, L.L.C., 44 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit affirmed lower-court rulings determining that a surety contract was not executory because the surety had already posted irrevocable surety bonds and did not owe further performance to the debtors.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.

2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。

Federal district courts, with the consent of the parties, are authorized by statute to refer "civil matter[s]" to magistrate judges for the purpose of conducting all proceedings and entering a judgment in the litigation. In the case of an appeal to a district court from a bankruptcy court, however, this statutory authority arguably conflicts with another statutory provision dictating that appeals from a bankruptcy court order or judgment be heard by a "district court" or a "bankruptcy appellate panel." This apparent conflict was recently addressed by the U.S.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a financial creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) if there is a default of INR 10 million, by filing an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The settled principle is that an application made by a financial creditor under the Code must be admitted and CIRP initiates against the corporate debtor, if the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred in payment of debt.

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.

Perhaps surprisingly given the rarity of such cases, a handful of high-profile court rulings recently have addressed whether a solvent chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan and, if so, at what rate.

Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split on Constitutionality of U.S. Trustee Fee Hike