A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.

Against the backdrop of recent judicial precedent, this article delves into the need for a group insolvency framework in India, and analyses the report published by the CBIRC in 2021.

Globalisation has led to a significant increase in the number of enterprises which comprise of several closely connected entities that may operate as a single economic unit. As a consequence, difficulties may arise when 1 or more entities in that single economic unit become insolvent as the inability of 1 entity to pay its debts may impact stakeholders in another entity within the group.

This article analyses India’s proposal to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

GoFirst’s insolvency has highlighted issues surrounding the insolvency resolution of commercial airlines. This article analyses the issues facing stakeholders, and the adequacy of extant regulations to address these.

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code establishes strict requirements for the assumption or assignment of contracts and leases.

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.