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.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background