On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA), the omnibus funding bill that makes consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021. The CAA also provides various forms of economic relief to address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As part of its coronavirus response, the CAA includes a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. The key amendments are addressed below.

Temporary statutory protection of certain arrearage repayments under forbearance arrangements

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.

Commercial bankruptcy practice in the United States is governed by Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. The focus of Chapter 11 is assisting a distressed company to reorganize its debts to emerge as a going concern or liquidate its assets as part of an orderly wind-down. In this article, we highlight the key benefits available to a Chapter 11 debtor and describe the various stages of a case, including statutory requirements, and types of plans.

Introduction

Introduction

The division bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) comprising of Hon’ble Justice Mr R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Justice Mr Vineet Saran, in its judgment dated 30 April 2019 in J.K. Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha v Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd & Ors has held that a trade union  is an operational creditor for the purpose of initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Brief Facts

The economic value of IP rights in US bankruptcy proceedings has risen rapidly. Due to Congress's unique view of trademark licenses, appellate courts are increasingly divided on the ability both of debtor-owners to freely reject them, and of licensees to continue to use them. In In re Tempnology LLC,1 the Supreme Court has been asked to provide much-needed certainty on these issues.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.

Background