IBBIによる管財人の報酬体系規定

2016年破産倒産法の下、管財人または暫定管財人（総称してRP）は、企業債務者の事業を継続企業として運営し、企業倒産解決プロセス（CIRP）を実施する責任を負います。また、RPは、CIRP が期限内に実施され、企業債務者の資産価値が最大化されるように努める必要があります。

Introduction - はじめに

企業倒産処理手続（CIRP）が進行している間、債権者と CIRP 対象企業（企業債務者）との間で、債務解消のための話し合いが行われることがよくあり ます。このような場合において、債権者は、債務者に対して行ったCIRPの開始申請（CIRP申請）を撤回することができます。本記事では、債務者が清算手続きに入った後におけるCIRP申請の取り下げについて、VS Varun v. South India Bank（VS Varun Case）における会社法審判所（NCLT）の判決を参照に、解説します。

NCLT in VS Varun Case - VS Varun CaseにおけるNCLT

On December 5, 2022, in In re Global Cord Blood Corp., 2022 WL 17478530 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022) (“Global Cord”), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) denied recognition of a proceeding pending in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman Proceeding” and the court, the “Cayman Court”) because it was more like a corporate governance and fraud remediation effort than a collective proceeding for the purpose of dealing with reorganization or liquidation, as Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code requires.

The thing that strikes you the most about Paul, Weiss is the depth of the practice. They just have a large number of senior partners, all of whom are of an outstanding quality.

- Chambers USA, Band 1 for Bankruptcy/Restructuring (Nationwide and NYC) and "Bankruptcy Law Firm of the Year" in 2019

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.

Introduction

On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions

On October 5, 2021, the Tenth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in concluding statutory fee increases that applied only to debtors filing for bankruptcy in judicial districts administered by the United States Trustee Program (the “US Trustee” or the “UST Program”) violated the U.S.

As a matter of practice, chapter 11 plans and confirmation orders routinely discharge administrative expense claims, including those that arise after confirmation of a plan but before its effective date. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) recently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s statutory authority to do so in Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC, 2021 WL 3852612 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).

On July 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) affirmed the Delaware bankruptcy court’s order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the chapter 11 liquidation plan (the “Plan”) of Exide Holdings, Inc.