Introduction

2016年破産倒産法については、導入以来、継続して改正が行われてきています。2018年倒産破産法(第2次修正)法(以下「2018年改正法」)により、不動産プロジェクトの割当者(以下「住宅購入者」)は、「金融債権者」の範囲に含まれ、不動産開発業者に対する破産手続を開始することができるようになりました。その後、当該2018年改正法については、Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにて最高裁で争われ、最終的に憲法上の有効性が認められました。

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted with a primary objective of timebound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Under the Code, financial or operational creditors of a corporate debtor can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to initiate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor upon occurrence of a default by the corporate debtor.

Introduction

What options does a creditor have when they are frustrated with how a debtor is conducting its chapter 11 bankruptcy case? In In re PWM Property Management LLC, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion by creditors and interest holders to file a proposed plan of reorganization as an exhibit to their opposition to the debtors’ motion to extend the exclusivity period. The PWM Property Management decision serves as an important reminder of the strict limits on who can file and solicit a plan of reorganization and when filing of a plan is appropriate.

In the case of Caversham Finance Limited (in administration) [2022] EWHC 789, the court considered whether errors in a notice to creditors seeking consent to extend an administration made the extension invalid. This case is important as it shows the court’s approach to omission of prescribed information in notices to creditors.

Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (“Smile”), a Mauritian company, has recently had its second restructuring plan sanctioned by the High Court in England. The case contains some important markers for those involved in restructuring plans, particularly those plans which involve international elements or which seek to prevent out-of-the-money creditors from voting on the plan.

Background

On 5 April 2022, the UK government published the first review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules) (the Report). It is evident from the Report that many respondents took the opportunity to raise issues faced in practice, not just with the Rules, but with the operation of the insolvency legislation in general.

Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the corporate debtor (Jasmine) introduced a Gurgaon based housing project i.e., Krrish Provence Estate. The homebuyers of Krrish Provence Estate made an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Jasmine before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as Jasmine could not complete the project even after a period of eight years. Additionally, the homebuyers sought a refund of approximately INR 69 million on the grounds of inordinate delay.

It has almost been 12 months since the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 came into force on 30 April 2021. The regulations require an administrator to obtain creditor approval or a report from an independent evaluator in advance of completing a “substantial disposal” of the company’s property to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.