2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。
To encourage parties to transact with debtors in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code in corporate bankruptcies provides highest priority to “administrative expenses,” which include “the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b); id. § 507(a)(2).
On September 15, President Biden announced a tentative deal with unions representing tens of thousands of railroad workers that helped narrowly avoid a strike that threatened to devastate the country’s delicate supply chains that have been strained since the beginning of the pandemic. Now the country awaits the outcome of the union member votes (which we may not know until mid-November), but even if the members approve the deal, the retail sector will still face empty shelves, job vacancies and surging inflation.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.
A bankruptcy court ruled that a creditor didn’t need to seek derivative standing to sue a liquidating trustee. The creditor, himself a trustee of the debtor’s employee stock-option plan, had standing to sue without prior court permission because his suit wasn’t brought on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. In re Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-02689, Adv. Pro. No. 21-3022, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2331 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2022).
2016年インド破産倒産法の下、事業債権者と金融債権者の取り扱いに差が生じていることについては、発足当初から重要な懸念点として取り上げられてきました。金融債権者は、企業債務者と純粋に金銭的な取り決めを行っている者であるのに対して、事業債権者は、企業債務者が供給した商品又は提供したサービスの対価として金銭的債権を有する者とされます。インドの破産倒産法関連で近年争われた事例に、企業債務者の破産手続を開始するための最低基準額である1,000万ルピーの債務不履行金額を満たすか否かの判断において、「利息」を「主たる事業債務」に含めることができるか？というものがあります。
会社法審判所(NCLT)では様々な異なる見解が示されていましたが、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)は、Mr. Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria (Prashant Agarwal Judgment)において、最低基準額1,000 万ルピーの計算の際、利息分を含めることできるかという問題について、明確にしました。
Brief Facts – 概要
Introduction
The owners of an ambitious Hawaiian golf project in the Makaha Valley of Oahu said Aloha (hello) to new owners, and Aloha (goodbye) to old debt obligations.
A key concern in respect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) since its inception has been the differential treatment of operational creditors and financial creditors. For context, financial creditors have a purely financial arrangement with the corporate debtor, while operational creditors are those who are owed money by the corporate debtor for the provision of goods supplied or services rendered.