Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a financial creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) if there is a default of INR 10 million, by filing an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The settled principle is that an application made by a financial creditor under the Code must be admitted and CIRP initiates against the corporate debtor, if the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred in payment of debt.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a trade creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process if there is an unpaid operational debt above INR 10 million. An ‘operational debt’ under the Code means a claim in relation to goods and services. The insolvency courts have provided divergent views on the issue of whether rental dues or license fees for use of premises would qualify as an ‘operational debt’ under the Code.

We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.

It’s been a hard year for cryptocurrency. The values of most cryptocurrencies, including major coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have continued to tumble. In fact, the price of one stablecoin, which is a form of cryptocurrency tied to another currency, commodity or financial instrument, de-pegged from its cryptocurrency token and entered into a downward spiral. Ultimately, the stablecoin and the crypto token it was pegged to collapsed, erasing $18 billion of value with it.

このニュースレターは、2022年6月のインドの破産法の進展に関する重要な最新情報をカバーしています。

This newsletter covers key updates about the developments in Indian insolvency laws during the month of June 2022

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.

今回のニュースレターでは、2022 年 5 月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）にて下された重要な判決についてまとめ ました。 

The doctrine of equitable mootness is in the news again. The Supreme Court recently denied a cert. petition in a case where the petitioner wanted the doctrine ruled unconstitutional. KK-PB Financial LLC v. 160 Royal Palm LLC, Case No. 21-1197, 2021 WL 7247541 (petition), 2022 WL 1914118, (denying certiorari).

Introduction

2016年破産倒産法は、企業債務者の時間的制約のある再建と倒産処理を主たる目的として制定されました。同法に基づき、企業債務者の金融債権者又は事業債権者は、債務不履行が発生した場合、会社法審判所(以下「NCLT」)に対して、企業債務者の倒産処理手続の開始を申請することができます。

会社法上訴審判所(以下「NCLAT」)の各種判決に照らすと、Decree-Holder(後ほど説明します)が企業の債務者に対して破産手続きを開始する権利は、Decree-Holderが金融債権者であるか否かについての見解が分かれており、不確実なものとなっていました。金融債権者が破産手続を開始するプロセスは、事業債権者によるプロセスと比較して、非常に異なっています。

「decree」と「decree holder」の概念について説明すると、「decree」とは、訴訟関係者の権利を説明する裁判官による裁決の公式宣言であり、decreeが下された者が「decree holder」と呼ばれます。