In the case of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) held that simultaneous insolvency proceedings against a borrower and a corporate guarantor can be initiated for the same debt and default; and that assets of a subsidiary do not form part of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of its holding company.
Brief Facts
On July 2, 2024, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), in the case of Sanjay Dhingra vs.
"The law on 'knowing receipt' has perplexed judges and academics alike for several decades" – Lord Burrows (paragraph 99).
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in the case of Pooja Mehra v Nilesh Sharma (RP for Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.)1, while examining the validity of the appellant homebuyers' claim, dismissed an appeal for condonation of delay of 552 (five hundred and fifty-two) days in filing a claim against the corporate debtor.
They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.1
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124
Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow a bankruptcy court to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants.
In the case of Iskon Infra Engineering Private Limited v.
In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors. v Adjudicating Authority and Anr.1, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) inter alia upheld the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”) to direct the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, after the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, in light of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 20162 (“IBC”).