Background |
Introduction
Introduction
1 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF SECTORAL REGULATORS VIS-À-VIS IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” / “Code”) has emerged as the poster child of an ideal model law empowering the restructuring and resolution of financially distressed firms in a fair, timely and balanced manner by maximising recoveries to the debtors claimants.1 The corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Code essentially functions in a manner as per which a resolution plan is proposed for all stakeholders of the debtor, ideally within an outer timeline of 330 days.2 The creditors and stakeholders ar
BACKGROUND
Background
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has on 24 September 2024 published the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024 (Amendment Regulations) with the primary aim to streamline and reduce the delays faced in insolvencies containing class of creditors.
Amendments Introduced
BACKGROUND
Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.
The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.
One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.