Background

Background

1 NEWSFLASH 4 April 2017 Introduction By way of background, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted with the primary objective to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporates, firms and individuals in a time bound manner to maximise the value of their assets. The genesis of the Code is rooted in the long-term vision of providing an effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy, which would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship.

In a recent order admitting a petition for insolvency resolution filed by Essar Projects India Limited (Operational Creditor) against MCL Global Steel Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) (NCLT) has clarified what constitutes a ‘disputed debt’ within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Facts of the case

Background

The Board constituted under the chairmanship of Mr MS Sahoo has recently rejected an application for registration as an insolvency professional (IP) under regulation 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations) through its first regulatory order.

Factual Matrix

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

Background

On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.