Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).

The Bottom Line

One feature commonly seen in commercial lending transactions is a waiver of the borrower’s authority to file for bankruptcy without the consent of the lender. While such “blocking” provisions are generally upheld where the equity interest holders are the parties with such rights, they are generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy when such protection is given to a creditor with no meaningful ownership interest in the corporate debtor.

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).

Overview

When enacting the Bankruptcy Code, Congress sought to strike a balance amid the confluence of different — and often competing — interests held by debtors, secured creditors and various unsecured creditor constituencies (including landlords) through a framework of statutory protections. This has – at times – led to litigation over differing statutory interpretations as well as circuit splits as courts attempt to reconcile underlying policy goals with the less-than-clear language in various of the Code’s provisions.

India has a vast coastline and easy access to shipping routes, yet India contributes only 1% in global trade.[1] Many major shipowners and operators have chosen key international maritime centres such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai as their base for operations.

Overview

Overview

Recently, in Shady Bird Lending, LLC v. The Source Hotel, LLC (In re The Source Hotel, LLC), Case No. 8:21-cv-00824-FLA (C.D. Ca. June 8, 2022), the Central District of California District Court adopted the majority view that a non-income producing property could be a “single asset real estate,” or SARE, debtor. The district court held that a hotel, which was not yet producing income, met the definition of a SARE.

Background

Overview

In Highland Capital Mgmt. v. Dondero (In re Highland Capital Mgmt.), Case No. 21-03007-sgj (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that a debtor could not be compelled to abide by an arbitration clause in an agreement that was rejected pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Background

Overview

In Hilal K. Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Case No. 20-1981 (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which held that private student loans are not excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge “an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).

Background