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

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.

In its recent German Pellets decision, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor could not assert its indemnification defenses in a suit brought by the trustee of a liquidation trust because the Chapter 11 plan’s express language permanently enjoined the defenses and the creditor chose not to participate in the debtor’s bankruptcy despite having actual knowledge of it.