A bankruptcy petition should not proceed if the debt is disputed and subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court.

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

The scheme offers a credible implementation alternative, but no “one size fits all” solution exists for German credits.

German credits in sectors such as real estate, automotive, and energy face a worsening macro backdrop. At the same time, the available toolkit for financial restructurings has expanded, offering multiple options without the need for recourse to insolvency proceedings.

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.

In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

The court's decision in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. clarifies the appointment standard for future claimants representatives in the Third Circuit under Section 524(g) of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the appointment of James L. Patton, Jr. as the legal representative for future talc claimants (FCR) by the bankruptcy court in the Imerys Talc America chapter 11 cases.1

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.