Blog Post:
Introduction
For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.
In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.
The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), introduced in 2016, was conceived as a game-changer, a potent tool to expedite debt recovery from insolvent companies within a stipulated timeframe. Eight years into its existence, the IBC has witnessed a mixed track record. While it has successfully revitalised some companies grappling with financial turmoil, it has also faced criticism. The aim of the IBC was not only to aid the revival of struggling companies, but also to enhance the quality of lenders’ balance sheets and empower distressed asset buyers.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is silent on the treatment of a disputed or contingent claim, which is pending adjudication before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, giving rise to a contentious issue. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v.
Introduction
The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.