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.

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming. Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors. The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms. These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.

On November 29, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sent requests for information to the CEOs of six of the largest crypto exchanges. The requests seek information about the safeguards each exchange has put in place to protect customers’ assets in the event they file for bankruptcy or otherwise experience financial distress.

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.

Summary

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 U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions provide comfort to financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts will generally not be subject to avoidance or “clawback” if the transferor subsequently files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

¹ The Third Circuit also affirmed a judgment that awarded the senior creditor damages for the misapplication of such collateral proceeds in violation of the intercreditor agreement’s turnover provision.

This article was first published in India Business Law Journal on 4 March 2022

On March 15, 2022, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico announced that the Plan of Adjustment for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico became effecfive, more than four years aher Puerto Rico commenced restructuring proceedings under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). PROMESA is a bespoke piece of federal legislafion enacted in 2016 to address Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, and incorporates most of chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.