INTRODUCTION

今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 5 月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。インド最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（NCLT）の各裁判 所において下された重要な判決について、まとめました。

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

Matter: Basavaraj Koujalagi & Ors. v. Sumit Binani, Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited

Order dated: 03 May 2021.

Summary:

主に、債権者が直面している不良債権の回収問題を解決するため、2016年破産倒産法は制定されました。 本FAQでは、破産倒産法の概要、関連諸手続き等について扱っています。

1. 破産倒産法が適用されるのはどのような場合ですか？

会社、有限責任事業組合、組合、個人の倒産、清算、任意整理、破産において適用されます。

2. 破産倒産法の目的は？

財務的困難に陥っている会社の再編成および倒産処理の実施です。

3. 破産倒産法において規定されている制度的枠組みは？

On 21 May 2021, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors, upheld the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) which permitted banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company. Under the Code, the Government of India (“Government”) has been conferred powers to enforce certain provisions of the Code at different points in time. Accordingly, the Government has notified various provisions of the Code from time to time.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) were formulated to carry out the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). These regulations are applicable to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). These FAQs deal with the overview of the CIRP Regulations and the related procedure involved.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of May 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and various benches of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

On September 2, 2020, the Fifth Circuit declined to void a fee award of nearly $2.3 million in favor of an employer that had prevailed on its trade secret theft claim against its former employee, because the employee willfully failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s “extremely explicit” order regarding his objections to the award.

Background

The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.

The Ninth Circuit on June 1 affirmed a key bankruptcy principle that liens may survive and “pass through” the bankruptcy process even if the underlying claim secured by the lien is disallowed. The facts in Lane v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Ninth Cir. Ct. Of Appeals, No. 18-60059, June 1, 2020) are all too familiar – a mortgage loan originated by Countrywide Home Loans wound up in a huge pool of securities with The Bank of New York Mellon serving as trustee for the certificate holders. Countrywide had endorsed the promissory note in blank, which made it payable to the bearer.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Appraisal Institute issued guidance to its MAI appraisers regarding the new challenges and limitations on rendering an opinion of real estate value in the wake of a disaster when markets are unstable or chaotic^[1].

This post originally appeared on the Council of Fashion Designers of America website, CFDA.com.