Background

The partly liberalized Indian economy has been aptly referred to in the Economic Survey of India 2015-16 as one that had transitioned from ‘socialism with limited entry to “marketism” without exit.

Given the vexed ‘twin balance sheet’ problem chafing both banks and corporates in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) was a critical structural reform. Many issues have surfaced since the Code was operationalised and the courts and the Central Government have stepped in to iron out such issues in the last one year.

Introduction

Recently, in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2017 (Neelkanth Township), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed several issues with regard to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

In trotting a path out of Chapter 11, debtors in most cases will need to engage various key stakeholders, some of whom are not entitled to a distribution in the bankruptcy. As a form of remuneration, non-debtors may insist on receiving a release of liability - not only from claims belonging to the debtor, but also the claims of third-parties - in exchange for their support and contribution to the case.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a framework through which representatives of foreign insolvency proceedings can commence ancillary U.S. proceedings and obtain relief from U.S. courts in aid of foreign restructurings. For a foreign insolvency proceeding to be recognized by a U.S. bankruptcy court under Chapter 15, the proceeding must, among other things, involve a “debtor” whose assets or affairs are subject to the control of the foreign court.

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 prohibits the sale of a security unless a registration statement is in effect. This prohibition on the sale of unregistered securities does not apply to exempt transactions. One such exemption is found in the Bankruptcy Code — section 1145 provides that securities issued under a plan of reorganization may be exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. For debtors, the recent decision of Golden v. Mentor Capital, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153415 (D. Ut. Sept.

In order to file for bankruptcy, a corporate entity must be legally authorized to do so. Whether the bankruptcy petition has been duly authorized is governed by state law and often depends on the entity’s governance documents. If a petition has not been properly authorized, creditors may seek its dismissal.

U.S. Bankruptcy Rule 9019 provides that on a motion brought by a trustee (and thus a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession as well) the court may approve a settlement. The prevailing view is that due to the court’s approval requirement, pre-court approval settlement agreements are enforceable by the debtor but not against the debtor. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently disagreed. It held that the statutory approval requirement is not an opportunity for the debtor to repudiate the settlement.

In its first detailed ruling on some of the substantive legal questions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Apex Court) has delivered a landmark order in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd v ICICI Bank and Another with an expressly avowed objective of ensuring that all the courts and tribunals across the country take notice of a ‘paradigm shift in the law’ ushered in by the Code.

Brief Background

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act in the U.S. requires that employers give sixty days’ notice to its employees before effecting a mass layoff.