INTRODUCTION

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

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the amendments in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) by the Government of India. Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

2021年8月27日、インド破産倒産委員会（＝IBBI）は、企業倒産処理手続および清算手続に関する諸問題についてのコメントを募集する旨のディスカッションペーパー（CIRP Discussion Paper、Liquidation Discussion Paper）を発表しました。その後、2021年9月30日、IBBIは、2016年（企業倒産手続）規則（＝CIRP規則）および2016年IBBI（清算手続）規則（＝清算規則）の改正が行われています。

CIRP規則と清算規則にて導入された主な改正点は、以下の通りです。

1. CIRP 規則（CIRP Regulations）

(i) 債権者委員会（＝CoC）の説明責任を高め、機能の透明性を確保するため、CoCのメンバーに対して、IBBIが発行するガイドラインに沿った形での職務の遂行が義務付けられました。

2016年破産倒産法は、目的やプロセスの異なる様々な法律が乱立していた従前と比較して、財務的困難な状況に陥った企業を救済する上で重要な役割を果たしています。破産倒産法の初期の成功要因は種々ありますが、インドの立法府が同法を適切に解釈し、適時に改正してきたことが主な要因として挙げられます。一定の成果を上げている破産倒産法ですが、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）および会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）の機能およびプロセスの合理化には、未だ改善の余地があります。

本記事では、一見すると合理的に見える外部要因を考慮することで、債務不履行に陥った企業債務者が、法に基づく倒産処理手続に異議を唱えることができる根拠を意図せず広げてしまった可能性のある、Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd v. Union Bank of India & Ors.事件におけるNCLATの判決について考察しています。

Facts of the case

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) published discussion papers soliciting comments on issues relating to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP Discussion Paper) and liquidation process (Liquidation Discussion Paper) on 27 August 2021. The IBBI on 30 September 2021 introduced amendments to the IBBI (Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) and the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (Liquidation Regulations).

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has played a significant role in rescuing financially distressed companies as compared to the former insolvency law regimes which were provided in various statues having different objectives and processes. The initial success of the Code is attributable to various factors including the manner in which the Indian judiciary interpreted the law as well as the timely amendments of the Code by the Legislature.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the ever-churning waters of the Countryman test for determining whether a contract is executory, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently dipped its toe. The question before the court was whether surety bonds issued to an oil and gas company were executory. The district court, upholding the bankruptcy court below, held that they were not. An analysis of this opinion sheds light on why the surety bonds are not executory and provides lessons for both creditors and debtors, alike.

Back in July, Craig Eller wrote in The Bankruptcy Protector about the continuing confusion amongst courts and litigants regarding the applicability of a 2018 increase in fees payable to the Office of the United States Trustee in chapter 11 cases.