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.

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.

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

In 2018, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was amended to enable the withdrawal of admitted applications for the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution. Such, withdrawal applications have been subject to greater scrutiny from the adjudicating authority and the committee of creditors where they involve promoters seeking to regain control of corporate debtors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led successful resolution applicants to seek withdrawals of, or modifications to, approved resolution plans. This article examines the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on claims of force majeure in the resolution process of Amtek Auto.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to enable corporate insolvency resolution of financially stressed corporate debtors in a time bound manner, so as to maximise the value of their assets. The decision to rehabilitate or liquidate a corporate debtor lies with the committee of creditors (Committee), comprising the corporate debtor’s financial creditors. The Code allows the Committee sufficient freedom and flexibility to explore, negotiate and, subsequently, choose the most suitable option for the corporate debtor.

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).