Introduction

Introduction

1 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF SECTORAL REGULATORS VIS-À-VIS IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” / “Code”) has emerged as the poster child of an ideal model law empowering the restructuring and resolution of financially distressed firms in a fair, timely and balanced manner by maximising recoveries to the debtors claimants.1 The corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Code essentially functions in a manner as per which a resolution plan is proposed for all stakeholders of the debtor, ideally within an outer timeline of 330 days.2 The creditors and stakeholders ar

BACKGROUND

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has on 24 September 2024 published the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024 (Amendment Regulations) with the primary aim to streamline and reduce the delays faced in insolvencies containing class of creditors. 

Amendments Introduced

BACKGROUND

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.