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.

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 ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

Most of us are familiar with that old saw “location, location, location”. While location might enhance the value of real estate, including the location as part of the collateral description in the UCC financing statement can limit the protections provided to a secured creditor and may provide a strategy for attack by a bankruptcy trustee. First Niagara Bank learned this valuable lesson but only after spending substantial legal fees to protect a security interest where perfection should have been routine.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Unsecured Creditors Committee of Sparrer Sausage Co., Inc. v. Jason’s Foods, Inc., 2016 WL 3213090 (7th Cir. June 10, 2016) expanded the scope of the ordinary course defense in a bankruptcy preference action.  This case provides an excellent road map for a creditors’ rights attorney defending a preference suit and suggests arguments for increasing the payments a creditor can retain even if those payments were made during the 90-day preference period.

Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.