PREPACKAGED INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION FOR MSMEs – FIRST STEP TOWARDS A LONG AWAITED LEGAL FRAMEWORk
The breadth and scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and the potential cost a company may face for violating the stay made national news last week in a dust-up between two telecom providers, when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court overseeing Windstream’s bankruptcy case ordered Charter Communications to pay Windstream more than $19 million in damages. The automatic stay is triggered immediately when a bankruptcy petition is filed.
On January 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss filed by a consumer reporting agency in Ewert v. FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data, 2021 WL 168967 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2021). The plaintiff, Lance M. Ewert, filed a bankruptcy petition in 2017, identifying a Chase credit card account as a disputed debt. The credit card debt was ultimately discharged in the bankruptcy case.
Today, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding whether a creditor’s post-petition refusal to turnover bankruptcy estate property that it repossessed or impounded prepetition violates the automatic stay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the creditor and decided that it did not violate the automatic stay.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 13 November 2020 issued the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (Amendment) which introduced seminal changes to the liquidation regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Amendment has been introduced on the back of the discussion paper issued by IBBI on 26 August 2020 on Corporate Liquidation Process (Discussion Paper).
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.
RELEVANT FACTS
A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.
In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.