Late last week, the District Court for the Southern District of New York provided a reminder of the importance of precise drafting. In Transform Holdco LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp. et. al., CV-05782, Doc. 20, the contractual question at issue related to the purchase of substantially all of the assets (and assumption of certain of the liabilities) of Sears and its domestic and foreign subsidiaries by Transform Holdco LLC (“Transform”) in Sears’ bankruptcy case.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) was enacted with a primary objective of timebound reorganisation and insolvency resolution of corporate debtors. Under the Code, financial or operational creditors of a corporate debtor can approach the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to initiate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor upon occurrence of a default by the corporate debtor.

Introduction

Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the corporate debtor (Jasmine) introduced a Gurgaon based housing project i.e., Krrish Provence Estate. The homebuyers of Krrish Provence Estate made an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Jasmine before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as Jasmine could not complete the project even after a period of eight years. Additionally, the homebuyers sought a refund of approximately INR 69 million on the grounds of inordinate delay.

The financing of commercial litigation has grown enormously since it first appeared on the scene in the US, about 15 years ago. While still small relative to the overall US financial market, it is estimated that more than $11 billion has been invested in litigation finance in the US last year alone. In essence, lenders (often referred to as “funders”) provide commercial claimants and contingency law firms with the capital needed to prosecute legal claims which the funders believe have a strong likelihood of success.

Backstop commitments have become commonplace in large corporate bankruptcy cases – they provide certainty to the debtor that it will have the funds needed to satisfy its obligations to creditors under its plan of reorganization and that it will have liquidity to operate post-bankruptcy as the reorganized entity. Backstop commitments are also a way for certain creditors to generate some additional return in the form of commitment fees and expense reimbursements in exchange for their agreement to backstop all or a material portion of a proposed rights offering or other financing arrangement.

INTRODUCTION 今回のニュースレターでは、2022 年 2 ⽉の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。最⾼裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）にて下された 重要な判決についてまとめました。 1) NCLT CAN ENTERTAIN PETITION RELATED TO PERSONAL GUARANTEES OF CORPORATE DEBTOR, EVEN IF THE CORPORATE DEBTOR WAS ADMITTED INTO CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS AND RESOLUTION PLAN IS APPROVED Matter: State Bank of India v. Savita Gowda Order date: 20 January 2022 Summary: Sharon Bio-Medicine Ltd. （＝Sharon Bio-Med）に対して会社破産処理⼿続（＝CIRP）が開始され、 NCLT にて再建計画が承認されました。

今回のニュースレターでは、2022 年１⽉の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。最⾼裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）にて下された 重要な判決についてまとめました。 1) ADVANCE EXTENDED BY A DIRECTOR TO THE COMPANY IS A FINANCIAL DEBT Matter: Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi v. Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. Order dated: 03 January 2022 Summary: 本件は、Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. （＝Chemizol）の元取締役である Jayanthi G. Ravi （＝債権者） が、Chemizol への融資を巡り、破産⼿続きの開始を NCLT に求めたものです。NCLT は、融資⾦額が⾦ 融債務であるか否かが明確でないという理由で、申⽴てを棄却しました。Chemizol と債権者の間にロー ン契約が存在せず、取締役会や株主の事前承認が得られていないことも論点の 1 つでした。当該 NCLT の命令に対して、異議が唱えられました。

Considerations of “environmental, social and governance” (or ESG) criteria with respect to a company’s management and operations continue to take on greater importance in lenders’ and investors’ credit and investment decisions. How a borrower or a target company measures up to these ever-developing ESG standards will impact its cost of capital and value to potential investors and acquirors.

Recent conflicting judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the High Courts had given rise to ambiguity regarding the jurisdiction of NCLT vis-à-vis personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).