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.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera, de 22 de mayo, remarca que determinados comportamientos constitutivos de calificación culpable del concurso pueden provocar una inversión de la carga de la prueba sobre la incidencia del comportamiento de los administradores en la generación o incremento del déficit concursal, pero sigue sin ofrecer la «justificación añadida» de la atribución de la responsabilidad concursal.

1. La reforma del artículo 172 bis de la Ley Concursal

Se contiene una descripción y valoración general de la Directiva (UE) 2019/1023.

1. Introducción

En todo tipo de procesos y, entre ellos, en los incidentes concursales, la denuncia por la parte demandada de la falta de jurisdicción o de competencia no puede plantearse como una suerte de excepción en la contestación a la demanda o en momento posterior, sino que debe promoverse con carácter previo a la contestación, mediante declinatoria (art. 64.1 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [LEC]).

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.