INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in Insolvency Law during the month of June 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) and the National Company Law Tribunals (“NCLT”). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) INELIGIBILITY TO SUBMIT RESOLUTION PLAN UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 (“CODE”) IS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME WHEN THE RESOLUTION PLAN IS SUBMITTED BY THE RESOLUTION APPLICANT.

INTRODUCTION

今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 5 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。インド最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（NCLT）の各裁判 所において下された重要な判決について、まとめました。

1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.

Matter: Basavaraj Koujalagi & Ors. v. Sumit Binani, Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited

Order dated: 03 May 2021.

Summary:

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.

Examinership is a well-established corporate rescue mechanism for ailing corporates and groups. It combines flexibility with a high degree of commercial and procedural certainty for all involved. It is a process which has evolved with the different economic cycles in Ireland since its inception in 1990 and has responded to downturns in different sectors.

Now that the UK has left the EU and the transition period ended on 31 December 2020, this briefing considers the key points of the legal and regulatory landscape from the perspective of Ireland.

Deal or no-deal?

In effect, there is both. The December 2020 EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement¹ (the “TCA”) includes a ‘deal’ so far as concerns EU-UK trade in many types of good. However, the TCA makes little provision for trade in services and so, broadly, it is ‘no-deal’ as regards most types of service.

The High Court has recently struck out proceedings against a defaulting debtor where the bank made a unilateral commercial decision to delay to allow her co-debtor to recover financially so increasing its prospect of recovery.

Background

In Bank of Ireland v Wilson,¹ the bank commenced summary proceedings against the defaulting debtors in 2012. The debtors, who were jointly and severally liable on the debt, had been in a relationship but were now estranged.

When a business becomes insolvent, all of the creditors of the business are at risk, including its landlords. As COVID-19 continues to challenge businesses in Ireland and abroad, two recent decisions of Mr Justice McDonald in the High Court offer a timely reminder of the standards which tenants must meet when seeking to compromise their commercial lease obligations and the importance of procedural fairness for landlords affected by tenant insolvency.

The New Look case¹