Blog Post:

Introduction

For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.

In a previous

For most businesses, a decision to undertake an organisational change can mean a reduction in operational costs, a reduction in roles, an increase in efficiencies and streamlined decision-making. However, the announcement of a restructure can often leave staff of all levels feeling tense and uncertain. Effectively navigating organisational change is not something that happens by chance, it requires a clear plan, effective communication and a recognition of risks.

This article will help employers plan for organisational change, identify risks and manage communication.

The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.

In a proceeding brought by Mr Curran, in his capacity as the trustee for June Ellen Investment Trust (Plaintiff), to wind up Fitzgerald Housing Limited (formerly known as Kay Fitzgerald Housing Charity Limited) (Defendant), the New South Wales Supreme Court considered whether it was necessary to adjourn the winding up proceeding to allow the Defendant to advance a small business restructuring process (Restructuring).

Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), introduced in 2016, was conceived as a game-changer, a potent tool to expedite debt recovery from insolvent companies within a stipulated timeframe. Eight years into its existence, the IBC has witnessed a mixed track record. While it has successfully revitalised some companies grappling with financial turmoil, it has also faced criticism. The aim of the IBC was not only to aid the revival of struggling companies, but also to enhance the quality of lenders’ balance sheets and empower distressed asset buyers.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) is silent on the treatment of a disputed or contingent claim, which is pending adjudication before a judicial or quasi-judicial body, giving rise to a contentious issue. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Limited v.