• The Fifth Circuit's December 2024 decision in Serta Simmons Bedding invalidated an uptier transaction in which certain lenders provided new money financing and exchanged existing debt for new super-priority debt.
• The Fifth Circuit criticized the doctrine of equitable mootness, rejecting the argument that the doctrine barred the court's review of the bankruptcy court's plan confirmation order because the plan had already been substantially consummated and relied upon by third parties.
• The Fifth Circuit's refusal to apply the doctrine of equitable mootness is not

Introduction

The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.^[1] has reignited the debate in respect of the timing for Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) approval for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

A recent judgment by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has once again brought to light one of the many vulnerabilities in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). The judgment primarily deals with the termination of a lease during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on leasehold properties.

Introduction

Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited

Facts of the Case

Case:Bahadur Ram Mallah (Ex-Director, Uniworth Textiles Limited) Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr

Facts of the Case

ICICI Bank and IFCI Ltd. had sanctioned loan facilities to Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (“UTL”), a company part of the larger Uniworth Group. These loan accounts eventually turned non-performing, and both banks assigned their respective debts to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (“ARC”) — ICICI's on 31.03.2004 and IFCI’s on 12.01.2007.

Case:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has ruled that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cannot be admitted when there is no direct contractual relationship between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. In this case the Tribunal dismissed the claim of ₹16.08 crore, holding that the invoices were raised by the Appellant against Hindustan Thermal and not to the Corporate Debtor itself.

Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.

Facts of the Case

Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.

On the heels of financial distress, Consolidated Burger Holdings LLC, along with two affiliates, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This Burger King franchisee operates 57 restaurant locations across Florida and Georgia, including standalone stores and Walmart-based outlets. At its peak, the company managed 75 locations with 1,500 employees. Today, it employs 773 individuals, including 697 hourly and 76 salaried workers, with most positions at the restaurant level.

On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points: