The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) recently notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 19, 2025 and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 26, 2025 (collectively referred as “Amendment Regulations”), amending certain key provisions under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).
Key takeaways
Introduction
The Indian skies, once seemingly boundless with potential, have recently witnessed a few turbulent patches. The insolvencies of Jet Airways and Go First Airways sent ripples of concern through the aviation sector, illuminating the financial tightropes that airlines often walk.
The Supreme Court in the matter of National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. ruled that the moratorium under IBC does not prohibit attachment of properties under the MPID Act3. The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was addressing a case stemming from the 2013 NSEL4 scam. In this, commodity exchange platform NSEL defaulted on ₹5,600 crores in payments to approximately 13,000 traders.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), heralded a new era for debt resolution in India. Envisioned as a comprehensive framework, it aimed to streamline and expedite the reorganisation and insolvency processes for corporate entities, partnership firms, and individuals alike, with the overarching goal of maximising asset value.
The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd & Ors serves as a stark reminder of the sanctity of IBC, and the perils of procedural laxity and opportunistic manoeuvring. The Apex court not only disapproved of the powers of NCLAT to judicial review over the decision taken by ED under PMLA but also delivered a scathing critique of the entire CIRP of BPSL, ultimately leading to the rejection of JSW Steel’s resolution plan and an order for liquidation.
目次
Ⅰ はじめに
Ⅱ チャプター11とは何か
Ⅲ 取引債権者の取り扱い
Ⅳ 取引債権者が取るべき対応策
Ⅴ おわりに
I はじめに
The Insolvency Service (in reply to a letter from R3) has confirmed that it will be reframing its view of the term "creditor". This follows the cases last year of Pindar and Toogood where the court was asked to consider whether a paid secured creditor should have consented to an administration extension and therefore, in the absence of consent, whether the extensions were valid in both cases, the judges confirmed that the consent of paid secured creditors was not required.
Earlier this year, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) recognized a victory in United States v. Miller. In this bankruptcy case, the trustee attempted to avoid certain transfers that shareholders of the bankrupt company had made, including a $145,000 transfer to the IRS.