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.

A secured creditor with a hypothec (charge) over a specific immovable property can enforce against that property without having to put the debtor through a full-blown bankruptcy process. That was one of the key outcomes of the Royal Court's decision in Representation of Prospect Holdings Limited[2025] JRC 164.

What happened?

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) stellte mit Urteil vom 18. April 2024 (Az. IX ZR 129/22) erneut klar, dass externe Darlehensgeber wie Banken unter bestimmten Umständen insolvenzrechtlich wie Gesellschafter behandelt werden können – insbesondere dann, wenn ihnen durch vertragliche Regelungen wie Ergebnisbeteiligung und Investitionsvorbehalt eine mitgliedschaftsähnliche Stellung eingeräumt wird.

In its ruling of April 18, 2024 (case no. IX ZR 129/22), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) once again clarified that external lenders such as banks can be treated as shareholders under insolvency law under certain circumstances – especially if they are granted a position similar to that of a member through contractual provisions such as profit participation and investment reservation.

Introduction

In this first instalment of our insights series on construction insolvency, Ironbridge Legal outlines key red flags to look for and practical steps to manage counterparty risk.

An Industry at Risk - With Contagion Potential

Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a streamlined reorganization process for small business debtors. Similar to a normal chapter 11 case, subchapter V allows a debtor to cramdown a plan without the approval of the unsecured class as long as certain requirements are satisfied.