©Anderson Mori & Tomotsune 2022 年 9 月 1．【メキシコ】倒産事件処理のための特別裁判所の新設 1. はじめに 2022 年 3 月 4 日、倒産事件を特別に管轄する 2 つの裁判所がいずれもメキシコシティに新設され1 、既に運 用されている。 本稿ではメキシコの倒産法と従前より倒産事件を管轄してきた裁判所について簡潔に説明し、上記の新たな 倒産裁判所の概要と倒産法制上の意味合いを解説する。 2. メキシコの倒産法について メキシコの倒産法は、連邦法である Ley de Concursos Mercantiles （以下「メキシコ倒産法」または「法」とす る。）である。日本法と異なり、破産手続も民事再生手続も単独の法律により定められている。メキシコ倒産法は 2 段階方式を採用している2 。すなわち、原則として、第 1 段階として再生手続(conciliación)が開始され、第 2 段階 として破産手続(quiebra)が開始されうる建付けとなっている3。その目的規定においても、債務超過企業の再建 を図ることの重要性が強調されている4 。

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has on 21 September 2022 released the Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022 (Bill) which consolidates and amends the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, and The Telegraph Wires, (Unlawful Protection) Act 1950. In Chapter 5 (Restructuring, Defaults in Payment and Insolvency), the Bill addresses situations wherein payment defaults or insolvency proceedings have been initiated against a telecommunication company (Telco or Corporate Debtor).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 16 September 2022 promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 (CIRP Amendment Regulations) amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations).  

The key amendments introduced by the CIRP Amendment Regulations are as follows: 

The Polyvocal Court

In its decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court  held that  “Harmonious construction of clause (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit   of ‘operational debt’.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has held that if the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or legal authority, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the same.

The Apex Court in State Tax Officer v.Rainbow Papers Limited [Judgement dated 6 September 2022] was of the view that the Committee of Creditors, which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Governmental Authority or for that matter, any other dues.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 18, 2022 in Indian Overseas Bank Versus M/S Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. And Another[1] observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be continued once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been initiated and moratorium is ordered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.