Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2016 (“IBC, 2016), the judiciary has been very active in settling disputes and addressing the gaps arising from this controversial legislation. Recently, yet another dispute arising out of a technical gap in the IBC has been resolved by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. M/s Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited.1
Brief facts of the case
The EU (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations) were signed into law on 27 July 2022. The Regulations largely focus on the examinership regime in Ireland which is already very comprehensive. However, the Regulations also include amendments to the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) in certain areas including codifying the duty of directors to have regard to creditor’s interests when facing insolvency.
Changes to the Act
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions provide comfort to financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts will generally not be subject to avoidance or “clawback” if the transferor subsequently files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Lowenstein Sandler’s previous article on crypto bankruptcies discussed some bankruptcy basics and the role of a creditors’ committee in protecting the rights of customers. This article will delve deeper into the administration of a crypto bankruptcy case by discussing the negotiation of a crypto bankruptcy plan of reorganization.
On August 26, Indiana Bankruptcy Court Judge Jeffrey J. Graham issued an order in the bankruptcy cases of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo” and, together with its affiliate debtors, the “Debtors”), denying the Debtors’ motion for a preliminary injunction protecting non-debtor parent 3M Company (“3M”) against a slew of litigation related to hearing-protection devices that were allegedly defective and resulted in hearing loss and related injuries.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated May 13, 2022, in Millennium Education Foundation Vs Educomp Infrastructure And School Management Limited, has held that the mere pendency of an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is not a bar for appointment of Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Am 6. September 2022 wurde schließlich das neue Insolvenzgesetz verabschiedet, nachdem noch in der Sommerpause einzelne Änderungen des Senats diskutiert und abgelehnt worden waren. Der wesentliche Teil der Vorschriften tritt am 26. September 2022 in Kraft.
Introduction
Congress must be allowed“to fashion a modern bankruptcy system which places the basic rudiments of the bankruptcy process in the hands of an expert equitable tribunal.”
—from Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 94 (1989) (Blackmun dissent, emphasis added).
Justice Blackmun had a point—back in 1989—that remains true today:
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench vide its order dated April 25, 2022 in Mr. N. Kumar v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.1 held that the project-wise Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a real estate company is outside the purview of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Brief facts of the case