The intention of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBC’) is to rehabilitate the companies and individuals by way of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIRP’).

In a recent decision,the High Court ordered two former directors of BHS (British Home Stores) to pay at least £18m to creditors for their role in the collapse of the former high street giant.

This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.

BACKGROUND

Since its inception the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has been an evolving legislation with regular updation(s) being brought about in the form of rules and regulations with a view of streamlining the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, addressing the question of whether a company can use bankruptcy to resolve the liability of non-debtor third parties. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and an injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge the claims against a nondebtor without the consent of the affected claimants.

The opening of safeguard or reorganisation proceedings does not automatically terminate a current agreement notwithstanding any contractual clause providing for termination.

Termination by a lessor

Background

The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.

Once a creditor, always a creditor?

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.

Background

On 11 June 2024, the judgment of Re BHS Group Limited (In Liquidation) (BHS) was handed down by Leech J in the English High Court, bringing in key developments and clarifications on directors duties in the zone of insolvency.

This is especially relevant in offshore jurisdictions such as Guernsey where English insolvency legislation is often replicated in local legislation. English common law remains highly persuasive in relation to directors duties and claims by liquidators against former directors are relatively common.

Summary of claims