Approval of Resolution Plan

Bombay High Court: Enforcement Directorate Should Necessarily Release Attachment over Assets of a Corporate Debtor after Approval of Resolution Plan

In the matter of Shiv Charan and Others v. Adjudicating Authority and Others, a division bench of the esteemed Bombay High Court has pronounced upon the legal status pertaining to attachments made by the Enforcement Directorate over assets belonging to a corporate debtor which has obtained approval for a resolution plan under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.


Legal considerations of investing in india

Investing in India: An Overview of Legal Considerations

Foreign investment is a key contributor to India’s growth story and India continues to consistently experience growth in inflow of foreign direct investment (“FDI”). The Government of India has announced that the provisional figure of FDI inflow into India for the financial year ended March 31, 2023 was USD 71 billion and according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report, India remains a favored destination for global investors.
In this note we discuss certain key legal considerations for a foreign investor investing in India.
 


Government Dues and IBC Waterfall

Government Dues and IBC Waterfall: Are We Heading Towards a Non-uniform Approach Across Sectors?  

The waterfall mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) gives priority to debts owed to financial creditors over operational dues, including statutory dues. However, certain recent case law and proposed statutory amendments have questioned this principle. In particular, a proposal has emerged that government dues secured pursuant to a transaction or an agreement should have priority over other dues (including financial dues). The Telecommunication Bill, 2022 proposes that the spectrum of telecom companies under insolvency should be returned to the central government on failure of payment of dues. This note discusses certain implications of such proposed changes.


IBC Distribution Waterfall

Renewed Challenges to the IBC Distribution Waterfall

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) ushered in a new era in the Indian insolvency regime by introducing a distribution waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC. The waterfall mechanism prioritizes dues owed to financial creditors over dues owed to operational creditors and government authorities.
The waterfall mechanism in the IBC is based on the recommendations of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee. The preamble to the IBC also highlights its objective of balancing the interests of the stakeholders, including by alteration in the order of priority of payment of government dues.
There has recently been a rising trend of courts and tribunals seeking to deviate from the distribution waterfall under the IBC. Unfortunately, this tends to put the success of an insolvency resolution process at risk. In this note, we examine three recent examples and discuss why any such deviation could disturb the delicate balance sought to be achieved under the IBC.


Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank

Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank: An Unsettling Literal Interpretation

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) marked a historic shift in India’s insolvency regime shifting the focus from recovery to resolution. The Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee (“BLRC”) reports highlighted the need for the legislative policy to initiate a resolution process at the instance of default to prevent erosion of value. Keeping this objective in mind, the IBC lays out a party driven process which places the creditors at the helm of the resolution procedure.
The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has repeatedly held that keeping in mind the objectives of the IBC, the adjudicating authority at the stage of admission into the corporate insolvency resolution process needs to restrict its analysis to: (1) the existence of debt and (2) default in payment of debt. However, on July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited (“Vidarbha”), relying on the use of the word “may” in the relevant statutory provision, applied the literal interpretation test and held that National Company Law Tribunal has the discretion to admit an application after it is satisfied regarding the existence of debt.
This judgment, which departs from precedent, could have serious consequences for the insolvency regime in India. This note discusses the implications of a literal interpretation test in context of Vidarbha and highlights the need for an intervention to avoid the mistakes of the past.


Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code:  Resolution Plan Approved by the Committee of Creditors Cannot be Modified or Withdrawn

Recently, pursuant to its decision in Ebix Singapore Private Limited v Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Anr., the Supreme Court of India extensively analyzed the status of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors but pending approval of the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court observed that such a resolution plan binds the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Applicant and reinforced the strength of the decision of the Committee of Creditors in favor of a resolution plan. The Supreme Court also, once again, clarified the scope of scrutiny, at the stage of approval of a resolution plan, by the National Company Law Tribunal and consequently by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.  


committee of creditors ibc process

An Alternative Approach to a Code of Conduct for the Committee of Creditors in an IBC Process

Recently the Standing Committee on Finance in a report placed before the Parliament on August 3, 2021 proposed a Code of Conduct for the Committee of Creditors in a corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Following such report, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has published a discussion paper on August 27, 2021 which includes, among other things, a draft Code of Conduct. This note considers an alternative approach for such a Code of Conduct.


insolvency resolution

Pre-pack Resolution Route Needs Incentives

The recent amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) replaces an ordinance promulgated earlier this year, and provides for a pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (“PIRP”) for micro, small and medium enterprises (“MSMEs”). The PIRP comes in the backdrop of the financial stress caused by COVID-19 and aims to cause minimal disruption to business and to ensure job preservation. While the PIRP is well intended, how effective it will be in resolving stress on corporate debtors in the MSME sector will come down to how it is implemented and if required, fine tuning its design.


The Videocon Insolvency Resolution Process: Is Reading Between the Lines Warranted?

By an order dated July 19, 2021, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the “NCLAT”) stayed the operation of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (the “NCLT”) which had approved a resolution plan in relation to the Videocon group. In staying the operation of the NCLT’s order, the NCLAT appears to have been influenced by the observations of the NCLT on two points, a substantial haircut and a breach of confidentiality. Apart from these two points, this note considers a possible shortcoming in the NCLT order in relation to treatment of dissenting creditors.


national company law tribunal

Residuary Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: A Brief Analysis

Pursuant to Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the National Company Law Tribunal is bestowed with wide jurisdiction to decide: (i) ‘any’ application or proceeding against a corporate debtor; (ii) ‘any’ claim made by or against a corporate debtor including claims by or against its subsidiaries; and (iii) ‘any’ questions of priority or ‘any’ question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor.  Are there any limits to such jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal?