IBC India Guide

IBC India Guide
India’s jump from Rank 130 to Rank 100 in ease of doing business can be largely attributed to various legal reforms in the country, including the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which has been notified with a vision to resolve the rampant insolvency situation. IBC preliminarily provides for the revival of insolvent corporate entities through a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) in a time-bound manner, failing which such entities undergo liquidation. As per the news sources, private equity players have raised stressed assets funds totalling over USD 4 billion in the past 3 years, sensing an opportunity in the increasing number of bad assets in the banking system.
Over the past two years, IBC has proved instrumental in addressing the corporate insolvency situation in the country, however, several crucial issues have emerged under IBC framework, including challenges to Tandoor Manufacturer its constitutionality, questions on time-bound process, ability and eligibility of bidders to bid for a corporate debtor, role of insolvency professionals, Reserve Bank of India’s mandate to mandatorily require banks to initiate CIRP against large debtors.
These are interesting times for the stressed assets space in the country, as the Government is moving various amendments in IBC, planning to launch an asset management company (AMC) to take over non-core assets and sell them through a bidding process, aims to give relief to stressed power sector companies. Similarly, the large banks and financial institutions are taking steps for faster resolution of stressed assets, by entering into intercreditor pacts, launching schemes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Regime

The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Regime The Government has been looking to take adequate action to improve the “ease of doing business ranking”, in addition to making attempts to address the alarming rise of stressed assets in India. Resolving Insolvency being one of the criteria for World Bank’s ease of doing business (in which India ranks 136 among 185 countries), there was a need to address the issues surrounding insolvent and bankrupt Tandoor Manufacturer entities. With the aim to address such issues, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was introduced and enforced in December 2016. The IBC is intended to assist domestic and foreign lending by providing a uniform, comprehensive and efficient insolvency legislation, with an emphasis on revival as the first avenue for debt recovery.
Read more

IBC | Legislative Alert | Existing CIRPs to provide for the appointment of an authorized representative for “class of creditors”

IBC | Legislative Alert  Further to notification of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018, dated 3 July 2018 (“CIRP Amendment”), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has applied the provisions of CIRP Amendment in relation to appointment of authorised representative for class of creditors, to the existing corporate insolvency resolution processes (“CIRP”) as well, vide a clarificatory circular issued on 13 July 2018 (available here) (“IBBI Circular”). The IBBI Circular states that such appointments are matters of procedure. As per the amendment introduced by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 promulgated on 6 June 2018 (“2018 Ordinance”), it had provided for ability of appointment of authorised representative for “class of creditors”, that is, creditors other than creditors in relation to consortium arrangements, Tandoor Manufacturer syndicate facility, where financial d
Read more

IBC | Case Law Alert | Right of operational creditors / suspended board / resolution applicants to attend COC meetings

IBC | Case Law Alert | Right of operational creditors / suspended board/resolution applicants to attend COC meetings In an important ruling in the matter of ANG Industries Limited v/s Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited & Ashok Leyland Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide an order dated 24 May 2018 (available here), has analysed the following critical issues: (i) Whether the resolution professional is required to give notice to ‘Operational Creditors’ or their representatives to attend the meeting of Committee of Creditors (COC); and (ii) What is the legislative intent behind allowing the ‘suspended board of directors’, the ‘partners of the corporate debtor’, the ‘operational creditors or their representatives’ or the ‘resolution applicant(s)’ to attend the meeting of the COC, even though they do not have the right to vote? Observations of the NCLAT The NCLAT while relying upon the findings of Joint Parliamentary Committee and its earlier ru
Read more