The key challenge going forward will be for the NCLT to adopt a purposive interpretation to the IBC provisions on preferential transactions which strikes a balance between preventing unfair payments and ensuring that lenders are willing to continue supporting a distressed business during the time when their support is most required
A fundamental objective of insolvency law is ensuring parri passu (on equal footing) treatment of creditors of the same class. When borrowers become financially distressed, individual creditors are incentivized to press for payment in priority to other creditors to maximize their individual recovery. Borrowers themselves are incentivized to prioritize payments to certain lenders (for example, those who hold a personal guarantee from the promoters of the borrower). Insolvency legislation in various jurisdictions, for example, the United States of America (“US”) and England, describes such payments as “preferences” and allows for insolvency professionals appointed over insolvent debtors to apply to a Court to set them aside and recover the monies paid out into the common pool available to all creditors with unsecured claims in accordance with the legislative order of priority.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has introduced provisions prohibiting “preferential transactions” in Indian insolvency legislation.2 Resolution professionals have a duty to report such transactions to the committee of creditors and to file applications to set them aside.3 The US Bankruptcy Code (“US Bankruptcy Code”) has contained similar provisions for a number of years. This article considers the preferential transaction provisions in the IBC and how these might be interpreted based on the US Bankruptcy Code and decisions of the US Courts. It also briefly considers additional defenses available to creditors in the US, which might be argued in India.
“Preferential Transactions” Provisions in the IBC
ãã®èšäºã¯ Legal Era ã® February 2018 çã«æ²èŒãããŠããŸãã
7 æ¥éã® Magzter GOLD ç¡æãã©ã€ã¢ã«ãéå§ããŠãäœåãã®å³éžããããã¬ãã¢ã ã¹ããŒãªãŒã9,000 以äžã®éèªãæ°èã«ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ããŠãã ããã
ãã§ã«è³Œèªè ã§ã ?  ãµã€ã³ã€ã³
ãã®èšäºã¯ Legal Era ã® February 2018 çã«æ²èŒãããŠããŸãã
7 æ¥éã® Magzter GOLD ç¡æãã©ã€ã¢ã«ãéå§ããŠãäœåãã®å³éžããããã¬ãã¢ã ã¹ããŒãªãŒã9,000 以äžã®éèªãæ°èã«ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ããŠãã ããã
ãã§ã«è³Œèªè ã§ã? ãµã€ã³ã€ã³
If You Think Positive Covid Is A Big Opportunity
Senior Vice President and Head of Legal, ESSAR CAPITAL, Badrinath Durvasula, holds forth on his professional journey, the essence of leadership, working from home, books and moreâŠ
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
JOINT VENTURE TRANSACTIONS
NEW ARBITRATION RULES
PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (LCIA) AND INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (ICC)
M&A in the time of COVID and beyond
What is clear for those engaging in cross-border M&A is that countries around the world are becoming increasingly protective of their economies and industries, with new rules being introduced and existing rules being more widely applied
SWITZERLAND A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO FRAUD
Swiss law interprets the offense of fraud in a special way where in addition to the characteristics of deception and damage as known in many jurisdictions, a qualified lie, i.e. a malicious approach, is required
JOINT VENTURE DISPUTES MEDIATING
Mediation has shown itself to be a powerful tool for bringing a speedy and effective end to crossborder disputes while preserving the commercial relationship between them.
Recognition of HONG KONG INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS IN MAINLAND CHINA
A TEST CASE IN THE MAKING?
CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE
Two recent developments in Singapore case law and legislation reflect a willingness to preserve confidentiality related obligations in all arbitrations
ESSENTIAL GOODS SERVICES UNDER IBC
WHAT DOES IT ESSENTIALLY MEAN?
A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S NEW VISION FOR THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE
A LOOK AT THE KEY CHANGES PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN IS LIKELY TO MAKE ONCE HE TAKES OFFICE