Library Catalogue
An analysis of behavioural impact of the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016 on key stakeholders
Shreya
An analysis of behavioural impact of the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016 on key stakeholders - BangaloreBangalore NLSIU 2020 - 78 p. ; 25 cm.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ; I. INTRODUCTION ; 1.1 Statement of Problem ; 1.2 Importance of Study ; 1.3 Aims and Objectives ; 1.4 Hypothesis ; 1.5 Research Questions ; 1.6 Research Methodology ; 1.7 Mode of Citation ; 1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Study ; 1.9 Review of Literature ; 1.9.1 Research Gap ; 1.9.2 Contributions of the Study ; 1.10 Chapter Scheme ; II. THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE: A ‘LAW AND ECONOMICS’ PERSPECTIVE ; 2.1 An ‘Adjusted’ Form of Efficiency Approach ; 2.2 Combining Efficiency Approach with the Principles of Behavioural Economics; III. OUTPUTS OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ; 3.1 Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by Different Stakeholders ; 3.2 Status of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated ; 3.2.1 Time period elapsed since the date of admission of ongoing cases ; 3.2.2 Reasons for Withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A of the Code ; 3.2.3 Status of Liquidation Process and Reasons for Liquidation ; 3.3 An Analysis of Key Findings ; IV. BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS DURING THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS: CASE STUDIES ; 4.1 Essar Steel Case: Status and Role of Different Stakeholders in the Insolvency Resolution Process ; 4.1.1 Reconciling the Creation of New Classes of Creditors with the Traditional Classification of Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors ; 4.1.2 Nature of the Role of the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors ; 4.1.3 Bindingness of Approved Resolution Plan: Incentivizing Resolution Applicants? ; 4.1.4 Sanctity of Statutory Time Period for Completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: The Legislature vs. Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.2. Jaypee Infratech Case: A Critical Appraisal of its Legal and Practical Implications for the Real Estate Sector ; 4.2.1 Obliteration of Raison d'être of Distinction between the Operational and Financial Creditors ; 4.2.2 Probable Misuse of the Code by the Real Estate Allottees: Approach of the Adjudicating Authorities and Need for a Re-look ; 4.2.3 The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Preferential Transactions and its Implications for Third-party Security ; 4.3 Binani Cements Case: A Critical Appraisal of the Justiciability of Approved Resolution Plans ; 4.3.1 Treatment of Operational Creditors and Dissenting Financial Creditors under the Resolution Plan: Role of the Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.3.2 Role of Adjudicating Authorities vis à vis Commercial Wisdom of the Committee of Creditors; 4.4. Amtek Auto Case: Consequences of Non-Implementation of Approved Resolution Plan; 4.4.1 Manner of Pursuing Criminal Complaints under the Code and the Role of Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.4.2 Due Diligence during Distressed Mergers and Acquisitions: Issues and Challenges ; 4.5 An Analysis of the Trends Emerging from the Case Studies ; 4.5.1 The Adjudicating Authorities and the Courts have Tended to Exercise their Authority Improperly. ; 4.5.2 Amendments to the Code are Mostly Case Driven and Lack Conceptual Coherence ; 4.5.3 There are Gaps in the Realisation of Objectives of ‘Speedy Resolution’ and ‘Value Maximisation’ ; V. REFORMING THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY FRAMEWORK: CRITIQUES AND PERSPECTIVES ; 5.1 Role of Promoters as Key Stakeholders in the Resolution Process: Is Ineligibility under Section 29A economically efficient? ; 5.2 Schemes of Compromise or Arrangement and Sale on 'Going Concern Basis' in Liquidation: Has the Code ceded its Outcome-neutrality? ; 5.3 Pre-packaged Schemes: Whether Feasible in Indian Insolvency Regime? ; VI. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ; BIBLIOGRAPHY .
An analysis of behavioural impact of the insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016 on key stakeholders - BangaloreBangalore NLSIU 2020 - 78 p. ; 25 cm.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ; I. INTRODUCTION ; 1.1 Statement of Problem ; 1.2 Importance of Study ; 1.3 Aims and Objectives ; 1.4 Hypothesis ; 1.5 Research Questions ; 1.6 Research Methodology ; 1.7 Mode of Citation ; 1.8 Scope and Limitations of the Study ; 1.9 Review of Literature ; 1.9.1 Research Gap ; 1.9.2 Contributions of the Study ; 1.10 Chapter Scheme ; II. THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE: A ‘LAW AND ECONOMICS’ PERSPECTIVE ; 2.1 An ‘Adjusted’ Form of Efficiency Approach ; 2.2 Combining Efficiency Approach with the Principles of Behavioural Economics; III. OUTPUTS OF THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ; 3.1 Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by Different Stakeholders ; 3.2 Status of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated ; 3.2.1 Time period elapsed since the date of admission of ongoing cases ; 3.2.2 Reasons for Withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A of the Code ; 3.2.3 Status of Liquidation Process and Reasons for Liquidation ; 3.3 An Analysis of Key Findings ; IV. BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS DURING THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS: CASE STUDIES ; 4.1 Essar Steel Case: Status and Role of Different Stakeholders in the Insolvency Resolution Process ; 4.1.1 Reconciling the Creation of New Classes of Creditors with the Traditional Classification of Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors ; 4.1.2 Nature of the Role of the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors ; 4.1.3 Bindingness of Approved Resolution Plan: Incentivizing Resolution Applicants? ; 4.1.4 Sanctity of Statutory Time Period for Completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process: The Legislature vs. Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.2. Jaypee Infratech Case: A Critical Appraisal of its Legal and Practical Implications for the Real Estate Sector ; 4.2.1 Obliteration of Raison d'être of Distinction between the Operational and Financial Creditors ; 4.2.2 Probable Misuse of the Code by the Real Estate Allottees: Approach of the Adjudicating Authorities and Need for a Re-look ; 4.2.3 The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Preferential Transactions and its Implications for Third-party Security ; 4.3 Binani Cements Case: A Critical Appraisal of the Justiciability of Approved Resolution Plans ; 4.3.1 Treatment of Operational Creditors and Dissenting Financial Creditors under the Resolution Plan: Role of the Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.3.2 Role of Adjudicating Authorities vis à vis Commercial Wisdom of the Committee of Creditors; 4.4. Amtek Auto Case: Consequences of Non-Implementation of Approved Resolution Plan; 4.4.1 Manner of Pursuing Criminal Complaints under the Code and the Role of Adjudicating Authorities ; 4.4.2 Due Diligence during Distressed Mergers and Acquisitions: Issues and Challenges ; 4.5 An Analysis of the Trends Emerging from the Case Studies ; 4.5.1 The Adjudicating Authorities and the Courts have Tended to Exercise their Authority Improperly. ; 4.5.2 Amendments to the Code are Mostly Case Driven and Lack Conceptual Coherence ; 4.5.3 There are Gaps in the Realisation of Objectives of ‘Speedy Resolution’ and ‘Value Maximisation’ ; V. REFORMING THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY FRAMEWORK: CRITIQUES AND PERSPECTIVES ; 5.1 Role of Promoters as Key Stakeholders in the Resolution Process: Is Ineligibility under Section 29A economically efficient? ; 5.2 Schemes of Compromise or Arrangement and Sale on 'Going Concern Basis' in Liquidation: Has the Code ceded its Outcome-neutrality? ; 5.3 Pre-packaged Schemes: Whether Feasible in Indian Insolvency Regime? ; VI. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ; BIBLIOGRAPHY .