A historic piece of legislation in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) attempts to update and unify the various laws pertaining to insolvency and bankruptcy. The IBC acknowledges the significance of handling cross-border bankruptcy challenges, even though it primarily handles domestic insolvency proceedings.

Cross-border bankruptcy pertains to circumstances wherein a debtor possesses assets or creditors in various jurisdictions, necessitating a synchronized approach to properly conclude the insolvency proceedings.

The handling of insolvency cases involving foreign corporations has grown more difficult as economies grow and become more integrated. This article aims to explore the complexities and issues associated with cross-border insolvency. One of the effects of globalization, when nations depend on one another for a variety of commodities and services, is an increase in international trade and commerce.

Now, if a multinational company files for bankruptcy, the insolvency process will inevitably involve stakeholders like international creditors and have an impact on multiple jurisdictions.

There are three circumstances that are mostly connected:

• where foreign creditors have claims over the assets of the corporate debtor in another jurisdiction where the insolvency proceedings have already been initiated;
• where the corporate debtor has several branches of business which leads to different assets in jurisdictions apart from the place where the insolvency proceedings have been initiated and
• where the corporate debtor is subjected to multiple proceedings in parallel jurisdictions.

Recognition of Cross-Border Insolvency:
To begin with, when a debtor is facing insolvency and has assets, creditors, or other pertinent components in multiple jurisdictions, this is referred to as cross-border insolvency. Several jurisdictions must work together to find the most efficient and equitable approach to handle the insolvency processes. Section 234[1] of the IBC explicitly recognizes the concept of cross-border insolvency and empowers the Central Government to enter into agreements with foreign countries for enforcing the provisions of the IBC. This provision aligns with the global trend of facilitating cooperation and coordination among different jurisdictions in handling complex cross-border insolvency cases.

Although the UNCITRAL Model Law's spirit of cooperation between a domestic court and a foreign court is encouraged by Section 235, there are several gaps in the law.

1. There are no explicit rules governing how local authorities and international courts or other competent bodies are to cooperate.
2. There is no system at present in place, to handle concurrent proceedings coordination.
3. Relying on letters requesting cooperation could result in needless delays since they must be sent via official channels in both domestic and international jurisdictions, which would be inconvenient for the creditors impacted by the bankruptcy procedures.

Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency:
The Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is incorporated into the IBC to better expedite the resolution process. The Model Law offers a framework for handling cross-border insolvency situations and was adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). A step in the right direction toward international standardization in insolvency procedures is India's acceptance of the Model Law.

The Model Law's automatic recognition of foreign proceedings is one of its main benefits. Indian courts have an obligation to acknowledge and collaborate with foreign insolvency procedures when they are started. This acknowledgement makes it easier to resolve cross-border insolvency matters in a more coordinated and effective manner. The actual application of cross-border insolvency laws under the IBC presents a number of crucial concerns, notwithstanding these encouraging developments.

Challenges Faced:
One prominent case that highlights these difficulties is the Jet Airways v. State Bank of India[2] dispute. This case is notable for being the first in which the court was asked to decide on the debtor's COMI (Centre of Main Interest in Cross-Border Insolvency) and address issues pertaining to concurrent bankruptcy procedures in India and other countries. Once the top airline in India, Jet Airways experienced financial difficulties that ultimately resulted in its bankruptcy.

The operation of the company and its assets, however, were dispersed over several nations, which made the bankruptcy process more difficult. In fact, this case brought to light the necessity of efficient systems to synchronize and standardize insolvency procedures internationally, guaranteeing fair treatment for all parties concerned.

The case of State Bank of India V. Videocon Industries Ltd.[3] is another noteworthy case that clarified issues related to cross-border insolvency. This case allowed for the consolidation of 13 out of the 15 Videocon Group firms. Several of the subsidiary companies of well-known conglomerate Videocon were facing insolvency procedures. The intricate network of cross-border activities and associated debts presented a significant barrier to a speedy settlement. This case served as a reminder of the need for strong legal frameworks and procedures in order to successfully handle cross-border insolvency issues.

Challenges in Implementation:
Lack of Clarity in Jurisdictional Issues:
Regarding jurisdictional concerns pertaining to international insolvency, the IBC does not offer explicit guidance. It is still difficult to decide which venue is best for starting bankruptcy procedures and liaising with overseas courts. The absence of clarity might impede the prompt resolution of cross-border insolvency proceedings by causing delays and legal challenges.

Inconsistencies in Recognition and Enforcement:
Despite the Model Law's emphasis on the automatic recognition of international proceedings, implementing foreign orders in India presents certain practical difficulties. The efficiency of cross-border collaboration may be compromised by discrepancies in legal frameworks and procedural variances between countries that make it difficult to enforce foreign insolvency orders.

Limited Judicial Precedents:
There are currently few Indian court rulings concerning situations involving cross-border insolvency. The lack of well-established precedents adds to ambiguity and makes it difficult for interested parties to forecast how these cases will turn out. A strong corpus of case law is necessary to offer direction and clarity while managing intricate international insolvency cases.

Coordination with Creditors and Stakeholders:
For cross-border insolvency proceedings to be successful, creditors and stakeholders from many jurisdictions must effectively coordinate. The IBC does not, however, have any particular procedures to make this coordination easier. In addition, the lack of a formal framework may cause conflicts of interest and impede the settlement process.

Modification of Moratorium:
The Adjudicating Authority may alter the moratorium order in accordance with the IBC in order to accommodate overseas proceedings. On the other hand, the absence of clear standards on these kinds of adjustments could cause confusion and even confrontations between international and domestic insolvency systems.

Need for a Centralized Database:
A centralized database that keeps track of data on international insolvency cases can improve openness and help with efficient process coordination. Lack of such a database could make it harder to follow international procedures and comprehend the general state of cross-border insolvency.

Inclusion of Pre-Packaged Insolvency:
Currently, cross-border pre-packaged insolvency settlements are not particularly covered under the IBC. A provision for accommodating pre-packaged insolvency solutions in cross-border scenarios should be included in the IBC, given the global trend towards them.

Conclusion:
Although the addition of cross-border insolvency provisions to the IBC is a big step in the right direction towards bringing India up to speed with global best practices, there are important issues that must be resolved in order for the implementation to work. The effectiveness of cross-border insolvency under the IBC depends on more precise rules on jurisdictional issues, uniform recognition and enforcement procedures, the creation of court precedents, and improved stakeholder coordination.

In order to preserve the integrity of the financial system and foster investor confidence, it is imperative that cross-border insolvency cases be resolved effectively as the world economy grows more intertwined. Legislators, attorneys, and bankruptcy specialists must collaborate in order to overcome these obstacles and guarantee that the cross-border insolvency provisions of the IBC accomplish their intended goals in a workable and efficient way.

End-Notes:

1. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, No. 31, Act of Parliament, 2016
2. (2019) ibclaw.in 20 NCLT
3. 2019 SCC Online NCLT 745