LONDON — Britain and France plan tougher action to tackle online radicalization, as they announced Monday a new joint campaign to stop the internet from being a safe space for terrorists.

The cooperation, unveiled ahead of counter-terror talks Tuesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, includes exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove content.

“We are united in our total condemnation of terrorism and our commitment to stamp out this evil,” May said ahead of the session.

May has been pressing the tech companies to do more to thwart the spread of terrorist content on the web. In a speech following the London Bridge attacks, she insisted that “we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed.

“Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide,” she said.

But tech experts wondered aloud what kind of regulation might be proposed, given that Britain’s laws are already among the toughest. A law known as the Snooper’ Charter gives authorities the powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

Among other things, the law requires telecommunications companies to keep records of all users’ web activity for a year, creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could be vulnerable to leaks and hackers.

Cynthia Wong, a senior researcher on the Internet and Human Rights at Human Rights Watch said no one should be surprised that smart phones and social media are used in attacks, as they are the “tools of modern life.”

“The problem here is that it’s like blaming truck manufacturers or knife-makers,” she said.

She said that it’s not as if tech companies are unwilling to help. “Is not as if they are doing nothing …. The problem there is the sheer scale of it — hundreds of hours of video are posted every single minute,” she said.

Part of the problem is also that no one is quite certain what the British prime minister intends to ask for. Censorship is a fraught issue in any context.

“I think the practicalities of doing this are not only extremely problematic but potentially quite frightening from a civil liberties point of view,” said Martin Moore, the director of the Center for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at King’s College London. The public needs to know what it means when she says ‘enough is enough.’”

Daniel Castro, the vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington said one has to wonder how sustainable these ideas are because they are driven by fear. He pointed out that there are all sorts of places on the internet “where you can put things up” without being able to take it down.

Rather than beating up on the tech companies, the more sensible approach is to work with them and give support to the tools they are developing to counter terror. After all, it is tech companies and academics who are leading on the effort to combat radicalization on line.

“I think that the most disappointing part of this is that the government should be a partner with the private sector,” he said of May’s rhetoric last week. “This is not how you bring partners to the table to come up with a solution. It’s delaying any positive action.”

Go to Source

Britain and France plan tougher action to tackle online radicalization, as they announced Monday a new joint campaign to stop the internet from being a safe space for terrorists.

The cooperation, unveiled ahead of counter-terror talks Tuesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, includes exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove content.

“We are united in our total condemnation of terrorism and our commitment to stamp out this evil,” May said ahead of the session.

May has been pressing the tech companies to do more to thwart the spread of terrorist content on the web. In a speech following the London Bridge attacks, she insisted that “we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed.

“Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide,” she said.

But tech experts wondered aloud what kind of regulation might be proposed, given that Britain’s laws are already among the toughest. A law known as the Snooper’ Charter gives authorities the powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

Among other things, the law requires telecommunications companies to keep records of all users’ web activity for a year, creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could be vulnerable to leaks and hackers.

Cynthia Wong, a senior researcher on the Internet and Human Rights at Human Rights Watch said no one should be surprised that smart phones and social media are used in attacks, as they are the “tools of modern life.”

“The problem here is that it’s like blaming truck manufacturers or knife-makers,” she said.

She said that it’s not as if tech companies are unwilling to help. “Is not as if they are doing nothing …. The problem there is the sheer scale of it — hundreds of hours of video are posted every single minute,” she said.

Part of the problem is also that no one is quite certain what the British prime minister intends to ask for. Censorship is a fraught issue in any context.

“I think the practicalities of doing this are not only extremely problematic but potentially quite frightening from a civil liberties point of view,” said Martin Moore, the director of the Center for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at King’s College London. The public needs to know what it means when she says ‘enough is enough.'”

Daniel Castro, the vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington said one has to wonder how sustainable these ideas are because they are driven by fear. He pointed out that there are all sorts of places on the internet “where you can put things up” without being able to take it down.

Rather than beating up on the tech companies, the more sensible approach is to work with them and give support to the tools they are developing to counter terror. After all, it is tech companies and academics who are leading on the effort to combat radicalization on line.

“I think that the most disappointing part of this is that the government should be a partner with the private sector,” he said of May’s rhetoric last week. “This is not how you bring partners to the table to come up with a solution. It’s delaying any positive action.”

Go to Source

LONDON (AP) – Britain and France plan tougher action to tackle online radicalization, as they announced Monday a new joint campaign to stop the internet from being a safe space for terrorists.

The cooperation, unveiled ahead of counter-terror talks Tuesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, includes exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove content.

“We are united in our total condemnation of terrorism and our commitment to stamp out this evil,” May said ahead of the session.

May has been pressing the tech companies to do more to thwart the spread of terrorist content on the web. In a speech following the London Bridge attacks, she insisted that “we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed.

“Yet that is precisely what the internet – and the big companies that provide internet-based services – provide,” she said.

But tech experts wondered aloud what kind of regulation might be proposed, given that Britain’s laws are already among the toughest. A law known as the Snooper’ Charter gives authorities the powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

Among other things, the law requires telecommunications companies to keep records of all users’ web activity for a year, creating databases of personal information that the firms worry could be vulnerable to leaks and hackers.

Cynthia Wong, a senior researcher on the Internet and Human Rights at Human Rights Watch said no one should be surprised that smart phones and social media are used in attacks, as they are the “tools of modern life.”

“The problem here is that it’s like blaming truck manufacturers or knife-makers,” she said.

She said that it’s not as if tech companies are unwilling to help. “Is not as if they are doing nothing …. The problem there is the sheer scale of it – hundreds of hours of video are posted every single minute,” she said.

Part of the problem is also that no one is quite certain what the British prime minister intends to ask for. Censorship is a fraught issue in any context.

“I think the practicalities of doing this are not only extremely problematic but potentially quite frightening from a civil liberties point of view,” said Martin Moore, the director of the Center for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at King’s College London. The public needs to know what it means when she says ‘enough is enough.’”

Daniel Castro, the vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington said one has to wonder how sustainable these ideas are because they are driven by fear. He pointed out that there are all sorts of places on the internet “where you can put things up” without being able to take it down.

Rather than beating up on the tech companies, the more sensible approach is to work with them and give support to the tools they are developing to counter terror. After all, it is tech companies and academics who are leading on the effort to combat radicalization on line.

“I think that the most disappointing part of this is that the government should be a partner with the private sector,” he said of May’s rhetoric last week. “This is not how you bring partners to the table to come up with a solution. It’s delaying any positive action.”

Social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter could face fines if they fail to remove extremist propaganda and terrorist material under proposals agreed by the UK and French governments.

The two countries are to develop plans to create a new legal liability for tech firms which fail to take action against unacceptable content on their platforms.

They will lead also work with internet giants to explore the potential for new tools to identify and remove harmful material automatically.

Speaking ahead of a visit to French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Tuesday in the wake of atrocities in Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge, Theresa May said the countries were determined to ensure the internet could not be used as a safe space for terrorists and criminals.

She said: “The counter-terrorism co-operation between British and French intelligence agencies is already strong, but President Macron and I agree that more should be done to tackle the terrorist threat online.

“In the UK we are already working with social media companies to halt the spread of extremist material and poisonous propaganda that is warping young minds.

“And today I can announce that the UK and France will work together to encourage corporations to do more and abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content from their networks, including exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content.

“We are united in our total condemnation of terrorism and our commitment to stamp out this evil.”

​Mrs May’s visit comes just days after legislative elections in France which appear to have delivered Mr Macron’s En Marche party an overwhelming dominance in parliament, just as the UK General Election deprived the Prime Minister of her own Commons majority.

The leaders will press tech companies to move forward urgently with the establishment of an industry-led forum to develop shared technical and policy solutions to the problem, as agreed by leaders of the world’s most advanced economies at last month’s G7 summit in Italy.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd and French interior minister Gerard Collomb will meet in the coming days to drive the agenda forward.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in the last parliament, said: “Social media companies like YouTube have been getting away with a dangerous and irresponsible approach to extremism for too long.

“Still today YouTube is showing illegal propaganda videos for banned jihadi and neo-Nazi extremists. They have a disgraceful disregard for the law.

“The cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee called for a system of fines and stronger legislation.

“So if that is what the British and French governments are working on now, that is really welcome.

“They need to make rapid progress, because online radicalisation is a very serious threat, and this problem has been growing for a long time.”

Facebook last week pledged to be a “hostile environment” for terrorists after Mrs May demanded action from internet firms following the London Bridge terror attack.

The social media website said it worked “aggressively” to remove extremist content and notify police of any threats, while Google and Twitter also defended themselves from claims web giants provide a “safe space” for terrorists.

Reuse content

Go to Source

Social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter could be fined if they fail to remove extremist propaganda and terrorist material under proposals agreed by Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron.

Speaking ahead of a visit to Mr Macron in Paris on Tuesday in the wake of a series of jihadi attacks in Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge, Mrs May said she and the president were determined to ensure the internet could not be used as a safe space for terrorists and criminals.

The UK and France are to develop plans to create a new legal liability for tech companies which fail to take action against unacceptable content on their platforms.

The two countries are to lead joint work with internet giants to explore the potential for new tools to identify and remove harmful material automatically.

Mrs May’s visit comes just days after legislative elections in France which appear to have delivered Mr Macron’s En Marche party an overwhelming dominance in parliament, just as the UK General Election deprived the Prime Minister of her own Commons majority.

After talks and a working dinner at the Elysee Palace, the pair are set to travel to the Stade de France to watch England take on France in a friendly football international.

Mrs May’s official spokesman was not immediately able to confirm whether the Prime Minister, a keen cricket fan, had seen England play before.

Mrs May said: “The counter-terrorism co-operation between British and French intelligence agencies is already strong, but President Macron and I agree that more should be done to tackle the terrorist threat online.

“In the UK we are already working with social media companies to halt the spread of extremist material and poisonous propaganda that is warping young minds.

“And today I can announce that the UK and France will work together to encourage corporations to do more and abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content from their networks, including exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content.

“We are united in our total condemnation of terrorism and our commitment to stamp out this evil.”

Mrs May and Mr Macron will press tech companies to move forward urgently with the establishment of an industry-led forum to develop shared technical and policy solutions to the problem, as agreed by leaders of the world’s most advanced economies at last month’s G7 summit in Italy.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd and French interior minister Gerard Collomb will meet in the coming days to drive the agenda forward.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in the last parliament, said: “Social media companies like YouTube have been getting away with a dangerous and irresponsible approach to extremism for too long.

“Still today YouTube is showing illegal propaganda videos for banned jihadi and neo-Nazi extremists. They have a disgraceful disregard for the law.

“The cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee called for a system of fines and stronger legislation.

“So if that is what the British and French governments are working on now, that is really welcome.

“They need to make rapid progress, because online radicalisation is a very serious threat, and this problem has been growing for a long time.”

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2017, All Rights Reserved.

Go to Source

International law firm Pinsent Masons is to open a Dublin office to “disrupt” the local market and to focus on the financial services and technology sectors. The London-headquartered firm has pinched three senior lawyers from local law firms to run the new office.

Gayle Bowen, a partner specialising in investment funds and current chair of the Irish Funds Legal & Regulatory Committee, joins the firm from Walkers; Andreas Carney, a partner who specialises in outsourcing, data protection and IT, joins from Matheson; and Dennis Agnew, a partner who specialises in corporate law, joins from Byrne Wallace, where he set up and led the firm’s New York office as well as practising in Dublin.

The new office will target work initially from the 50 of Pinsent Masons’ top 250 clients who are present in Ireland, and Richard Foley, senior partner of Pinsent Masons, said its vision is to be recognised “as an international market leader” in the five global sectors in which it specialises.

Brexit incentive

Coming on the back of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, Pinsent Masons’ decision follows that of international law firm Kennedys, which has opted to more than double its office space in Dublin in recent months. A record number of UK solicitors were admitted to practice in the Republic in the first six months of 2016 due to concerns over Brexit, with some of the UK’s biggest law firms, including Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughter and May, and Allen & Overy, all reportedly registering solicitors locally.

According to Mr Foley, Dublin’s status “has only become even more significant in the context of Brexit”.

“The feedback we’ve had from our clients as we developed our Ireland strategy was that they would welcome a disrupter coming into the market and our reputation as an innovator is therefore of significant interest to them. They want a firm which understands their sector, can support them in an integrated way across multiple geographies and – above all – won’t simply provide the same old services in the same old way,” he said.

Top 100 firms

With revenues of £382.8 million (€434 million) in 2016, Pinsent Masons is one of the 100 largest firms in the world by turnover, employing nearly 3,000 people worldwide including more than 1,500 lawyers. The law firm also has an office in Belfast, following its merger in 2012 with local law firm McGrigors, and the move will bring the number of Pinsent Masons lawyers across the island of Ireland to 12 partners and more than 50 lawyers.

Pinsent Masons in the latest in a line of international law firms that have entered the Irish market in recent years, including Dechert, Walkers and Maples and Calder.

Go to Source

Legal Business is the market-leading glossy monthly magazine for senior decision-makers in the UK and global legal market. Published ten times a year, the magazine reaches thousands of senior lawyers at major commercial firms across the UK and key financial centres of Europe, Asia and the US. It is published by Legalease, the publishers of the respected “Legal 500” rankings.

On 8 June 2017 Legal Business issued its second “Euro Elite” report, its study of the law firms redefining Europe’s legal market. Following thorough research and analysis into more than 300 of the largest law firms in Europe, the report identifies the top 100, assessed not only on size, but also on quality.  Firms from more than 40 countries were evaluated, but for half of the countries, including many larger countries, no firm achieved the required standards.

We are delighted to say that Elias Neocleous & Co LLC is the sole Cyprus law firm included in the “Euro Elite”.

Commenting on the award, Elias Neocleous, chairman of the firm, said, “Our inclusion in Legal Business’s Euro Elite 100 is an acknowledgement by one of the most respected market observers of our hard work and our commitment to the highest standards of integrity, quality and service. I should like to thank all my partners and colleagues at the firm for their dedication and commitment, which have brought us this recognition.

On behalf of everyone at the firm I should also like to thank Legal Business, and to express our gratitude to all of our clients in Cyprus and abroad who have supported us and entrusted us with their work, and who continue to support our new firm on our journey of creation and innovation. This award is not only good for our firm, but also for our country. Our constant aim is to provide services of the highest quality and to promote Cyprus as a world-class financial centre of the highest repute, attracting foreign investment and creating economic activity and employment for our citizens.”

Elias Neocleous, managing partner of Cyprus’ largest firm, Elias Neocleous & Co, agrees: ‘The legal market in Turkey has been affected, mainly by the western perception that there is no rule of law. But the legal market in  Turkey is big so firms still benefit at the top tier.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the big banks start having problems with their loan portfolios and will need to raise more capital, generating good, interesting work for top law firms there.’ Neocleous adds that Cyprus is broadly viewed as a ‘small oasis of stability’ and an antidote to the turbulence experienced in the eastern Mediterranean. ‘Because it is part of the EU/eurozone with an attractive business and tax legal regime, it is perceived as a place where businesses may come and create a base if something bad happens in their home countries.  Cyprus is benefiting no doubt – we have a lot of people coming here from the turbulent countries in the Middle East.’.

Go to Source

Go to Source

The court has emphasised that one of the goals of competition law enforcement should be to foster innovation as a means of curbing consumer harm. (PTI)

There have only been a handful of Indian antitrust cases where the principles of Indian competition law have been finally decided by the country’s Supreme Court. Currently, the bulk of antitrust decisions are those of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the intermediate appellate forum, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)—which has now been replaced by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The past eight years of the bureaucratically-managed CCI’s and COMPAT’s existence have had their respective members routinely hold contrasting opinions on various substantial and procedural provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act), which have hitherto remained unclarified by the Supreme Court, thus leaving the industry and the antitrust fraternity in a state of legal doubt. Two factors have contributed to the situation—firstly, Supreme Court’s notorious backlog of cases and secondly, the fact that Indian antitrust cases cannot be voluntarily settled by parties. In a first, over this summer, the Supreme Court of India adjudicated upon two antitrust cases on substantive issues under the Act.

Both the decisions not only contribute towards Indian antitrust jurisprudence by settling substantive issues of law, but also provide valuable insights into the thought process of the country’s highest court, especially in relation to their understanding of the technical aspects of antitrust law.

In the first case, the Supreme Court, while deciding against the film and television artists’ trade union in the state of West Bengal, introduced the concept of ‘relevant market’ in the enforcement of cartel cases. The Supreme Court held that antitrust agencies and lower courts had to figure out if the firms alleged to be entering into anti-competitive agreements were operating in the same relevant market. This was a requirement that was not strictly necessary under the Act but was open to the interpretation of higher appellate authorities. In its second order, while upholding the CCI’s finding of cartelisation by three aluminium phosphide tablets manufacturers for tenders floated by the Food Corporation of India, the Court also finally settled the raging debate between CCI and COMPAT on the proper methodology of calculating penalties under the Act. It held that penalties under the Act must not be arbitrary, should be based on principles of proportionality and must be levied on the ‘relevant’ turnover of a contravening multi-product firm rather than on the firm’s entire turnover.

Beyond contributing to such technical aspects of Indian antitrust law, both the decisions also serve as a valuable harbinger of how India’s highest judiciary should think about antitrust. The Court greatly emphasises the need of ensuring that the provisions of the Act get implemented in line with the purpose for which the law was enacted. This has been clarified by the Supreme Court to include those which enhance consumer well-being or consumer welfare (a term in micro-economic theory that relates to allocative efficiency). This articulation by the Indian Supreme Court is akin to that of the US Supreme Court’s decision in 1979 (Reiter v. Sonotone Corp 442 U.S. 330 (1979)), where the US Supreme Court held that ‘consumer welfare’ is the only articulated goal of antitrust law in the United States. The Indian adoption of the same standard will now force the lower tribunals and courts to engage in robust economic reasoning to ensure and justify that their decisions stick to the consumer welfare prescription—reducing their ability to introduce protectionist, consumerist or equity policies within the Indian antitrust agenda. This move also will greatly help the campaign of the Indian antitrust bar to convince the CCI and COMPAT to adopt a ‘more economic approach’ to their antitrust decisions. Currently, the CCI and COMPAT seldom attempt to examine a theory of economic harm or those of anti-competitive effects within their proximate reasoning while imposing antitrust penalties.

The court readily quotes from several antitrust sources, authorities and decisions of mature competition law jurisdictions, especially while examining technical aspects of the law. This is a welcome bench-marking and will force the CCI to modernise its enforcement pedagogy. For example, the CCI in the past has been tempted to adopt an interpretation of the Act which imposes a strict liability standard for abuse of dominance cases, without engaging in an “effects-based analysis”. Such an enforcement standard, where certain business conducts of large firms are penalised without examining if such conduct effectively impairs competition in the affected markets, is in divergence from the approach taken in mature competition law jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s ready reliance on such foreign jurisprudence will force the CCI not to attempt re-inventing the regulatory wheel.

The court has also emphasised that one of the goals of competition law enforcement should be to foster innovation as a means of curbing consumer harm. This articulation comes at a time when CCI’s misguided policy while dealing with high-tech firms could potentially harm India’s digital markets. Currently, CCI’s enforcement trends, especially in fast-moving tech markets (those against Ola, Ericsson, and Google) are often linked to subjective benchmarks, i.e., standards of fairness and equity, without engaging in a robust effects-based analysis which links an alleged business misconduct to identified anticompetitive effects. It protects weaker/inefficient firms and risks depriving consumers of innovations which would benefit them, even if they don’t benefit competitors. Given that the Supreme Court categorically mentions that the goal of competition enforcement should be to “protect the competition process itself rather than the competitors in the market”, CCI must analyse the potential effects of its actions on the innovation capacity of the firms and sectors they regulate/penalise. The “fining guideline”, one of the long-pending demands of the stakeholders, may have slowly emerged with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The authors, Manas K Chaudhuri is partner (antitrust), Khaitan & Co.,  and Avirup Bose is assistant professor (competition law),  Jindal Global Law School

Go to Source

There is heightened attention on the new process because existing laws and mechanisms such as corporate debt restructuring, which were meant to address the issue of bad debt, haven’t quite worked.

India’s new bankruptcy law — which came into force at the end of last year, about 18 months after it was formally proposed in early 2015 —will face its first test later this month when the resolution plan for Kolkata-based Nicco Industries is adjudicated. The adjudication process will signal whether the sick company can be restructured or shut down swiftly — within 180 days of the case being registered.

Over 1,000 applications for resolution have been filed, more than 100 of which have been admitted by the arbiter, the National Company Law Tribunal or NCLT, which is expected to decide on the fate of many non-financial firms within 180 days.

Read | Explaining the Bankruptcy law — and the need to have one

Closely watching the working of the Bankruptcy Code — the rules for which have been framed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India or IBBI, which regulates the professionals handling the process — will be banks sitting on a mountain of bad debt of over Rs 6 lakh crore, India’s central bank, which is now mandated to direct local lenders to quickly resolve hundreds of cases of firms that have defaulted on their loans and gone belly up, as well as investors — known as vulture funds in the West — who swoop on such assets, hoping to buy them at rock bottom rates, and make money down the line, following a turnaround.

There is heightened attention on the new process because existing laws and mechanisms such as corporate debt restructuring, which were meant to address the issue of bad debt, haven’t quite worked.

By the end of this year — by when the mandatory 180-day deadline for resolution is reached in a few other cases as well — the initial experience of an important reform will be manifest. The stakes are high because the way in which the bankruptcy process evolves, will be crucial for boosting the country’s ranking in the Ease of Doing Business sweepstakes. A little after his government took over, Prime Minister Modi had said that the aim was to take India from a ranking of 142 in 2014 to the top 50 in three years.

There is much more at stake. Speedy resolution of the debt woes of lenders will mean freeing up of capital for fresh lending to India’s businessmen, including small and medium entrepreneurs and industry. It will lead to a more efficient allocation of resources, as well as the development of a market for secondary assets, which the country badly needs — rather than the destruction of value of assets, which inevitably results from long delays in settling cases. This will count significantly for banks and lenders in India who, under the looming shadow of investigative agencies, currently baulk at taking decisions such as those on a haircut or accepting a lower value of assets.
It is a new experience for India to have a group of lenders or equity or debt holders to approach the NCLT to establish default. If the Tribunal is satisfied and admits the case, a set of people known as “insolvency professionals” — chartered accountants, cost accountants or company secretaries — who are regulated by the IBBI, step in. They prepare a resolution plan, which involves restructuring where possible, or liquidation where it is concluded that nothing will work and it is better for the firm to die. The plan must be approved by 75 % of the voting share of creditors, and then sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, the NCLT.

For the new band of insolvency professionals too, it will be a learning process to take de facto interim charge of the firms. They too will be tested. By the end of the year, the number of registered insolvency professionals could top 1000.

Perhaps it would be pragmatic to expect equity and debt holders to try out this route for only some of the worst cases in the initial phase. There’s a good reason. The market for buyouts of distressed assets is yet to develop — which means that those whose money is at stake may have to settle for a lower value. Over the next few years, as professional insolvency services improve and the ecosystem for an efficient resolution develops, the impact of this reform will be felt, according to M S Sahoo, who heads the IBBI.

India’s Bankruptcy Code is modelled on the lines of what is in vogue in the US, which has what are known as Chapter 7, 11 and 15 bankruptcies, and the United Kingdom, where resolution has to be within 12 months.

The way the resolution process works in the initial phase will influence decisions to take recourse to it for addressing bigger cases of default. For that, India will need to equip the NCLT better — the Tribunal has started off with 11 benches, which could be too few given the huge number of cases that could potentially come up. The bigger challenge will be at the time when cases of individuals are taken up for resolution — this is expected a year or so down the line. It would mean putting in place Debt Recovery Tribunals across the country, where individuals can seek to recover their money. And also when the resolution process begins for financial firms — like banks — which need to be either revived or shut down.

For all the latest Explained News, download Indian Express App

Go to Source