dc.description.abstract | The intersection between environmental liability claims and insolvency of the entity concerned
have grown increasingly complex. Over the years, India has seen enactment of several laws
and proactive judicial decisions to ensure liability from environmental harm are addressed
through application of no-fault and absolute liability principles. A consequence of these
principles is, if an entity harms the environment, they must bear the cost of clean-up. if the
entity defaults on the compensation payment or is unable to pay, then, under the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) they may be able declare themselves as insolvent. When
admitted under insolvency, a moratorium on all claims is imposed. Once resolution has taken
place, the corporate debtor is provided with a “fresh start”, relieving the debtor from all its
previous debts and liabilities. If the debtor goes into liquidation, through the waterfall
mechanism, financial creditors are given priority over environmental claimants who would
mostly be categorised either as contingent claimants or decree holders. In these scenarios,
insolvency law supersedes environmental law/policy by design, creating a visible human rights
implication. While the IBC seems to be agnostic to social causes, there are other avenues to
deal with social causes, such as the Public Liability Insurance Act which deals with hazardous
environmental accidents in a limited way. In the paper, we argue, insurance provides a better
framework to resolve environmental liabilities and that the insurance schemes should remain
intact regardless of a fresh start. | en_US |