This Short article has been written by Rishika Jha. She is a Law student at Amity University, Mumbai.

ABSTRACT

The frameworks for bankruptcy and insolvency in the US and India are compared in this article, with an emphasis on their respective histories, procedural distinctions, and effects on corporate settings. India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of 2016 introduced a creditor-in-control model, where the management of a defaulting company is suspended, and a Committee of Creditors takes charge of the resolution process. In contrast, the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy system follows a debtor-in-possession approach, allowing existing management to retain control during restructuring, which generally supports business rehabilitation and continuity. While the IBC has streamlined insolvency proceedings in India and improved creditor confidence, challenges such as procedural delays, frequent amendments, and limited cross-border insolvency provisions persist. A strong legal system and well-defined procedures for international collaboration, which make it easier to recognise foreign bankruptcy cases, are advantages of the US framework. The practical impact of these variations on stakeholders, such as creditors, shareholders, and workers, are also covered in the study, with a focus on how bankruptcy laws affect market dynamics and corporate risk-taking. It further identifies shortcomings such as India’s need for enhanced judicial capacity, formal cross-border protocols, and procedural consistency, while noting that the US could improve oversight and expedite proceedings to prevent potential abuses of the debtor-in-possession model. Ultimately, the paper argues that both countries can learn from each other: India by incorporating more debtor friendly measures and strengthening international cooperation, and the US by refining procedural efficiency. This comparative study aims to provide valuable insights for policymakers, legal practitioners, and business stakeholders to foster more effective insolvency regimes that support economic growth and stability in an increasingly globalized market

This Short article has been written by SOWMYA.A and co- authored by Dr. ARUN.D RAJ. Sowmya and Arun are Law Students at School of Law, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University Chennai Campus, Chennai.

ABSTRACT

This AI-generated content now has a different meaning than that of the machine learning and neural network point of view. This vary technological breakthrough raises challenges and discussions worldwide about what is human and machine creativity. There are different histories of copyright and authorship connected to one another through the case studies of AI-generated works and the disputes created over them. Indeed, the legal situation is beset by a formidable challenge-how do AI-generated content and concepts find a place within copyright law? Differing practices across nations are more than enough evidence that there exist significant gaps in the global copyright guidelines. Integration between governments, companies, artists, and additional parties will be sorely needed to produce frameworks still to come. The benefits of AI-generated content are many, such as increased efficiency, enhanced creativity, better access, and wider diversity among kinds of creative output. And these benefits come hand in hand with aligning the risks it poses-stability versus quality, originality, job displacement, and ethical aspects concerning bias and fair use. The frequency of impacting creators and industries will be unseen; tackling these issues evokes a great deal of active thinking and innovative approaches to achieving commonality in creativity between humanity and artificial intelligence. To follow trends, adaptation always needs to be ensured in the future by working together. Therefore, a holistic approach is significant in understanding and managing AI-generated content towards a restorative and innovative future for the creative industries.