The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.
The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of M. K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr., has held that, while commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) must be respected, certain factors having a material bearing on the process of approval of the resolution plan should also be borne in mind.
In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment passed in the case of M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors., has held that the existence of a financial debt and proof of default on the part of Corporate Debtor are the only factors to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority to admit an Application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).
May, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Supreme Court: Directors cannot escape penal liability in cheque dishonoring cases by citing company's dissolution. ⁎ Bombay High Court: A share purchase agreement containing option to sell the shares does not amount to derivative contract, thereby does not violate provisions of SCRA. * NCLAT: Fraud for the purpose of Section 66 of the IBC includes a debt where the debtor has no intention to repay.
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Key Developments
1. SEBI prescribes new disclosure requirements and dos and don’ts for the issue of green debt securities
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Key Developments
1. Delhi High Court pierces the corporate veil to make non-parties to an arbitration liable for the arbitral award
戦略的提携・拠点開設のお知らせ クアラルンプール 1 アジアでのさらなる体制強化のため、2023 年 1 月より WM Leong & Co と当事務所のシンガポール拠点である Nishimura & Asahi (Singapore) LLP が、マレーシア業務に関して戦略的提携を行っております。 WM Leong & Co は、マレーシア法において豊富な知識・経験を有するワンメイ・リョン マレーシア弁護士が代表を 務めるマレーシアの独立した法律事務所です。WM Leong & Co との戦略的提携の下で、マレーシアが関わるクロ スボーダー案件について豊富な経験を有する眞榮城大介弁護士および当事務所シンガポール事務所所属の弁 護士が中心となり WM Leong & Co と緊密に連携しながらクライアントのマレーシア事業の拡大および現地ビジネ スのサポートを行ってまいります。2 札幌 2023 年 4 月に札幌事務所を開設しております。道内企業での執務経験を有し、コーポレート・M&A・エネルギーの 分野ならびに海外案件支援に強みを持つ坪野未来弁護士が所属しており、身近なところでご相談をいただきなが ら、きめの細かいアドバイスを提供いたします。
Indonesia Authors: Miriam Andreta and Hans Adiputra Kurniawan 1. Bankruptcy and Liquidation: Updates Brought by PPSK Law With respect to bankruptcy and liquidation of certain parties (public listed companies, banks, non-bank financial institutions), there are certain updates and clarifications set out in Law on Development and Improvement of Financial Sector (also known by its local abbreviation “PPSK Law”) - which came into effect on 12 January 2023 (except for certain provisions that are explicitly intended to take effect otherwise).
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
These FAQs delve into some key aspects that prospective resolution applicants must consider while devising a robust resolution plan for a corporate debtor.