Fulltext Search
Breach of Settlement Agreement and Revival of Insolvency Application

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), National Company Law Tribunal
Fraudulent Initiation of CIRP can be challenged before ‘Admission’

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), National Company Law Tribunal
No withdrawal of insolvency after approval of Resolution Plan

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency, National Company Law Tribunal
NCLT clarifies: Interim moratorium not applicable to future liabilities

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), National Company Law Tribunal
Leasehold right: An intangible asset

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), National Company Law Tribunal
Vidarbha Industries: Extending the power of NCLT under Insolvency Law

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a financial creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) if there is a default of INR 10 million, by filing an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The settled principle is that an application made by a financial creditor under the Code must be admitted and CIRP initiates against the corporate debtor, if the NCLT is satisfied that a default has occurred in payment of debt.

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Acuity Law, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), National Company Law Tribunal
Just “Released” by the Third Circuit: In re Millennium Lab Holdings II Key Takeaways

In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court