Between 31 May to 1 June, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) amended a number of securities regulations to provide certain dispensations for listed companies undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). These amendments follow SEBI’s discussion paper of March 2018, which set out specific proposals for adjusting the regulatory framework to allow listed companies to comply with their obligations under securities laws. |
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).
Background |
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
In its first detailed ruling on some of the substantive legal questions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Apex Court) has delivered a landmark order in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd v ICICI Bank and Another with an expressly avowed objective of ensuring that all the courts and tribunals across the country take notice of a ‘paradigm shift in the law’ ushered in by the Code.
Brief Background
Introduction |
In a recent order admitting a petition for insolvency resolution filed by Essar Projects India Limited (Operational Creditor) against MCL Global Steel Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai Bench) (NCLT) has clarified what constitutes a ‘disputed debt’ within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.
Facts of the case
Background
The Board constituted under the chairmanship of Mr MS Sahoo has recently rejected an application for registration as an insolvency professional (IP) under regulation 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations) through its first regulatory order.
Factual Matrix