Introduction
Introduction - はじめに
2016年破産倒産法は、清算時における債権者の債務弁済を実現する仕組みを提供します。また、有担保債権者は優先的な債権回収が可能です。しかしながら、State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd.（Rainbow Papers Judgement）において、これを覆す判決が下されました。2003 年の Gujarat Value Added Tax Act（GVAT法）に基づいて発生する税金の請求について、政府に有利に設定された「担保権」により、税務当局は法の下の「有担保債権者」である、と判示したのです。再建計画が政府への法定納付金を除外している場合、法規定に準拠しているとは言えず、政府に対する拘束力は持たない、としました。
当該最高裁判所の判決は、破産倒産法の下の法定公課決済の優先順位という側面において、大きな懸念を抱かせるものとなりました。今回の記事では、当該判決が、破産倒産法の本来の目的およびその他の各種判例とどのように対照的であるかについて考察し、解説しています。
Brief facts - 概要
Introduction
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security
No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal
The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.