For industry professionals in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has been a game-changer. The introduction of a formal framework for insolvency resolution has brought much-needed clarity and efficiency to dealing with financial distress. However, the 2019 Regulations introduced a new dimension - the ability for personal guarantors (PGs) to initiate insolvency proceedings. This has significantly impacted the role of Resolution Professionals (RPs).
In the concluding part of our exploration into the 2023 insolvency landscape, Part 5 delves into two significant cases that shape the dynamics of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), offering insights into constitutional challenges and the treatment of properties acquired through auction sales.
Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India
Constitutional Validity of Sections 95 to 100 in Part III of IBC
Background:
Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 4 examines two pivotal cases that further shape the legal framework surrounding insolvency proceedings in India.
M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr
Secured Creditor Rights and Treatment of Pledged Shares
Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 3 delves into two more landmark cases that further define the legal contours of insolvency proceedings in India.
M. Suresh Kumar Reddy vs. Canara Bank & Ors
Clarification on NCLT's Discretion in Admitting Section 7 Applications
As we continue our journey through the evolving insolvency landscape of 2023, we will delve into two landmark cases that further shaped the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings in India. Building upon the foundations laid in Part 1 of this series, we now turn our attention to M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd.
M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.
In the intricate tapestry of corporate insolvency, the year 2023 unfurled a saga of legal intricacies that left an indelible mark on the evolving insolvency landscape in India. This blog, the first of a five-part series, will be exploring the cases that not only shaped the insolvency regime but also defined pivotal aspects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). From the sectors affected to the geographical intricacies, we'll dissect the diverse facets that contributed to the evolution of insolvency laws. Additionally, we'll analyze two significant cases – RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v.
简介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。
案情
上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。
于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。
答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。
Introduction
In the latest judgment handed down by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified the approach to winding up and bankruptcy petitions where the agreement from which the disputed petition debt arose contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (“EJC”).
Facts
簡介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港終審法院澄清，如果受爭議的呈請債務所涉及的協議載有專屬司法管轄權條款（「專屬條款」），法院應如何處理清盤及破產呈請。
案情
上訴人於2017年與CP Global Inc（「該公司」）及答辯人訂立了一份信貸及擔保協議（「信貸協議」）。據此，上訴人向該公司提供定期貸款，答辯人就該公司結欠上訴人的所有款項提供個人擔保。信貸協議載有專屬條款，就該協議所產生或與之有關的所有法律程序賦予紐約法院專屬司法管轄權。
於2020年，上訴人認為發生了信貸協議所指的違約事件，故要求答辯人支付信貸協議項下的未償還本金及利息。答辯人未有按上訴人的要求還款，因此上訴人在香港針對答辯人展開破產法律程序。另一方面，答辯人在紐約提起訴訟，請求法院求宣告並無發生信貸協議下的違約事件。
答辯人反對在香港提出破產呈請的主要理由之一，是專屬條款規定上訴人須首先在紐約法院就雙方爭議進行訴訟，然後才可在香港展開破產程序。
簡介
香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。
最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。
案情
國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：