The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

DO YOUR DIRECTORS HAVE SUFFICIENT TOOLS AVAILABLE TO ALERT THEM TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD INDICATE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN A COMPANY AND ASSIST THEM IN ANY FUTURE RESTRUCTURING DECISIONS?

Good Financial tools will enhance Directors' understanding the company's financial position and alert them to any early signs of potential financial difficulties.

FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

TODAY, THE EAGERLY-AWAITED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS MADE BY OFFICE-HOLDERS OF A NUMBER OF FAILED ENERGY SUPPLIERS. 

The impact of this judgment will be felt much wider than just within the applicants' insolvent estates and it is relevant to any office-holder or unsecured creditor of a failed energy supplier.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

On 27 July 2022, the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations (the Regulations) were introduced which gave effect to EU Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency[1] (the Directive). The Directive’s principal objective is to ensure that all member states have comparable and effective frameworks in place for early warning and prevention of corporate insolvency.

What remedies should lenders, borrowers and opportunistic credit investors prescribe in light of current market practice and documentation?

This article examines some of the current issues arising in leverage finance agreements on defaults and the expansion of express remedy terms that can impact on debt transfers.

Key Points

Houst Limited's (the Company) restructuring plan (under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006) (RP) was recently sanctioned at the High Court on 22 July 2022.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).

The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.

KEY POINTS: