This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.

The Government of India announced that Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall continue to remain suspended for another three months i.e. till March 31, 2021 on account of the COVID -19 pandemic. Sections 7, 9 and 10 deal with the initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings by financial and operational creditors against corporate debtors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduced a series of new “debtor friendly” procedures and measures to give companies the breathing space and tools required to maximize their chance of survival. The main insolvency related reforms in CIGA (which incorporates both permanent and temporary changes to the UK’s laws) include:

1. New moratorium to give companies breathing space from their creditors

2. Prohibition on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services by reason of insolvency

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Sixth Circuit”), whose jurisdiction includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, recently held that, under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor’s pre-petition and certain post-petition voluntary retirement contributions are excludable from the debtor’s disposable income, which is used to satisfy a debtor’s obligations to its unsecured creditors.

The question whether a counter claim filed against a Corporate Debtor is liable to be stayed during moratorium has been considered by the Courts/NCLT/NCLAT time and again. Since its inception, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been a hotbed of discussions and debates amongst the legal experts. Under the Code, the concept of moratorium is envisaged under Section 13 and 14 and provides for a time period within which the following against the Corporate Debtor are prohibited:

INTRODUCTION:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) was enacted by the Parliament with the aim to provide and revamp the framework for insolvency resolution in India in a time bound manner and for the promotion of entrepreneurship, credit availability and balancing of different interests of each and every stakeholder of a Company.

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.

Following are the various modes for existing business in India –

• Transfer of shares for exiting business in India
• Voluntary Liquidation in Existing Business in India
• Winding up by the National Company Law Tribunal when Exiting Business in India
• Other Options for Exiting Business in India

This article discusses all of the above mentioned points in greater detail-

Transfer of shares for exiting business in India

1. Legal provisions governing transfer of shares

In 2018, approximately 40 companies in the oil and gas industry filed bankruptcy in the United States, including companies engaged in exploration and production, oilfield services, and midstream services.

Two years ago, after a slew of bankruptcies in the energy sector triggered by a dramatic drop in commodity prices during the worst downturn for U.S. energy producers since the 1980’s, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued new guidance that proposed changes to underwriting analysis and loan risk rating determinations by national banks and federal savings associations of loans secured by oil and gas reserves (RBLs).

1 Driven by a concern that banks were not appropriately capturing risks associated with increased