Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

Summer 2024 Editor: Melanie Willems IN THIS ISSUE “Seething on a jet plane” - conditions precedent and time of the essence in commercial contracts by Jack Spence 03 09 11 24 Diamonds aren’t forever: who is vicariously responsible when they have been stolen?

On May 16th, the DOL released interim final rules (the “Final Rules”) and an amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2006-06 (the “Amendment to PTE”), effective July 16, 2024, amending the DOL’s Abandoned Plan Program (the “APP”) to allow Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees to use the APP to terminate, wind up, and distribute assets from a bankrupt company’s retirement plan.

The Aldrich Pump Texas Two-Step bankruptcy may have survived dismissal at the bankruptcy court level, but now the asbestos claimants have appealed to the Fourth Circuit following Judge Whitley's approval of their motion for direct appeal.1

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that increases the marketability of estate assets often viewed as untouchable. In In re S. Coast Supply Co. ("South Coast"), 91 F.4th 376 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a bankruptcy "preference" action may be sold to a third party under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code even if the buyer is not an estate fiduciary and does not represent the bankruptcy estate. A preference action is an "avoidance" claim arising under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Two recent court decisions may indicate more uncertainty with respect to the enforceability of “make-whole” premiums in bankruptcy. Make-whole or prepayment premiums are common within loan agreements, bond issuances and other debt instruments.