GoFirst’s insolvency has highlighted issues surrounding the insolvency resolution of commercial airlines. This article analyses the issues facing stakeholders, and the adequacy of extant regulations to address these.

Over the past few months, Delaware courts have continued to address important M&A and corporate issues. Significant corporate law developments have also arisen from state and federal courts in California. Below are some highlights and practical takeaways related to important developments in Delaware law.

CORPORATE

Advance Notice Bylaws and Board Action Affecting the Stockholder Franchise.

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.

This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 22 June 2023.

In M Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations inVidarbha Industries Power Limited v Axis Bank Limited were restricted to the particular facts of that case. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) must admit applications under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), once the existence of a debt and default is established.

© 2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP Alert | Troubled Bank Task Force April 2023 The 2023 Banking Crisis: Updated Questions & Answers for Insured and Uninsured Depositors, Other Affected Parties Silicon Valley Bank Failure, Receivership and Sale On March 10, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, CA (SVB) and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) receiver of SVB.

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.

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.

1. Companies Seek More Liquidity – As access to capital may decrease in the coming year, companies on the periphery of needing more operations income are reaching out to lenders to capture the full amount of capital they can borrow currently.
2. Correction in Valuations of Companies Without Apparent Underlying Assets – Investors are scrutinizing the valuations of companies more closely, particularly those whose probability of success is tied to nascent products or services.
3. Operations Right-Sizing is Underway – Companies are

Summary of Key Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Amendments

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.