Between 31 May to 1 June, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) amended a number of securities regulations to provide certain dispensations for listed companies undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). These amendments follow SEBI’s discussion paper of March 2018, which set out specific proposals for adjusting the regulatory framework to allow listed companies to comply with their obligations under securities laws. |
The President of India promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 on 6 June 2018 (Ordinance) to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). In the short history of around one and half years since the provisions relating to corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC came into force in December 2016, the Ordinance marks the second amendment to IBC. |
In the recent case of Commissioner v Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (Judgment) [Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004], a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) has ruled that waiver of principal portion of loan (which was taken for capital account transaction) by a creditor is not taxable in borrower’s hands under section 28(iv) or section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (Act). Taxability of loan waiver has been a matter of debate and the relevant provisions under normal income-tax computation provide as under: |
For the third time in less than two years, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a chapter 7 debtor who does not reaffirm the secured debt or redeem the property must surrender the property. In re Woide, No. 17-10776 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018).
Last week, the unanimous Supreme Court clarified that the “clearing and settlement” exception to a bankruptcy trustee’s avoiding powers covers only payments “to,” not merely through, financial market participants.
On February 13, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction in an appeal emanating from a hot button issue in contested foreclosures – can the borrower in a foreclosure secure an award of contractual attorney’s fees after successfully defending the foreclosure on the basis that the lender lacked standing to enforce the mortgage contract?
Background |
Background
In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).
On December 11, 2017, in a case entitled In re Iliceto, 1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision,2 which held that Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar" or the "Creditor") received notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise it that its status as a secured creditor was being challenged by Robert Iliceto ("Iliceto" or the "Debtor") in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding,3 even though the Debtor did not notify Nationstar that he was objecting to the validity of its mortgage.
On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.