On 11 October 2018, the Supreme Court (Court) vide its judgment in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v Parag Gupta and Associates (Civil Appeal No. 23988 of 2017) clarified the applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Background
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the fourth time in 2018 on 5 October 2018 through the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate
On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.
The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.
The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.
In a significant ruling having widespread ramifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Court) on 14 August 2018 pronounced its judgment in the case of State of Bank of India v V. Ramakrishnan & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2018). The Court held that the period of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) would not apply to the personal guarantors of a corporate debtor. Factual Background |
Background The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Jaiprakash Infratech Limited (JIL) commenced when the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad (NCLT) passed an order dated 09.08.2017 admitting the petition of IDBI Bank Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). |
The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently approved the merger of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with a private limited company (Scheme). This newsflash analyses key aspects of the NCLT order permitting the aforesaid merger. Background |
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment Regulations) on 4 July 2018 to amend the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the third time this year. Primarily, the Amendment Regulations seek to align the CIRP Regulations with the revised Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) post issuance of the Insolvency |