Introduction

Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.

The Supreme Court of India in Indian Overseas Bank v M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. held that a sale under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), would be regarded as complete only upon receipt of full consideration towards the sale properties.

INTRODUCTION

India has been grappling with an increase in non-performing assets (NPA) and defaults of loans since at least the 1990s. As per recent reports, gross NPAs of public sector banks have doubled in the last 7 (seven) years, 1 which is indicative of the issues being faced by lenders against recalcitrant borrowers.

In MNP Ltd. v. Canada Revenue Agency (MNP v CRA), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) clarified the effect of bankruptcy on a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” acquired on registration against a debtor’s land, ultimately holding that whatever priority a writ’s binding interest has before bankruptcy, it is undercut by the debtor’s bankruptcy. In so doing, the ABQB reaffirmed the validity of a “priority flip” between secured creditors and unsecured judgment creditors upon a debtor’s bankruptcy.

Background

Facts

The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the judgment New Delhi Municipal Council v. Minosha India Limited, dated 27 April, 2022, Civil Appeal No. 3470 of 2022 has clarified the position on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Act”) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). 

Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.

A Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteményében közzétett Gfv.VII.30.365/2020/5. számú határozatában a Kúria arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az adós és a hitelező közötti szerződés felszámoló általi, Cstv. 47. § (1) bekezdés szerinti felmondása nem jogellenes, ebből következően az adóssal szemben a szerződés alapján a felmondás tényére tekintettel kártérítési igény nem érvényesíthető. A kártérítési felelősség megállapítására ugyanis jogellenes magatartás hiányában nem kerülhet sor.

Facts and Background

In its unanimous decision, Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal modified the common law doctrine of corporate attribution in the bankruptcy and insolvency context to uphold a decision of Ontario Superior Court’s Commercial List, which ordered a corporate officer and his associates, whom collectively orchestrated a fraudulent invoicing scheme, to repay over $30 million to company creditors pursuant to s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

Background