INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.

Decision

The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.

A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.

A proposed amendment to the Insolvency Act, has been approved by the government and is currently under discussion in the Czech Parliament. It is expected to significantly alleviate the situation for debtors seeking debt relief. The previous government had intended to introduce similar changes; however, the legislative process was halted by the end of its term.

Current position

Currently, debtors can achieve debt relief only after 5 years of "good conduct", unless they:

In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.

The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.

The judge had failed to recognise that:

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat am 29. Juni 2023 entschieden, dass ein Rechtsanwalt wegen Beratungsfehlern zu Zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife gegenüber dem Geschäftsführer haften kann, auch wenn er das Unternehmen und nicht die/den Geschäftsführer persönlich berät (IX ZR 56/22, ZInsO 2023, 1642).

The UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) introduced temporary measures to provide companies with the flexibility to continue trading during COVID-19. CIGA also enacted a package of permanent measures to maximise the survival prospects of viable companies.

The reforms implemented through CIGA are the most significant change to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime in 20 years. This article looks at how those reforms have taken shape over the last three years, with reference to the Insolvency Service's Post-Implementation Review of CIGA.

In the blog post titled ‘Vidarbha Aftermath’, the decision of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”) was discussed and analysed.

On 5 July 2023 the Court sanctioned Prezzo Investco Ltd's (Prezzo) restructuring plan despite strong opposition by UK tax authority, HMRC.

HMRC has taken a more active approach to opposing restructuring plans and was successful in blocking the plans recently proposed by GAS and Nasmyth (see our alert).

The Insolvency Service has published its official three-year Post Implementation Review of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). The Review focused on the three permanent measures: