Fulltext Search
Fourth Amendment to IBBI CIRP Regulations, 2016: Saving time, Increasing Transparency and Facilitating Resolution

Background

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Khaitan & Co, Due diligence, Fourth Amendment, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), Industrial conglomerates
Enhanced focus on disclosure of tax losses in the Information Memorandum (IM)

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Khaitan & Co, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, National Company Law Tribunal
Supreme Court clarifies the scope and ambit of Interim Moratorium in Personal Insolvency Proceedings

Introduction

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Khaitan & Co, State Bank of India, Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (India), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India), Financial services banks, Financial services corporate
Exploring the Role of Sectoral Regulators Vis-à-Vis IBC

1 EXPLORING THE ROLE OF SECTORAL REGULATORS VIS-À-VIS IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC” / “Code”) has emerged as the poster child of an ideal model law empowering the restructuring and resolution of financially distressed firms in a fair, timely and balanced manner by maximising recoveries to the debtors claimants.1 The corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under the Code essentially functions in a manner as per which a resolution plan is proposed for all stakeholders of the debtor, ideally within an outer timeline of 330 days.2 The creditors and stakeholders ar

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Khaitan & Co, FERC, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (India)
IBBI’S Proposal for a more Efficient Resolution of Real Estate Insolvencies

BACKGROUND

India, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Khaitan & Co, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
ERGO Analysing Developments Impacting Business: IBBI’s Clarification Empowers the Role of Authorized Representative

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has on 24 September 2024 published the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2024 (Amendment Regulations) with the primary aim to streamline and reduce the delays faced in insolvencies containing class of creditors. 

Amendments Introduced

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Khaitan & Co, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Introduction of Guidelines for the Committee of Creditors - A Step in the Right Direction

BACKGROUND

India, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Khaitan & Co, Insolvency, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
It’s All Peakhill From Here: Appellate Confirmation of Courts’ Jurisdiction to Grant Reverse Vesting Orders in Receivership Proceedings

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Aird & Berlis LLP | Aird & McBurney LP, Receivership
Bay Street Lawyers Beware: U.S. Court Finds Conflict of Interest Representing Debtor and One of Its Major Shareholders in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

Canada, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Aird & Berlis LLP | Aird & McBurney LP, Private equity
Creditors Rejoice: Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Summary Judgment Is ‘Tailor-Made’ to Enforce Liquidated Claims

2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343

On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.[1]

Canada, Ontario, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Aird & Berlis LLP | Aird & McBurney LP