1. Introduction
The longstanding debate surrounding the prioritization of crown debts vis-à-vis private debts has entered a new chapter with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prior to the IBC, the common law principle generally granted crown debts preferential status over unsecured debts. This historical primacy stemmed from the sovereign's role as the embodiment of the public good, requiring unimpeded revenue collection for the smooth functioning of the State.
Introduction
Barely six years since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), the Code has already undergone various amendments from to time, to aid its broad objective of time bound insolvency resolution, maximisation of value of assets of corporate debtors and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. Besides the amendments, judicial pronouncements have also played an instrumental role in shaping the Code in its present form.
The extant regulatory framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (“ARCs”) has been amended by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), vide its notification titled ‘Review of Regulatory Framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)’ dated 11th October 2022 (“Framework”).
Key Changes:
Some of the key changes brought about by the Framework are as follows:
The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has held that National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot exercise its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to adjudicate upon the contractual dispute between the parties.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:
1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.
The government's response to the recent Insolvency and Corporate Governance Consultation has increased the emphasis on flexibility and the restructure and rescue of businesses. However, along with the recent October Budget, there are proposed reforms which are set to increase the focus and accountability for directors of companies.
Preliminary Moratorium
One of the key new proposals to be introduced with the aim of rescuing companies is a "Preliminary Moratorium".
The Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which found that the bankruptcy of the Russian based oil company, Yukos, could not be recognised in the Netherlands because it violates Dutch public policy.
The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.