This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A large award of damages and/or equitable compensation has been made against the directors and connected companies of a company which was used to perpetrate a large scale labour supply fraud against HMRC.

Umbrella Care Ltd v Nisa and ors [2022] EWHC 3139 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

The Insolvency and Companies Court has recognised Chapter 11 Proceedings in the US in respect of the manufacturer of controversial surgical mesh products which have generated a significant number of claims worldwide. The British Claimants have had their claims stayed as a result of this recognition.

Re Astora Women’s Health LLC [2022] EWHC 2412 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The respondents to a claim brought by the joint liquidators of BHS Group companies have successfully struck out parts of claims brought under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) on the basis of open-ended pleadings as to the relevant date of knowledge that insolvent liquidation was inevitable and trading should have ceased.

Chandler v Wright and others [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has granted an application to wind up a company incorporated in Luxembourg in a decision which sheds light on the application of cross-border insolvency principles following the UK’s departure from the European Union.

Barings (UK) Limited and ors v Galapagos SA [2022] EWHC 1633 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

King & Ors v Kings Solutions Group Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1099 (Ch)

Background

This appeal arose in the context of long-running and complex dispute between the shareholders of Kings Solutions Group Limited (‘the Company’).

This article was first published in India Business Law Journal on 4 March 2022

New requirements brought in during the Covid-19 pandemic have added to the potential procedural pitfalls facing creditors seeking a winding up order in recent months. They have also led to quite a lot of adjourned hearings and delays.