The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

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.

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Appellant)v HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 34, striking out a significant claim (£116m) for breach of the Quincecare duty on the grounds that the claimant had suffered no loss.

Finance companies in Slovakia have felt endangered since 2019 when the Regional Court in Košice, acting as a second instance court confirmed a lower-court ruling that a financial party could be qualified as a related party in the eventual insolvency of the borrower as debtor.

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 Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in the Sequana case (handed down on 5 October 2022)^[1] is the first time that the UK’s highest court has been asked to consider the proposition that directors are, in certain circumstances, under a duty in respect of creditors’ interests as distinct from shareholders’ interests.

The key takeaway points from this ‘momentous decision for company law’ (the words of Lady Arden who gave one of the leading judgments) are:

In the years since its independence, Ukraine's public and private sectors have faced one crisis after another. Notwithstanding different factors causing distress and incomparable peculiarities of each, restructuring has always remained one of the key mechanisms to make it through these difficult periods and get back on track. This includes the current crisis due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even in the present unprecedent environment, inaction is not a solution.

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.

On 17 July 2022, Law 216/2022 came into force amending and supplementing Law No. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings and other normative acts.

Law 216/2022 also amended Romanian Companies Law No. 31/1990 (Romanian Companies Law) on the duties of directors if a company is likely to become insolvent. Also, the law brings derogations from the provisions of the Romanian Companies Law on calling deadlines for shareholders’ meetings in those specific cases when a restructuring agreement or approval of the restructuring plan has been confirmed.

Summary

Restructuring Plans (“Plan(s)”) were introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) as a rescue tool for companies in financial difficulty to compromise debt and other liabilities owed to secured and unsecured creditors and its members, with the court’s sanction.