Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

This is the second in a series of articles on how the changes introduced by the 2024 JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal) contracts will impact the practical administration of the JCT contractual mechanisms.

In this article, we look specifically at the insolvency related provisions in the 2024 Design and Build (D&B) contract and the 2024 Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s design (ICD) contract. We address the updates to the definition of insolvency, the impact of those changes for Employers and Contractors and the related knock-on impact to sub-contracts.

In a recent judgment¹, the High Court determined (contrary to the arguments of the affected secured creditor) that a debenture created a floating charge rather than a fixed charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. Whilst elements of the decision are inevitably fact-specific, some broader lessons and reminders can be taken from the judgment which will be of general relevance to lenders when taking security.

Introduction

Independent schools have not been immune from financial stress in recent years. Prior to the pandemic a combination of increasing staff costs, greater competition and the need for continual investment in technology and premises was already posing challenges for a number of institutions. This was exacerbated by the unique pressures of COVID, which saw income squeezed as a result of enforced school closures and reduced pupil numbers.

In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).

What is the obligation?

This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

Summary

The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

The Facts