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.

In Bolwell & Anor v NWC Finance Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] VSC 30, the Supreme Court of Victoria clarified that a lawyer will not be a "controller" of property within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) simply because it was retained to act for a mortgagee exercising their power of sale.

This judgment provides comfort to lawyers as it confirms that they will not assume the obligations of a "controller" under the Act solely by reason of them acting in connection with the sale of real property in an insolvency context.

The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.

On 19 July 2023, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) passed bill no. 6539A into law (the New Insolvency Law), marking a significant milestone in the movement to modernise and enhance the competitiveness of Luxembourg’s insolvency framework. The bill has been under discussion for a number of years and aims to curtail the use of bankruptcy as an insolvency solution in favour of the preemptive preservation or reorganisation of financially distressed companies.

After a 10-month inquiry process, on 12 July 2023 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC) delivered its final report on the effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws.

In this alert, we distil some of the key findings from the almost 400-page report and consider what future law reforms might look like.

A COMPLEX AND INEFFICIENT SYSTEM

The High Court of Australia in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 has confirmed the view of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that the "set off" defence under section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) is no longer available to claims by liquidators for an unfair preference claim made under section 588FA of the Act.

This decision brings finality to claims brought by Creditor Defendants to such claims and no doubt brings much joy to liquidators across Australia.