Does a bondholder have standing to petition for winding up? In the landmark decision of Cithara Global Multi-Strategy SPC v Haimen Zhongnan Investment Development (International) Co.
This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 11 September 2023.
A recent judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 (10 August 2023) is likely to be a welcome decision for liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy in setting clear boundaries as to who has standing to challenge their decision-making in corporate or personal insolvency contexts.
The BVI is a leading international financial centre, and BVI companies play a significant role in the flow of capital across the global economy. As global economic conditions become more challenging, lenders are increasingly reliant on formal insolvency procedures to realise value from distressed assets. As a result, the past year has seen a marked increase in the use of statutory demands against BVI companies as a precursor to an application to appoint liquidators. That trend is set to continue with the ongoing uncertainty in global markets.
This article was first published on India Business Law Journal on 22 June 2023.
In M Suresh Kumar Reddy v Canara Bank and Ors, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations inVidarbha Industries Power Limited v Axis Bank Limited were restricted to the particular facts of that case. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances, National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) must admit applications under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), once the existence of a debt and default is established.
The recent Cayman Grand Court ruling of In the Matter of ECM Straits Fund I, LP ("ECM Straits Fund") helpfully clarifies that voluntary liquidators of an Exempted Limited Partnership ("ELP") can be subject to court supervision, with the result that voluntary liquidators can be granted powers that are usually reserved for court-appointed liquidators.
Introduction
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 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.
On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors [2022] UKSC 25. This judgment arose from an appeal brought by BTI 2014 LLC against a decision of the English Court of Appeal in 2019.