Fulltext Search

The dialogue is changing yet is the law enabling the practical change Directors need?

Achieving significant cultural shift in any business environment is no easy task, so it’s by no means ground-breaking to declare that after 1 year in operation, it still cannot be said that the new “Safe Harbour” legislation has resulted in a cultural change among directors.

The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In a significant ruling having widespread ramifications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Court) on 14 August 2018 pronounced its judgment in the case of State of Bank of India v V. Ramakrishnan & Anr (Civil Appeal No. 3595 of 2018). The Court held that the period of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) would not apply to the personal guarantors of a corporate debtor. 

Factual Background

Background

The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Jaiprakash Infratech Limited (JIL) commenced when the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad (NCLT) passed an order dated 09.08.2017 admitting the petition of IDBI Bank Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC).

The Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has recently approved the merger of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with a private limited company (Scheme). This newsflash analyses key aspects of the NCLT order permitting the aforesaid merger.

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment Regulations) on 4 July 2018 to amend the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the third time this year.  Primarily, the Amendment Regulations seek to align the CIRP Regulations with the revised Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) post issuance of the Insolvency

近年来,我国宏观经济增长放缓,国家调整产业和信贷政策,并逐渐加强金融监管,商业银行的资产质量压力有所增加,十亿甚至百亿级别的债务逾期或潜在违约浮出水面。这些巨无霸级别的潜在不良贷款风险,迫切要求商业银行审查并改善贷前贷后管理中的遗漏和问题,也对商业银行的危机处理能力提出了更高的挑战。

大敌当前,痛定思痛,当危机来临时,商业银行的管理层和执行层需要的是冷静的思考、周密的策划,以及必要时刻壮士断腕的决策力。从本团队近期参与处理的几项复杂的债务逾期及潜在违约案例来看,危机的表象多种多样,除了资金周转困难带来直接的偿付危机;有的则是债务人控制人挪用公司资金投入股市炒股,有的是公司实际控制人陷入刑事调查和指控,也有的则更为隐蔽,债务人关联主体在境外受到他国政府的调查等等。这些危机虽然不一定直接表现为到期不付,但可能已经导致债务人违反融资文件的陈述、承诺条款,甚至通过交叉违约触发了违约事件或潜在违约事件。

本文旨在梳理危机处理的思路,通盘策划全面追索资产的策略,为贷款管理工作层面制定一份简介易行的“工作方案”,以便为后续的债务重组和清偿争取宝贵的时间,避免弯路:

一、梳理融资文件

As the Chinese economy enters the “new normal”, the Chinese government has been adjusting its industrial and credit-related policies and strengthening regulation of Chinese financial institutions. A large number of non-performing loans (NPLs) as well as actual loan defaults have started to surface. The risks associated with rising levels of NPLs require Chinese banks to enhance their ex ante and ex post credit risk management practices.

Between 31 May to 1 June, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) amended a number of securities regulations to provide certain dispensations for listed companies undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC).

These amendments follow SEBI’s discussion paper of March 2018, which set out specific proposals for adjusting the regulatory framework to allow listed companies to comply with their obligations under securities laws.