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.

Welcome to the 2024 edition of "From Red to Black", our annual review of significant developments and topical issues in the Australian restructuring and insolvency market.

Regulator intervention and government stimulus packages in response to market shocks often mask underlying systemic distress and disrupt economic cycles. With companies now largely weaned off COVID-19 support packages, insolvencies have significantly increased.

By following certain steps and focusing on relevant courses of action, directors of startups can leverage the Safe Harbour provisions to increase their chances of navigating financial difficulties and achieving a better outcome for their company.

The Alita matter serves as a good illustration that if you intend to seek leave under section 444GA(1)(b) you should act swiftly and with regard to the potential regulatory risk.

With the mass of reports, reviews and consultations that have already occurred, there is no lack of critiques, complaints and proposed solutions. The risk is that these will (once again) be cherrypicked for fixes, rather than form the basis for a comprehensive review.

It has been 33 years since the "recession we had to have" in 1991. Fears that Australia would enter a technical recession during 2023 didn’t eventuate.

Despites its recent failure in case against an administrator in a phoenixing case, ASIC could snatch long-term victory from the jaws of defeat with clear regulatory guidance for insolvency practitioners.