In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).

The so-called crypto-winter and associated high profile insolvencies of major players such as FTX, Three Arrows Capital and Genesis may have dampened enthusiasm for this new asset class in some quarters. However, while volatility is likely to be an ongoing characteristic in the short and medium term, it is probably better to view recent events as a period of market correction rather than the "beginning of the end" of crypto assets.

The future for a new class of digital assets

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

A raft of new legislation was introduced during the pandemic with the aim of shielding businesses from the full economic impact of lockdown. One such piece of legislation was the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA). Some of the protections implemented by CIGA were temporary – for example, restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions or the suspension of liability for wrongful trading. However, a number of permanent changes to insolvency legislation remain in force.

Banks often take security for the loans they advance – doing so gives them some additional protection if a borrower fails to repay the loan when due. Where the borrower is a company, that security can take the form of a mortgage, a security assignment, a pledge, lien, or a charge. In this short article, we explain what a charge is and the differences between a fixed and floating charge.

But firstly, what is a charge?

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).