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.
From July 21, the reform of rules on prospectuses, intended to establish a common rulebook across the EU to encourage financing through capital markets, will directly apply in Spain.
The perspective of a ahot summer arriving is an excellent opportunity to take a look at the most relevant events that occured on the second quarter of 2019.
On an international level, and in contrast with the previous quarters, few events are worth mentioning.
This website uses its own cookies and those of third parties to analyze the use of this site to improve its contents and your user experience. If you continue to browse, we understand you accept their use. You can change your configuration or obtain further information here.
This website uses its own cookies and those of third parties to analyze the use of this site to improve its contents and your user experience. If you continue to browse, we understand you accept their use. You can change your configuration or obtain further information here.
CHANGES TO THE INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING COMPANIES CODE
The changes to the Insolvency and Restructuring Companies Code, as established in Decree-Law No. 79/2017 of June 30, entered into force on July 1 2017.
Noteworthy changes
A. Special revitalization proceeding (Processo Especial de Revitalizao "PER")
1. This proceeding is now only available to companies.
2. Requirements for this proceeding were revised.
a. For every company: