The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.

Background

Background

The partly liberalized Indian economy has been aptly referred to in the Economic Survey of India 2015-16 as one that had transitioned from ‘socialism with limited entry to “marketism” without exit.

Given the vexed ‘twin balance sheet’ problem chafing both banks and corporates in India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) was a critical structural reform. Many issues have surfaced since the Code was operationalised and the courts and the Central Government have stepped in to iron out such issues in the last one year.

In 2017, a number of insolvency cases were litigated, in various provinces across Canada, which may materially affect the realization and recovery rights of commercial lenders in restructuring and insolvency proceedings. This article summarizes the core issue of importance to lenders in each of these cases and provides an update on their appeal status.

November 2, 2017 September 11, 2017

INTEGRITY OF COURT-ORDERED SALE PROCESS

Squestre de Gestion EGR inc. et Lemieux Nolet inc., syndics de faillite et gestionnaires

Introduction

Recently, in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 44 of 2017 (Neelkanth Township), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) addressed several issues with regard to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

This is the second instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization or sale of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

In its first detailed ruling on some of the substantive legal questions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Apex Court) has delivered a landmark order in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd v ICICI Bank and Another with an expressly avowed objective of ensuring that all the courts and tribunals across the country take notice of a ‘paradigm shift in the law’ ushered in by the Code.

Brief Background

Voici le premier d’une série d’articles portant sur l’insolvabilité de grands détaillants au Canada considérée sous divers angles. La Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (Canada) (la « LACC ») est le principal texte de loi qui régit la réorganisation ou la vente de grandes sociétés débitrices au Canada; il est l’équivalent du chapitre 11 du U.S. Bankruptcy Code (le « chapitre 11 »).