Background

In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).

On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.

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.

The Government has released a consultation paper as part of their commitment to ongoing reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency regime.  Phoenix activity refers to both legitimate business rescue activities and serial insolvency to avoid debts.

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).

On 12 September 2017, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, announced the Government's plans to crack down on illegal phoenixing activity (ie, the stripping and transferring of assets from one company to another to avoid paying liabilities) and ensure that those involved face tougher penalties. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth), which introduces a safe harbour for directors of insolvent companies and a stay on the operation of ‘ipso facto’ clauses during and after certain formal insolvency processes, received Royal Assent on 18 September 2017.

Director safe harbour