The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment Regulations) on 4 July 2018 to amend the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the third time this year. Primarily, the Amendment Regulations seek to align the CIRP Regulations with the revised Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) post issuance of the Insolvency |
Between 31 May to 1 June, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) amended a number of securities regulations to provide certain dispensations for listed companies undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). These amendments follow SEBI’s discussion paper of March 2018, which set out specific proposals for adjusting the regulatory framework to allow listed companies to comply with their obligations under securities laws. |
The President of India promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance 2018 on 6 June 2018 (Ordinance) to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). In the short history of around one and half years since the provisions relating to corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC came into force in December 2016, the Ordinance marks the second amendment to IBC. |
Ordinarily, a company entering liquidation is considered the commercial equivalent of “game over”, “checkmate”, “the end”, “K.O” or whatever other synonyms creditors can conjure up. This would be true for the most part because, at the end of the liquidation process, the company is usually deregistered and ceases to exist.
However, in some cases it is possible for the liquidator, a creditor or a “contributory” (member) of the company to apply to the Court for an order terminating the winding up. If made, this would return control of the company to the directors.
The statutory demand is a formidable card up a creditor’s sleeve that can result in a company being deemed to be insolvent if it does not pay the creditor’s debt within 21 days of service of the demand. Whether a statutory demand served on an incorporated body other than an Australian company will be effective largely depends on the State or Territory in which the incorporated body is based and whether it is served pursuant to the correct section of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
What is a statutory demand?
In the recent case of Commissioner v Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (Judgment) [Civil Appeal Nos. 6949-6950 of 2004], a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) has ruled that waiver of principal portion of loan (which was taken for capital account transaction) by a creditor is not taxable in borrower’s hands under section 28(iv) or section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (Act). Taxability of loan waiver has been a matter of debate and the relevant provisions under normal income-tax computation provide as under: |
On 24 August 2017, Messrs Park, Olde and Hansell were appointed joint and several administrators of SurfStitch Group Limited. Prior to their appointment, two shareholder class actions were commenced against SurfStitch. The administrators identified 3,313 shareholders who may be potential group members in the class actions.
Summary
It may now be easier for Australian insolvency practitioners to carry out investigations and recover assets located in Hong Kong and in mainland China. On 8 February 2018, and for the first time, the High Court of Hong Kong granted an application for recognition and assistance in that jurisdiction for voluntary liquidators of an entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
The High Court will consider the validity of “holding” deed of company arrangements (commonly known as “holding DOCAs”) under the Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act (theAct).