The Federal Court’s recent decision in Kellendonk concerned a $350,000 loan made by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Kellendonk, to Ms Maria Jasienska-Dudek to help her buy a property in Midland, Western Australia (Property). Ms Jasienska-Dudek defaulted under the loan agreement and the parties subsequently entered an informal agreement which, after Ms Jasienska-Dudek became a bankrupt, led to some novel circumstances and a novel application of section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Bankruptcy Act).
Cross-border insolvency has ventured into new territory as a judgment is released from the first contemporaneous sitting of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand.
Section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (the IPS) confers on Courts wide powers to adjust rights related to companies in external administration. Here, the administrators of a mining group obtained orders approving their entry into a deed to fund the ongoing operation of the group pending sale and limiting their liability under the deed to the company’s assets. The Court accepted the administrators’ evidence that this funding was urgently required to continue the Group’s operations pending a sale, the prospects of which were thereby maximised.
INTRODUCTION
今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 5 月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱ってい ます。インド最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（NCLT）の各裁判 所において下された重要な判決について、まとめました。
1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.
Matter: Basavaraj Koujalagi & Ors. v. Sumit Binani, Liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited
Order dated: 03 May 2021.
Summary:
主に、債権者が直面している不良債権の回収問題を解決するため、2016年破産倒産法は制定されました。 本FAQでは、破産倒産法の概要、関連諸手続き等について扱っています。
1. 破産倒産法が適用されるのはどのような場合ですか？
会社、有限責任事業組合、組合、個人の倒産、清算、任意整理、破産において適用されます。
2. 破産倒産法の目的は？
財務的困難に陥っている会社の再編成および倒産処理の実施です。
3. 破産倒産法において規定されている制度的枠組みは？
On 21 May 2021, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors, upheld the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) which permitted banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company. Under the Code, the Government of India (“Government”) has been conferred powers to enforce certain provisions of the Code at different points in time. Accordingly, the Government has notified various provisions of the Code from time to time.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) were formulated to carry out the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). These regulations are applicable to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). These FAQs deal with the overview of the CIRP Regulations and the related procedure involved.
INTRODUCTION
This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of May 2021.
We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and various benches of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.
1) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LIQUIDATOR TAKEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CORPORATE DEBTOR.
The last 12 months has seen a number of court applications being made for extensions of time to register a security interest under s293 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) and/or s588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to avoid collateral vesting in the grantor upon an insolvency event.
On 10 May 2021 in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq)(receivers and managers apptd)[i] the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the application of the Peak Indebtedness Rule to a running account ‘single transaction’ under section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in unfair p