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.
Some private providers may face pressure in coming months, now that the temporary changes to insolvent trading laws and the statutory demand regime have come to an end. This may particularly be the case if challenges to the international student regime continue.
Key takeouts
Australia's largest corporate insolvency reform in 30 years is set to be introduced at the beginning of 2021. Draft legislation, which applies to small businesses, was released last week. Organisations need to familiarise themselves with the information ahead of an anticipated wave of insolvencies in 2021, as COVID-19 related government incentives cease.
Key takeouts
What's next for Australian businesses after the temporary COVID-19 insolvency law relief expires at the end of 2020? The government's new announcement sheds light on the next steps.
Key takeouts
The Australian Government has announced proposed major reforms to corporate insolvency laws for incorporated businesses with liabilities of less than $1 million that are facing financial distress.
COVID-19 Key Developments __ Top Story | COVID-19:Temporary amendments to insolvency laws extended to 31 December 2020 On 7 September The Treasurer and the Attorney General issued a joint statement announcing that the government plans to extend temporary insolvency and bankruptcy protections for businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic until 31 December 2020. MinterEllison's Michael Hughes has released an article providing an expert summary of the changes. This can be accessed on our website here.
On 7 September 2020, the federal government announced that the temporary changes to the creditors' statutory demand and insolvent trading laws have been extended to 31 December 2020.
Key takeouts
In March 2020, the Commonwealth Government's early responses to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 included temporarily suspending and changing important elements of Australia's insolvency laws. These temporary changes were due to expire on 25 September 2020. The government has now announced that this period will be extended to 31 December 2020.
The Government has implemented significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies.
Key takeouts
The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.
The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way.
Egregious cases of dishonesty and fraud will still be subject to criminal penalties.
The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.