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.
In 2014, Accelerated Payment Notices (“APNs”) were introduced by the Government under the Finance Act 2014, allowing HMRC to request upfront payments on account of disputed tax and/or National Insurance contributions relating to certain tax avoidance schemes.
The worldwide Covid 19 pandemic has touched and affected us all in many different ways. In this blog I will look at how those of us who work in debt recovery need to take on board the impact the pandemic has had on mental health and factor that into their strategies. Mental health cannot be ignored as my partner, Cory Bebb, wrote in his recent blog
Amplifying JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd [2018] EWCA CIV 276 the court has again considered repeated Notices of Intention to Appoint (NOITA) and the effect on the interim moratorium.
Background
This case involved the Company filing 4 successive NOITAs although only two of them were the subject of these proceedings (NOITA 1 and NOITA 2).
The Company owned a Property which was subject to a legal mortgage and QFC. The secured loan was in default and the Company was seeking to delay enforcement whilst it refinanced.
The proposed new regulations to safeguard the proprietary of pre-packs have caused alarm in the profession, one of the areas of concern being the requirement that the Evaluator central to the process requires no professional qualifications but thankfully are qualified if they think they are (yes, you did detect some sarcasm).
The Regulations will mean that an administrator cannot execute a pre-pack if the following applies:
Background
The Debtor was 82 years of age, and subject to a bankruptcy petition in the County Court in the sum of £62,000 which was heard on 19 December 2019.