Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), has marked a significant shift in India’s corporate insolvency landscape, transitioning from a debtor-centric approach to a creditor-centric approach. With the committee of creditors (“CoC”) now driving the resolution process, it has become imperative for “related parties”, likely to sabotage the resolution process of a corporate debtor, to be excluded from the same.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”), has clarified and resolved the ambiguity surrounding the question of jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) to entertain insolvency applications against personal guarantors where no corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is pending against the corporate debtor. The issue was addressed through a recent judgment dated January 23, 2025, in Anita Goyal vs. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

Die strategische Planung der Maßnahmen ist zentral für das Gelingen arbeitsrechtlicher Umstrukturierungen. Die wichtigsten To-dos erfahren Sie im heutigen Beitrag.

Nachfolgend wird die Einordnung der Umsatzsteuer in der Insolvenz als Masse- oder Insolvenzforderung und die Auswirkung auf die Gläubigerbefriedigung erläutert.

Auch unter betriebswirtschaftlichen Aspekten stellen arbeitsrechtliche Umstrukturierungen eine Herausforderung dar. Wie CMS Advisory Sie dabei unterstützen kann, erfahren Sie im heutigen Beitrag.

Unsere Blog-Serie führt durch die verschiedenen Phasen einer Umstrukturierung und beantwortet damit verbundene Fragen – auch abseits juristischer Themen.

Das StaRUG eignet sich insbesondere für finanzielle, weniger für personelle, Restrukturierungen

Das Gesetz über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen für Unternehmen,kurz „StaRUG″ ist zum 1. Januar 2021 in Kraft getreten und setzt die sog. Restrukturierungsrichtlinie (Richtlinie [EU] 2019/1023) um.