Kajtár Takács Hegymegi-Barakonyi Baker & McKenzie Ügyvédi Iroda is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein. Futhat a bank a pénze után? Nem várt kockázatot rejt a pénzügyi szolgáltatók számára a Csődtörvény a refinanszírozás szempontjából. A hitelezőkkel megeshet, hogy a már kiegyenlítettnek hitt követelésüket a felszámoló az adós nevében visszakövetelheti a törvény egyik rendelkezése értelmében.
The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal that a claim could be pursued in the English courts whilst the defendant was also subject to winding-up proceedings under Icelandic insolvency law.
This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the collapse of the large Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Bank HF ("Kaupthing"), in 2008. Kaupthing was subject to a moratorium order made by the Icelandic courts in 2008 and a winding-up order in November 2010.
Citing public opposition to the bill, on Tuesday the president of Iceland vetoed legislation that would provide a state guarantee for repayment of approximately $5 billion of loans provided by the U.K.
In yet another landmark decision in relation to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL), the Supreme Court in Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited Etc. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8512-8527 of 2019) dated 26.02.2020, has laid down the law on two aspects:
➢ the essential elements of a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code); and
The Covid-19 pandemic is having an overwhelming impact on global order. These are testing times for nations. For India and for most other countries, the outbreak presents twin challenges, not only containing the virus spread, but also limiting the economic impact in an already slowing economy.
In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities.
Key Highlights
I. Supreme Court: Scope of intervention by High Courts in cases of orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal
II. Supreme Court: State legislature cannot enact law which affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
III. Supreme Court: Difference between inadequacy of reasons in arbitral award and unintelligible awards
IV. NCLT: RP can take possession of a corporate debtor's assets which are subject matter of litigation to facilitate the corporate insolvency resolution process
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a revised prudential framework for resolution of stressed assets on 7 June 2019 (Revised Circular) in supersession of the erstwhile circular on Resolution of Stressed Assets dated 12 February 2018 (Feb 12 Circular) which was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2 April 2019.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019 (“New Framework”) on June 07, 2019[1] in which the RBI has continued the core principles of its circular dated February 12, 2018 (“February 12 Circular”) and has added provisions encouraging both informal and formal restructuring in India.
In as much as the Government has been in the consistent process of encouraging business operations in the nation, it also has the objective to create more transparent and systematic mechanism ensuring time bound manner and for maximization of the value assets. One of the major challenges faced by the modern commercial sector is the reposition of faith of the creditors who put their hard-earned investments at the fate of the success of the business transactions undertaken.
Resolution Procedure