The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) was established under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’). On 31st March 2017, IBBI in exercise of its powers under the said Code notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation) Regulations, 2017 (‘Regulation’). It came into force with effect from 1st April 2017. The Regulation provides for a complete framework for the voluntary liquidation of any corporate person.

Co-Author - Jehangir N. Mistry Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe

Co-Author - Shireen Pochkhanawalla Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe

This article was published in Bankruptcy Law360 and Corporate Finance Law360 on May 23, 2011. © Copyright 2011, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360.  

When a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due, a director’s duties shift from the management of the company for the benefit of the shareholders, to ensuring the company’s creditors are not disadvantaged by the company continuing to trade.

The directors should seek and comply with professional advice from their auditors and solicitors regarding any decision to continue trading for an interim period.

In a recent application for directions from the High Court, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (the “ODCE”) brought a motion to compel a liquidator contest an appeal by directors of a restriction order made against them in the High Court.

Section 683 of the Companies Act 2014 (“CA14”) requires the liquidator of an insolvent company to apply for an Order restricting the directors. It does not require liquidator to contest an appeal by directors. The ODCE ultimately withdrew the application and paid costs, but the application raises concerns for all liquidators.

The Court of Appeal recently ruled, in Re KH Kitty Hall Holdings & Ors, that an agreement to restructure and discharge the secured debts of a number of companies by selling certain secured assets was not a bar to the appointment of an examiner to those companies. This was the case despite the fact that the application for the appointment of an examiner was inconsistent with the obligations imposed on the companies under the restructuring agreement and was objected to by the secured creditor.

The Irish High Court has recently ruled on the test for determining whether the transfer of a debt is a "true sale" or is by way of a charge. It has, helpfully, adopted the well-established test taken in a long line of English cases which emphasises that the legal form of the contract adopted by the parties will determine its nature, provided the contract is not a "sham".

Introduction

Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.

In the matter of Cognotec Ltd (in receivership)

Section 60(14) provides that a transaction in breach of section 60 is voidable against any person who had notice of the facts which constitute the breach.

The company sought to void the debenture which secured the loan on the basis that section 60 had not been complied with and the receiver appointed on foot of the debenture brought a motion for directions.

The court held that:

The economic turbulence stirred up by our most recent credit crunch has thrown up a myriad of difficult legal questions for financiers everywhere. This anxious economic environment which has restrained the financial independence of many Irish companies from their financiers is fraught with legal conundrums.

Workout Agreements