The filing of voluntary insolvency proceedings by the promoters of Go Air in May 2023, being a first of its kind, gained a lot of limelight and the National Company Law Tribunal acted swiftly to admit the insolvency proceedings within a span of 10 days from the date of filing of the insolvency plea. At the time of initiation of proceedings against Go Air, the promptness on the part of the Promoters was being considered significant to assist an ailing airline company which stood grounded as on the date of initiation of insolvency proceedings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr Vs SACH Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr, has established the following principles on classification of a debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”):

In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors. v Adjudicating Authority and Anr.¹, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay (“Bombay HC”) inter alia upheld the powers of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”) to direct the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, after the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT, in light of Section 32A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016² (“IBC”).

In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.

In the recent decision of Ashok Dattatray Atre & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reiterated that the extension of payment timelines under a resolution plan does not constitute a modification thereof, and the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to grant such extension even without the express concurrence of the committee of creditors (“CoC”).

Brief Facts

April, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Bombay High Court: NCLT has jurisdiction to direct Directorate of Enforcement to release attached properties of a corporate debtor. ⁎ Delhi High Court: Designation of seat of arbitration is similar to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. ⁎ Bombay High Court: Orders issued by banks and financial institutions while declaring a wilful defaulter must be reasoned orders.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been at loggerheads with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on various occasions in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of a distressed entity. Courts and tribunals have passed varying judgments, either giving primacy to the IBC or allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a functionary under the PMLA, to perform its duties irrespective of the ongoing CIRP of a company.

The role of a liquidator comes with its own set of challenges and the computation of their fee is no exception. This article delves into a legal battle between a liquidator and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board (“IBBI”) concerning the Board’s clarifications[1] on fee calculation. The crux of the dispute?

1. INTRODUCTION A liquidation preference right is a preferential right provided to financial investors, generally to secure their equity finance investments. Such a right (in its various forms) is generally provided irrespective of the stage of investment (be it a preliminary seed round of funding, or a growth stage funding round). What may differ is the manner of liquidation preference provided to the right holders.

On 18 September 2023, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (CIRP Amendment Regulations). Here is a summary of the key changes made through these regulations: