Rainbow Papers: The Judgment
In State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162 ("Rainbow Papers"), the Supreme Court dealt with the question as to whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ("IBC") (specifically Section 53) overrides Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("GVAT Act").
Section 48 of the GVAT Act provides as follows.
Section 48. Tax to be first charge on property:
The changes corresponding to the proposals are suggested in the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The draft regulations have been annexed to the proposals.
Comments on the proposals and the draft regulations have been sought by November 28, 2023.
The Board’s proposals are as follows: –
Registration of corporate debtor’s real estate projects under RERA
In a recent decision in the case of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Another, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has held that the rents receivable by a borrower which was assigned to a lender of a lease rental discounting facility would not be treated as an asset of the borrower, and thus fall outside the purview of the asset and security freeze order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”).
Brief Facts
(Published in the Fall 2023 issue of The Bankers' Statement)
On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 363(m) is a not a jurisdictional provision. Thus, challenges to Section 363 sales that have closed can be heard on appeal notwithstanding a Section 363(m) finding in the sale order, so long as the appellate decision does not affect the validity of the sale to a good faith purchaser.1
A "double-dip" structure is considered a way to allow some creditors to have multiple claims against key obligors arising out of the same underlying transactions. These additional claims could improve their position relative to other creditors in a bankruptcy or liquidation.
Is an involuntary bankruptcy, filed by an owner/creditor of the Debtor, filed in good faith or in bad faith?
That’s the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on which it denied certiorari on October 30, 2023 (Wortley v. Juranitch, Case No. 23-211).
Here’s the gist of the case.
Your customer, who has always paid on time, has started to fall behind on payments and maybe has even started to short pay invoices. When you inquire about what is going on, your customer has a million excuses but assures you that everything is fine. On the one hand, you want to continue to do business with this long-standing customer. On the other hand, you are worried about the growing accounts receivable and a potential bankruptcy filing by your customer. How can you protect your business?
Key Issues
Two recent cases from New Zealand demonstrate how an equitable lien can arise in insolvency to elevate the interest of unsecured purchasers of goods to secured status.
Key takeouts
【東京地判令和５年３月２７日（令和４年（ワ）１８６１０号 商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求事件）】
【キーワード】
商標権、商標権侵害、実質的違法性、並行輸入、不存在確認請求、破産管財人
【事案の概要】
オンキヨーホームエンターテイメント株式会社（以下、「破産会社」又は「オンキヨー」という。）の破産管財人（以下、「本破産管財人」という場合がある。）が、パイオニア株式会（以下、「被告」という場合がある。）が保有する商標権が付され、香港にある倉庫に保有しているスピーカー等の在庫品（以下、「本件在庫商品」という。）を処分しようと、パイオニアに対し、商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求訴訟を提起した事案である。 結論としては、本破産管財人が敗訴した。このため、本破産管財人は本件在庫商品を処分（販売）することができず、破産財団の増殖を図ることができなかったと言える。
（※判旨及び本破産管財人のウェブサイトに基づき作成）
In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed and applied its holding from OGA Charters. In doing so, it blocked (via a bankruptcy adversary proceeding) one set of plaintiffs from keeping an insured’s entire policy limit, which the insurer paid as per Texas’ “first come first served” approach to time-limited policy limits demands.