The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has restructured the economy by promoting its objectives namely the maximization of value of assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests of the stakeholders. Since the commencement and effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on 28 May 2016, the Adjudicating Authorities have upheld the objectives of IBC through a catena of judgements. One such case is the matter concerning Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
This week’s TGIF considers David Djordjevich v Richard Trygve Rohrt in his capacity as liquidator of ACN 091 518 302 Pty Ltd (in liq) ACN 091 518 302 [2021] VSC 178, a Victorian Supreme Court decision that focuses on the circumstances in which a court will order an inquiry into the conduct of a liquidator and the interests that such an inquiry is intended to serve.
Key takeaways
With the exponential increase in the number of Covid-19 cases in the second wave of the pandemic and the overall economic slowdown, demands are being made for further tweaks the insolvency regime equipped to tide over the crisis.
On 1 January 2021, the German Act on Stabilization and Restructuring Framework for Business (StaRUG) came in to force as part of the German Act on Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG). It contains several new pre-insolvency restructuring procedures, including a new preventive restructuring plan and corresponding protection of minority creditors.
What is the aim of the new preventive restructuring plan?
In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.
On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) signed the Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Record of Meeting”).
On May 21, 2021, the Apex Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors.1, upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification dated November 15, 2019, allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (“Notification”).
On 14 May 2021, the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, and Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), Mr Yang Wanming, signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance in relation to insolvency proceedings between the courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).
The court found that it could not sanction the scheme, despite the requisite majority of creditors having voted in favour of it. The intervention by the FCA at the sanction hearing marks an interesting development in assessing the extent to which the regulator's views will be aired and considered.
In this issue:
Welcome to our corporate and commercial disputes update, a new bi-annual publication in which we summarise some of the most significant cases over the last six months or so in the corporate and commercial dispute resolution market: