We find ourselves in a year of transition, with (whisper it) the economy stabilising and an election tipped for the second half of 2024. Surely only a fool, in times such as these, would seek to anticipate what change could unfold in the legal landscape over the next 12 months. Challenge accepted! For 2024 we have dusted off our crystal ball and we set out below our (educated) guesses of what to expect for the year (or two) ahead…

Implementation of UNCITRAL model law on Enterprise Group Insolvency

There will also be continued consequences arising out of the ongoing downturn in the economy. In the four quarters ending Q3 2023, the construction industry reported 4,276 cases of insolvency to the Insolvency Service, equating to 18% of all insolvencies reported (when an industry was recorded) during this period.

Continuing our exploration of the evolving insolvency landscape in 2023, Part 4 examines two pivotal cases that further shape the legal framework surrounding insolvency proceedings in India.

M/S. Vistra ITCL (India) & Ors. v. Mr. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr

Secured Creditor Rights and Treatment of Pledged Shares

Insolvency creditors in Germany do not have much to fear from a harmonisation of avoidance actions in the EU. They are used to rigid statutory provisions.

In the intricate tapestry of corporate insolvency, the year 2023 unfurled a saga of legal intricacies that left an indelible mark on the evolving insolvency landscape in India. This blog, the first of a five-part series, will be exploring the cases that not only shaped the insolvency regime but also defined pivotal aspects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). From the sectors affected to the geographical intricacies, we'll dissect the diverse facets that contributed to the evolution of insolvency laws. Additionally, we'll analyze two significant cases – RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v.

As we continue our journey through the evolving insolvency landscape of 2023, we will delve into two landmark cases that further shaped the legal framework governing insolvency proceedings in India. Building upon the foundations laid in Part 1 of this series, we now turn our attention to M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation India Ltd.

M/s. Next Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. K12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent landmark case, the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong (CFA) clarified its approach to bankruptcy proceedings where the disputed petition debt arises from a contract with an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) favouring a foreign court.

Background

The bankruptcy proceedings related to a disputed debt due under a credit agreement with an EJC favouring New York. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) upheld the EJC, setting aside the bankruptcy order to allow the dispute to be determined under the agreed jurisdiction. The applicant appealed to the CFA.

In a recent case before the Federal Court of Justice, an insolvency administrator was found to have neglected his duties of investigation in a particularly serious and reproachable manner.

Decision

The insolvency administrator had contested the offsetting of an investment subsidy by the creditor bank to balance the debtor’s accounts.

The focus of the decision was whether the insolvency administrator had made the contestation claim within the statutory limitation period. In Germany, this is usually three years and starts:

The festive period is a time for celebrating with loved ones, enjoying food and drink, and exchanging gifts. But it can also bring financial challenges. With rising living costs, interest rates at levels not seen for over a decade, and inflation still high, the cost of Christmas can present a further struggle, leaving many overstretched and facing unmanageable debts and insolvency come January.

This article continues our Law-Now series "Harmonisation of Insolvency Laws in the EU" in which we provide an overview of the articles addressing insolvency avoidance actions of the draft EU directive.

As explained in the first part of the series, the differing national insolvency regulations of the 27 EU member states creates risks for investors, who will have to consider their investments in light of possible business failures and the resulting exposure to monetary losses.