In its decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court  held that  “Harmonious construction of clause (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit   of ‘operational debt’.

The director of an insolvent company appealed a restriction order made against him. The order prevented the appellant from acting as a company director or secretary for a 5-year period under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he acted responsibly in the conduct of the company’s affairs.

Introduction

On July 7, 2022, the UK Insolvency Service, an executive agency of government responsible for a variety of roles in administering the UK insolvency regime, published a consultation on the UK’s proposed adoption of two UNCITRAL Model Laws on insolvency, inviting responses (the “Consultation”).

The Supreme Court has held that if the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or legal authority, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the same.

The Apex Court in State Tax Officer v.Rainbow Papers Limited [Judgement dated 6 September 2022] was of the view that the Committee of Creditors, which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Governmental Authority or for that matter, any other dues.

The struggles of failing marijuana businesses to wind down and pay creditors in an orderly fashion serve no one. Among the problems marijuana businesses face such as lack of access to banking and onerous taxation stemming from IRC 280E is the lack of access to bankruptcy proceedings.

In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr. under Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 12, 2022.

In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, the Court dismissed the appeal from an arbitrator’s decision granting summary judgment. The arbitrator had the authority to proceed by summary judgment motion, as the arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator broad powers to determine the procedure to be employed.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.