1 2 Capital Market 9 Dispute Resolution 14 Fintech 19 Media and Entertainment 24 RERA 27 Sports and Gaming 39 White Collar Crime 03 Competition Law 11 Employment Law 17 International Trade/ WTO 19 MCA 25 Restructuring and Insolvency 34 Technology 40 3 EXTENSION OF TIMELINE FOR FORMULATION OF IMPLEMENTATION STANDARDS PERTAINING TO SEBI CIRCULAR ON “SAFER PARTICIPATION OF RETAIL INVESTORS IN ALGORITHMIC TRADING”1 Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued a circular “Safer participation of retail investors in algorithmic trading” dated February 04, 2025, which aimed at ensuring safer

This is the story of the first Indian insolvency proceeding to be granted recognition by the Singapore Court under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”). This recognition, besides facilitating the challenging cross-border asset recovery, has also opened the doors for deeper insolvency cooperation between India and Singapore.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Private Limited¹ (with connected appeals) (collectively “Appeals”) clarified the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

On April 16, 2025, a 3 (three) judge bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in Shitanshu Bipin Vora vs. Shree Hari Yarns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. held that clauses of unilateral interest in invoices without a formal agreement, cannot inflate claims of operational debt to meet the threshold of INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees one crore) under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

On 27^th March 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a ruling in the case Matthäus Metzler, acting as insolvency practitioner in insolvency proceedings vs. Auto1 European Cars BV (Case C‑186/24) concerning the interpretation of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (the “Insolvency Regulation”).

It’s hard to write a pithy article about the transfer of proceedings from the High Court in London to the Central London County Court (CLCC), but given its wide-reaching implications I thought it was worth a try.

Introduction

The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.^[1] has reignited the debate in respect of the timing for Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) approval for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

노동팀 뉴스레터 제11호 (03) 노동칼럼

1. 들어가며

저성장 위기 속에서 기업들은 다양한 방식으로 경영 악화를 타개하기 위해 노력한다. 근본적으로는 새로운 성장 동력 확보가 중요하겠지만, 비용 지출을 줄이기 위한 노력을 병행하는 경우가 많다. 그리고 인건비 절감 차원에서 저성과자를 중심으로 한 구조조정 방안은 언제나 빠지지 않고 논의되는 대책 중 하나다.

2. 저성과자 해고(통상해고)는 여전히 까다롭다

A recent judgment by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has once again brought to light one of the many vulnerabilities in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). The judgment primarily deals with the termination of a lease during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on leasehold properties.

Introduction-