The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (“NCLT”), in EPC Constructions India Limited through its Liquidator – Abhijit Guhathkurtha v. M/s Matix Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited has ruled that preference shareholders cannot step into the shoes of a financial creditor unless their preference shares become redeemable.
Brief Facts
In a recent development, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against its decision in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Ltd., which had disturbed the settled position that in insolvency resolution proceedings, statutory dues (including tax claims) fall in the category of operational debt. Instead, the Supreme Court held that statutory dues qualify as debts owed to a secured creditor, and a resolution plan that ignores such debts is liable to be rejected.
Introduction
最高人民法院与香港律政司在2019年1月18日共同签署了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》（“《新安排》”）。在香港方面，《新安排》需透过本地法律实施，根据香港政府2023年11月10日的宪报，《内地民商事判决（相互强制执行）条例》（第645章）以及《内地民商事判决（相互强制执行）规则》将于2024年1月29日生效。在内地方面，我们预期最高人民法院亦将近期颁布相关司法解释。依照双方共识，《新安排》会于2024年1月29日在两地同步实施。
《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决的安排》（“《旧安排》”）将在《新安排》生效之日废止（第30条第1款）。但《新安排》生效前，当事人已签署《旧安排》所称“书面管辖协议”的，仍适用《旧安排》（第30条第2款）。
《新安排》的生效落地，将大大提高两地法院判决被互相认可和执行的便利性。据最高人民法院估计，新安排实施后内地与香港两地法院90%左右的民商事案件判决将有望得到相互认可和执行。
有鉴于此，我们希望分享《新安排》生效后的一些实务要点和操作流程概览，期待与业界交流探讨。
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:
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
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.
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）