The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBBI’) vide its notification dated March 29, 2020[1] has issued clarification regarding the period of exclusion for Insolvency Resolution Process. Through, the issuance of the above mentioned notification, the IBBI has amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 to include the following:
On 17th January, 2020, the Republic of India (India) made a remarkable move with the issuance of a Gazette notification which notified the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a “reciprocating territory” for the enforcement of judgments (Reciprocating Territory Notification). This alert expands on the features of this new development and the potential benefit for individuals, companies (including financial institutions) in the UAE that have default debtors located in India or with assets in India.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) recently in the matter of Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills – 77, Gurgaon v. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. (through IRP & Ors.) took a practical approach bordered on survival of the business and satisfying the interests of the stakeholders involved and introduced the concept of reverse corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’).
Background of the case:
The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC) delivered its judgment in the matter of Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd v Union of India through the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
27 November 2013
[2013] EWCA Civ 1493
Court of Appeal (Longmore, Jackson, Vos LJJ)
Which law applies to applications to bring additional claims?
The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal that a claim could be pursued in the English courts whilst the defendant was also subject to winding-up proceedings under Icelandic insolvency law.
This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the collapse of the large Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Bank HF ("Kaupthing"), in 2008. Kaupthing was subject to a moratorium order made by the Icelandic courts in 2008 and a winding-up order in November 2010.
Below are the key highlights of the newsletter:
- Supreme Court: No provision under the IBC requiring the resolution plan to match liquidation value; and an approved resolution plan cannot be withdrawn under Section 12A of the IBC
- NCLAT: No default by real estate developer if possession delayed due to reasons beyond control
- Supreme Court: Provident Fund benefits payable to contractual employees from date of filing writ petition and not retrospectively
- NCLT: Automatic waiver of legal proceedings is not permitted in a resolution plan
There are hundreds of cases that have been filed and closed under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(“IBC”) or are being battled out. There are many lessons that can be learnt from the obvious mistakes committed by some of the best lawyers, courts, and creditors. This article analyses such a case that has omitted the grey area of having matters filed against the same corporate debtor both as per the Companies Act, 1956(“1956 Act”) and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016.
FACTS
The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a “pandemic” on March 11, 2020.
The Covid-19 pandemic is having an overwhelming impact on global order. These are testing times for nations. For India and for most other countries, the outbreak presents twin challenges, not only containing the virus spread, but also limiting the economic impact in an already slowing economy.