Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
On August 3, 2022, a division bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“High Court”) comprising of Justice K.R. Shriram, and Justice A.S. Doctor in the case of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.
Since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2016 (“IBC, 2016), the judiciary has been very active in settling disputes and addressing the gaps arising from this controversial legislation. Recently, yet another dispute arising out of a technical gap in the IBC has been resolved by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. M/s Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited.1
Brief facts of the case
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions provide comfort to financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts will generally not be subject to avoidance or “clawback” if the transferor subsequently files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Introduction
On 15 August 2022, the UK High Court handed down judgment in Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd.
Background
The claim was for rent and other arrears by Oceanfill, the landlord of a gym in Leeds. It was brought against Nuffield, the original tenant and Cannons, the original guarantor under the lease.
Nuffield had assigned the lease to Virgin Active in 2000, guaranteeing the performance of Virgin Active as tenant and Cannons had given a guarantee of Nuffield's obligations.
Virgin Active restructuring plan
Mani Gupta, Aman Choudhary and Saumya Upadhyay, Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
In the receivership proceedings of Distinct Infrastructure Group Inc.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case that Fifth Amendment takings claims cannot be discharged or impaired by a bankruptcy plan. As a matter of first impression in that circuit, the Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that former property owners affected by prepetition takings must be paid in full.
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022)
INTRODUCTION