On October 4, 2023, a 2 (two) judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Sunview Assets Pvt Ltd. held that the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution”), being inherent in nature, are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred by statute.
Brief Facts
We discuss the Federal Court of Australia’s judgment and distil insights to assist trustees in bankruptcy navigate difficult estates and deal with recalcitrant bankrupts.
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
(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）
In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed and applied its holding from OGA Charters. In doing so, it blocked (via a bankruptcy adversary proceeding) one set of plaintiffs from keeping an insured’s entire policy limit, which the insurer paid as per Texas’ “first come first served” approach to time-limited policy limits demands.