Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.
On October 3rd, 2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) amended Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 thereby exempting the transactions, arrangements, or agreements related to aircraft, aircraft engines, airframes, and helicopters in the aviation industry from the operation of the moratorium imposed upon the admission of an insolvency plea.
Introduction
Question
In a case where the Liquidator after issuing the certificate that the appellant had won the auction of the subject property, cancelled the e-auction without giving any justification or reason for such cancellation, the Supreme Court has stated that it is incomprehensible that an administrative authority can take a decision without disclosing the reasons for taking such a decision.
“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”
Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.
On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.
The judgments of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Federal Court in Sino Group International Limited v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd [1] provide important practical lessons arising from a misleading Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) proposal, its termination, and the subsequent appointment of a liquidator.
In the recent case of Uphealth Holdings, Inc. v. Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim, the Calcutta High Court (“CHC”) ruled on the enforceability of moratorium orders from non-reciprocating countries like the United States of America (“US”) in Indian courts.