This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

Timeliness:

Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. City of Akron, Case Nos. 25642, 25725 (Ohio Ct. App. July 20, 2011) (affirming confirmation of award; panel properly found “good cause” for delay in seeking confirmation; rule providing one year to seek confirmation deemed not a statute of limitations).

Partiality:

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.

Hello everyone,

The Court of Appeal had a busy week and released a number of civil decisions, many of which were procedural in nature – extension of time, leave to appeal, limitation periods, Rule 21. One of these procedural decisions was in the Nortel case, in which the court denied leave to appeal Justice Newbould’s trial decision, apparently bringing the matter substantially closer to a conclusion.

Have a nice weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos

Civil Decisions

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in the matter of Bias Boating Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1524 which deals with leave to join already named defendants to a “mothership” proceeding after expiration of the limitation period

Background

The first plaintiff was appointed administrator of the second plaintiff (the relevant company) on 25 August 2014 and became its liquidator on 29 September 2014.

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

In brief: In two decisions arising from the Octaviar liquidation, the High Court has given guidance on liquidators' ability to seek extensions of time for bringing voidable transaction claims. The decisions also highlight the risks of such applications. Partner Christopher Prestwich (view CV) and Lawyer Julia Baine report.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?

On April 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) provided guidance on the interpretation of Article 13 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (the “Regulation”) in the case Lutz v Bäuerle – C-557/13.

In Grant v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, the Court of Appeal took little time to uphold a High Court decision that a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) under Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993 was void.

At the creditors meeting, the DOCA had been approved by the majority of creditors in number. Nevertheless, this did not constitute 75% of creditors in value. Mr Grant, as chair of a creditors' meeting, purported to exercise a casting vote in favour of the DOCA in order for it to be approved. 

Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor

Polish tax regulations provide three major methods for obtaining a tax deduction for irrecoverable debt: waiver or forgiveness of debt, debt write-off and revaluation write-off.