Key developments in the Indian legal landscape in 2016

From the Startup India campaign launched in January 2016 to the coming into force of substantial provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in December 2016, the legal landscape in India has witnessed some crucial developments this past year. In this LawFlash, we describe briefly what we consider to be some of the key legal and regulatory developments in India in 2016.

Arbitration Act

The ILP is a regulated common law partnership structure which will be of significant interest to international managers marketing to EU investors and wider global markets.

The Bill seeks to introduce a number of important changes which aim to position the ILP as a leading EU fund vehicle for private equity and sustainable investments.

Although the Bill remains subject to further approval as it passes through the legislative process, this is nonetheless a very positive and welcome development.

On 29 October 2018, HM Treasury published a consultation paper on a breathing space scheme and a statutory debt repayment plan, which were both part of the government’s 2017 manifesto commitments.

1. BUDGET 2017

Budget 2017 was announced on 11 October 2016 and the implementing Finance Bill was published on 18 October 2016. Together, they contained two pensions-related initiatives.

Benefits for Pensioners Increase

There will be a 5 per week increase in the State pension with effect from 1 March 2017. The timing of the increase will mean that schemes which operate State pension offsets based on the State pension amount in January of a given year will not see a change to the deduction until January 2018.

Infrastructure & Economic Development
This briefing sets out some of the key points of the 2016 Programme for
Government, which includes a wide range of policy proposals in areas
such as infrastructure and economic development, public administration,
constitutional change, financial services, taxation and employment law and
industrial relations.
It is expected that the Government’s Legislation Programme will be
published soon, setting out the legislation that the new Government will
promote in order to give effect to the Programme for Government.

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

NEW GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAMME: INDUSTRY & SECTOR SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN 19 JANUARY 2015 The Irish Government has published its legislation programme for the Spring/Summer 2015 parliamentary session. There are 32 Bills which are currently before the Oireachtas. In addition, there are 137 proposed Bills set out in the Programme, 41 of which the Government intends publishing during the Spring/Summer Session.

The Finance Bill 2013 introduces a number of provisions that impact on the VAT treatment of transactions involving liquidators, receivers and mortgagees in possession (the “Insolvency Practitioners”). These provisions were largely expected following the consultation process on the tax implications of appointing a receiver which has been ongoing since July 2012.

On 4 July 2012, the Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan, launched a public consultation on the tax implications of appointing a receiver. The consultation paper was jointly issued by the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners and invited input by 4 September 2012 from interested parties in relation to technical and practical tax implications concerning the appointment of receivers.

The Dáil Public Accounts Committee has issued a report which primarily examined the loss of "Fiduciary" taxes (such as PRSI and PAYE) arising from company insolvency. The Committee concluded that there is a need in Ireland to introduce further measures to reduce the amount of Fiduciary taxes that are lost due to the irresponsible behaviour of directors. There is a need, according to the report, for the introduction of a deterrent which will make directors aware of the negative consequences which could arise for them if they wilfully evade paying the company taxes that are due.