Insolvency and Bankruptcy

 Attachment Details Insolvency-and-Bankruptcy-Code-Re-affirming-its-primacy-over-the-Prevention-of-Money-Laundering-Act-2002

It has been an active month for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”/ “IBC”). On one hand, the legislature has inserted a new chapter into the Code providing for pre-packed insolvency resolution process for micro, small or medium enterprises (“MSMEs”) to ease and fast track the resolution for the stressed MSMEs, while on the other hand, Courts through various landmark decisions have upheld the primacy of the Code which will play a significant role in boosting the confidence of the stakeholders, particularly the creditors and the resolution applicants, in the sanctity of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIR Process”).
Continue Reading Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Re-affirming its primacy over the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

‘CASH ONLY’ to dissenting financial creditors - Supreme Court in Jaypee

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association & Ors vs. NBCC (India) Ltd. & Ors.[1] (“Jaypee Decision”) has laid down some new requirements whilst reinforcing several old ones in relation to the insolvency resolution regime of the country. In this article, we examine and discuss the implications of the rights of dissenting financial creditors as held in the Jaypee Decision on the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Continue Reading ‘CASH ONLY’ to dissenting financial creditors – Supreme Court in Jaypee

IBC and Limitation - The Dust Settles Blog

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Apex Court has held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act (“Section 18”) applies to extend the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC.
Continue Reading IBC and Limitation: The Dust Settles

Does NCLT has power to refer parties to Arbitration in an in rem insolvency proceeding

The conflict between Insolvency and Arbitration is almost of near polar extremes. The difference in focus of the two was well illustrated in Re United States Lines Inc[1] as a:

“… conflict of near polar extremes: bankruptcy policy exerts an inexorable pull towards centralization while arbitration policy advocates a decentralized approach towards dispute resolution”.

Thus, while insolvency/ bankruptcy aims to centralise all the proceedings against a debtor to one jurisdiction and give rise to a proceeding in rem (against the world at large) thereby creating third party rights for all creditors of the debtor, arbitration on the other hand advocates a decentralised approach and promotes party autonomy in dispute resolution resulting in a proceeding in personam (against a particular person).
Continue Reading Does NCLT has power to refer parties to Arbitration in an in rem insolvency proceeding?

Indian Insolvency Law responds to the COVID-19 Pandemic- Part-II

Introduction

On June 5, 2020, the President of India promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (“Ordinance”), in furtherance to the economic measures announced by the Ministry of Finance[1] to support Indian businesses impacted by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Ordinance has introduced the following amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) (effective immediately):

  • Section 10A has been inserted in the IBC, restricting filing of any application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of a corporate debtor (being a company or a limited liability partnership) for any default[2] arising after March 25, 2020, for a period of six months or such further period, not exceeding one year from March 25, 2020, as may be notified in this behalf (such period being “Specified Period”).[3]

Further, a proviso has been inserted in section 10A to specify that no application shall ever be filed for initiation of CIRP of a corporate debtor for the said default occurring during the Specified Period i.e. CIRP can never be initiated on the basis of a default during the Specified Period, even if the default is continuing after having occurred during the Specified Period.

  • A non-obstante clause has been inserted in to section 66 (Fraudulent trading or wrongful trading) of the IBC to give protection to the directors of a corporate debtor. Accordingly, no application can be filed by a resolution professional under sub-section 66(2), in respect of such defaults against which initiation of CIRP is suspended under Section 10A of the IBC.[4]


Continue Reading Indian Insolvency Law responds to the COVID-19 Pandemic- Part-II

Overriding the IBC’s over-rider

Insolvency resolution regimes, globally, function as an exception to otherwise accepted norms of commercial law.[1] The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is no exception: a mere glance at the Code will display how it has a liberal sprinkling of non-obstante clauses.[2] From a specific dispute resolution mechanism, to an overarching carve out for insolvency resolution mechanism, the legislature has inserted non-obstante clauses in the Code as guidance of its intent. One would imagine that this would have ensured sufficient clarity for all stakeholders, avoided disputes and ensured timely insolvency resolution. Yet, as market participants try to understand the scope and intent of non-obstante clauses in the Code, such clauses continue to generate legal debate and litigation[3]. Perhaps, the stakes are too high for the parties to resist litigating. And some would argue not without good legal reason: after all, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has over the years identified exceptions[4] to the Latin maxim ‘leges posteriores priores contraries abrogant’ i.e. in the event two special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the non-obstante clause in the chronologically later special statute shall prevail[5].
Continue Reading Overriding the IBC’s Over-Rider?

Put option Holders - Financial Creditors under the IBC – Part 2

In our previous post, we discussed the La-Fin Judgments passed by the NCLAT (Pushpa Shah v. IL&FS Financial Services Limited[1]) and NCLT[2], which had held that a put option holder may be treated as a ‘financial creditor’ under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court set aside the La-Fin Judgments in Jignesh Shah vs Union of India[3] primarily on the technical grounds of limitation without expressing a view on whether the NCLT and NCLAT were correct in treating a put option holder as a financial creditor.

This was followed by the landmark decision of Pioneer Urban and Infrastructure Limited vs Union of India (Pioneer Judgment)[4] in which the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC in a manner similar to that done in the La-Fin Judgments, stating that the provision would subsume within it “amounts raised under transactions which are not necessarily loan transactions, so long as they have the commercial effect of a borrowing” and “done with profit as the main aim.”
Continue Reading Put option Holders: Financial Creditors under the IBC? – Part 2

Indian Insolvency Law responds to the COVID-19 Pandemic

With more than three lakh confirmed cases and 14 thousand deaths across 190 countries, the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has caused (and continues to cause) unprecedented disruptions in the global political, social and economic environment. India has not remained untouched from this. With almost 500 confirmed cases and the country in lock-down mode to prevent further outbreak, social and economic activities have come to a grinding halt.

The pandemic has forced governments across the world to impose restrictions on working and travel conditions as well as human movement. The severity of the situation requires quick and decisive action from the Government and all sections of the economy to prevent ‘deepening’ of the crisis.
Continue Reading Indian Insolvency Law responds to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus - COVID19- Faqs

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a “pandemic” on March 11, 2020.

The outbreak and the rapid spread of COVID-19 has sent shock waves across global markets. It has disrupted supply chains, leading to the closure of several manufacturing facilities globally; serious disruption of air and sea traffic and closure of vital air routes, like the one between the US and Europe. This is turn has led to the collapse of stock markets around the world, leading to the loss of billions of dollars, which got wiped out in a matter of days. A combination of all these factors has led to a decline in the overall volume of global economic activity, forcing the world economy towards a possible recession. It is forcing Boards across the globe to confront a host of difficult questions on how business should be conducted during a global public health crisis.
Continue Reading COVID-19 : OFFICIALLY A PANDEMIC

Jaypee Judgement – Assessing it’s impact on the Indian financing landscape

Background

On February 26, 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Jaypee matter, bringing to a close the long drawn litigation between two sets of competing creditor claims i.e. those advanced by certain creditors of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) and those of its holding company, Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL).

In its ruling, the Supreme Court addressed two key issues:
Continue Reading The `Jaypee Judgement’ – Assessing it’s impact on the Indian financing landscape