Pertinently, in some quarters, it is felt that the Code may not be the best mechanism to resolve manifold grievances of allottees, and authorities such as Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“RERA”) may be better suited for the purpose. The rights of allottees under RERA and the rights of creditors under the Code, however, may need to be balanced by the legislation.
It is crucial to acknowledge the overlooked impact of N.N. Global decision on the initiation of CIRP. The legal and practical challenges arising from non-stamped or insufficiently stamped documents necessitate careful consideration and potential reforms to ensure a fine balance is struck. It will be interesting to see how insolvency tribunals apply this decision while adjudicating on similar issues on the future.
This article analyses the duty of a Resolution Professional to prepare an Information Memorandum under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It highlights the importance of an IM in the insolvency resolution process, the responsibility of a RP to timely prepare the IM, and several challenges by such RPs while preparing an IM. The article also explores the necessary elements of an IM as prescribed under the Code, drawing insights from judicial pronouncements, and offers valuable insights for the stakeholders of the CIRP.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been subjected to several judicial interpretations, particularly with respect to the applicability of the moratorium period on pending proceedings. Section 33(5) of the IBC explicitly states that the moratorium period shall only apply to proceedings fresh legal proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and nowhere states that it shall apply to pending legal proceedings.
The objective of this article is to analyze the role of directors in corporate governance by looking at the old and new Act (1956 and 2013 Act respectively), how the Indian Courts have interpreted the director’s duties through the help of landmark rulings that will give you an in-depth knowledge on the same.
The Code as it exists in our country has consciously limited the jurisdiction of the Adjudicatory Authority in approving resolutions plans under Section 31 and the legislature has not conferred independent equity-based jurisdiction on the NCLT. Primarily, this helps reduce delays and increase time bound resolution ensuring value maximization. On the contrary, the remarks made by the NCLAT in Paramvir and continued litigation for equitable treatment in distribution of proceeds under the resolution plan to certain stakeholders leaves room for discussion on the treatment of all stakeholders under approved resolution plans in the prevailing status quo.
The IBC prioritizes the revival and rehabilitation of the corporate debtor over the recovery of debt by the personal guarantor. This means that the personal guarantor's right of subrogation is sacrificed to achieve the IBC's objective. The extinguishment of the personal guarantor's right of subrogation is a departure from the established principles of contracts of guarantee. This has led to debates and discussions about the fairness of the IBC towards personal guarantors. Once the Principal Debtor's creditors have been reimbursed by the guarantor, the IBC regime does not provide for the right to subrogation, and the guarantor cannot proceed against the Principal Debtor under the IBC. Denying the right of subrogation to guarantors may have a negative impact on the credit market, as guarantors may be reluctant to participate in transactions without recovery rights.
A comprehensive analysis of withdrawal of CIRP application under Section 12A of IBC at various stage with judicial pronouncements.
The focus of this article is to compare the “Indian Scenario vis-à-vis Global Scenario” relating to commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors during the resolution process of a distressed company and whether the judiciary is required to interfere with the commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors during or after the completion of process or not. The NCLT, NCLAT & Supreme Court have time & again stressed upon the ‘supremacy’ of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors. However, on numerous occasions, the courts have been tempted to decide on their scope of interference with the commercial decisions of the CoC.
This article aims to provide valuable insights for individuals and organizations operating in the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency field. Its goal is to bring clarity to the intricacies of insolvency in the crypto world and assist in informed decision-making within this dynamic and exciting landscape.