Resolution Plans under Insolvency Code: Hooked, booked and cooked! – By Sahil Kanuga, Arjun Gupta and Aparimita Pratap

Discerning investors might be disincentivized to take a bet on stressed companies if the insolvency regime resorts to extreme rigidity. This might also have the effect of reducing the pool of investors that are willing to invest in the stressed assets market. Therefore, it is imperative for the government and the regulatory authorities to amend the existing statutory framework which will allow modification to resolution plans in exceptional circumstances like a force majeure situation or a material adverse change in the circumstances of insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor, even after approval by the COC.

Fate of claims of workmen and employees of an entity under insolvency – By Prakash K. Pandya, Insolvency Professional

For the purpose of this write-up, claims of employees and workmen of an entity under the IBC, are broadly classified into 3 categories, namely, claims for a period prior to commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (the CIRP), claims for a period covered during the CIRP and claims for the liquidation period i.e. for period commencing from the date of order of liquidation passed by the Adjudicating Authority / NCLT (the AA).

Why did the Supreme Court skip the ‘time value of money’ analysis in Orator Marketing v Samtex Desinz? – By Adv. Adhitya Srinivasan

Although the question in Orator itself was not particularly significant, the Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to settle (or at least highlight) the inconsistency between Pioneer and Jaypee Infratech. On the one hand, it could be argued that the Court effectively followed the rule in Pioneer since it ignored the ‘time value of money’ analysis once it was satisfied that the loan in question fit into section 5(8)(f). On the other hand, it could be argued that ‘time value of money’ was implicitly built into the loan and that the Court did not actually reject the ‘time value of money’ requirement even though the loan fit into section 5(8)(f), which would be in line with the ruling in Jaypee Infratech. In any case, the Court chose not to address the issue explicitly and it is thus likely to crop up again.

Tareekh par tareekh!!! Adjournments in proceedings under IBC – By Adv. Pratik Sarkar: Part-IV False statements & Groundless allegations made by Litigants

Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Partner, Vidhi Legal Tareekh par tareekh!!!Adjournments in proceedings under IBC A recent incident at Karkardooma Court Complex - New Delhi has not only reminded us of the famous scene from ‘Damini’, but also has highlighted an age-old…

Tareekh par tareekh!!! Adjournments in proceedings under IBC – By Adv. Pratik Sarkar: Part-III Copies of pleadings not served to the other side/ not available with the Bench

Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Partner, Vidhi Legal Tareekh par tareekh!!!Adjournments in proceedings under IBC A recent incident at Karkardooma Court Complex - New Delhi has not only reminded us of the famous scene from ‘Damini’, but also has highlighted an age-old…

Tareekh par tareekh!!! Adjournments in proceedings under IBC – By Adv. Pratik Sarkar: Part-II Long-Extended hearing & Groundless filing

Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Partner, Vidhi Legal Tareekh par tareekh!!!Adjournments in proceedings under IBC A recent incident at Karkardooma Court Complex - New Delhi has not only reminded us of the famous scene from ‘Damini’, but also has highlighted an age-old…

Tareekh par tareekh!!! Adjournments in proceedings under IBC – By Adv. Pratik Sarkar: Part-I Arguing Counsel/Senior appearing in the matter is addressing another Court

Adv. Pratik Sarkar, Partner, Vidhi Legal Tareekh par tareekh!!!Adjournments in proceedings under IBC A recent incident at Karkardooma Court Complex - New Delhi has not only reminded us of the famous scene from ‘Damini’, but also has highlighted an age-old…

EPFO is more than a stakeholder in the Liquidation Process – By Mr. Chidambaram Ramesh

In some cases, the Liquidators have reportedly issued notice to the EPFO for participation in the stakeholders’ consultation committee meeting, treating them as operational creditors or Government agencies. In general terms, almost everyone associated with the Corporate Debtor is considered a stakeholder. However, Section 2(k) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 provides for a definition of the term ‘stakeholder.’ It reads, “stakeholders” means the stakeholders entitled to distribution of proceeds under section 53. This gives rise to a larger question: Does the EPFO come within the meaning of ‘stakeholder’ for the I & B Code and the connected liquidation process? This article is intended to address this concern.