Section 33(5) of IBC doesn’t bar legal proceedings against a ship owned by Corporate Debtor in liquidation: Bombay HC

It is evident upon reading Section 33(5) that this clause merely forbids the filing of a lawsuit or other legal action against the Corporate Debtor. It in no way precludes the filing of a lawsuit or starting another legal action against a ship or vessel owned by the corporate debtor.

Whether IBC prevails over Custom Act?

The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once the moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, as the case may be, the respondent authority has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of custom duty and other levies.

NEW CHALLENGES IN THE IBC WATERFALL MECHANISM

A key element that differentiates the IBC from previous legislation governing corporate insolvency is the distribution waterfall in the event of liquidation.

Interim Finance – A Source of Operational Funding under IBC

interim finance can be raised by the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The resolution professional is authorized to raise interim finance after obtaining approval from the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Cross-Border Mergers and IBC

The adoption of the Model Law will help in the ease of doing business and significantly increase the inflow of FDI into India by way of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.

NIL payment to OC’s if Liquidation Value is NIL, doesn’t contravene the provisions of S. 30(2)(b) of IBC, 2016: NCLAT, New Delhi

the Operational Creditors are only entitled for minimum of the Liquidation Value and NIL payment to Operational Creditors in case the Liquidation Value is NIL, does not contravene the provisions of Section 30(2)(b) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

SC resorts to Article 142 of the Constitution to cut short IBC technicalities to benefit home-buyers

The Apex Court used its authority under Article 142 to allow the CIRP proceedings to be withdrawn and to adjudicate all outstanding issues between the parties in the greater interest of the homebuyers.

Putting Resolution Professionals under the spotlight: The latest IBC Amendments

The resolution professional (RP), appointed under the Code, is at the heart of these endeavors and has the mandate to complete this process in a time-bound manner.

No bar to withdraw admitted CIRP application before constitution of the committee of creditors: Supreme Court

The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC.

Rights of Homebuyers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Homebuyers could only engage in the IBC procedure as a class of financial creditor. Individual homebuyer rights were absorbed by homebuyer rights as a class.

An alien concept to the IBC regime is reverse CIRP

Despite the fact that such relief should not have existed, the NCLAT instead attempted an “experiment” to adopt the strange idea of Reverse CIRP, which has no precedent in the Code.

IBC Does Not Prohibit an Assignee from Continuing Pending Section 7 Proceedings: Judgement by NCLAT Delhi

A person to whom a debt has been properly assigned or transferred is also included in the definition of “Financial Creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.

Eligibility of Resolution Applicant: Section 29A of IBC Code, 2016

Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has emerged as one of the key aspects in determining the Eligibility of the Potential Resolution Applicants in a tedious attempt to save the company in question under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Treatment of MSME Insolvency under IBC

The COVID-19 crisis has caused distress and failure in the MSME sector. The insolvency law since its enactment in 2016 has been amended several times in order to protect the interest of MSMEs as well as the future and growth of the Country.

Personal Guarantor under section 95 is exempted from section 10A of IBC, 2016

Section 10A proceedings are not applicable against the Personal Guarantor under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.