Search Results for: financial creditors under the IBC

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.

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.

Rejection of claims to be notified to financial creditors in appeals as well: SC

Directing the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the apex court said that the NCLAT must have notified the bank (Financial Creditor) before closing the CIRP initiated by the NCLT.

IBC Pecuniary Threshold: – Interest Component to Be Merged with Principal Debt?

The interest component can include in the principal debt to acquire a minimum threshold limit i.e., 1 crore if delayed payment stipulated in the agreement or invoice.

NOIDA: A FINANCIAL CREDITOR OR AN OPERATIONAL CREDITOR

Both operational creditors and financial creditors own certain advantages over each other. But Financial creditors are given some priorities over other creditors such as they are members of the creditor’s committee and have voting power etc and operational is not a member of the creditor’s committee.

Application Filing by the Home Buyers/Allottees under IBC, 2016

the interest of the allottees is protected and the survival of real estate companies and completion of projects is ensured. As the amendment in the IBC has brought much needed clarity and provided the much-needed right to the home buyers/allottee.

CoC is empowered to consider revised financial offers keeping in mind the time limit set out by law: NCLAT

The NCLAT had to decide whether the NCLT/CoC may provide resolution applicants repeated chances to alter their individual resolution plans and whether the CoC was authorised to entertain fresh or revised resolution plans without exhausting available bids.

Creditors can request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings to NCLT: Supreme Court

This judgement is a step in the right direction because it recognizes the authority of a non-petitioning creditor to request for a transfer of the winding up proceedings. It assures that A creditor is not deprived of their right just because they didn’t participate in the initial winding up procedure against corporate debtor.

What constitutes a “Dispute” under the IBC as per the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court clarified the code’s object while keeping legislative intent in mind. The court, through this judgement, has struck a balance between creditors’ rights and debtor companies’ remedies.

NCLAT explains essential criteria of Financial Creditor

In the present case, the NCLAT held that the Appellants were acting as investors, the money they gave to the Respondents was in the nature of a loan, satisfying the condition of amount “disbursed against consideration for time value of money,” and the committed returns were in the nature of “interest.”