MANOLETE PARTNERS Plc的动态

BHS: Court imposes ￡18m personal liability for wrongful trading, breach of directors’ duties and novel “misfeasant trading”. The Liquidators’ succeeded in successfully holding the directors liable for “insolvency-deepening activity”.??In a 533 page judgment the Court held the directors liable for ￡6.5m each for wrongful trading, and various specific “individual misfeasance” transactions for breaching various statutory directors’ duties in the aggregate amount of ￡5.6m.??The Court also accepted the Liquidators’ novel claim and made the first-ever award for “misfeasant trading”: for breach of statutory duties in continuing to trade, including failing to have sufficient regard to creditors’ interests and failing to enter administration sooner.??The quantum of this liability is yet to be determined but could potentially be up to ￡133m (being the increase in the net deficiency between the relevant dates). Interestingly, the Court determined that the liability of the directors should be several owing to differing levels of involvement and culpability. The judgment will register concerns for directors about the utility of relying upon professional legal and accounting advice when later faced with insolvency given that the Court effectively discounted same.??The Court held that the duty is reposed on the directors themselves, and not advisors, to decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency. The case also illuminates how a Court will conduct a rigorous analysis of directors’ email, board minutes, notes and text messages.??And may attach less weight to minutes prepared in advance by lawyers to approve particular transactions. https://lnkd.in/ehKjnH2g

Article: A Study on Inherent Power of NCLT to Recall a CIRP – Aditya Kumar & Aditya Narayan The power to recall is granted to the adjudicating authority, however, it can be exercised only in cases where any procedural error has been committed. The committee of creditors plays a very crucial role in the insolvency process of an entity. However, their action is required to be within the norms prescribed by the code, otherwise, the whole process will become very detrimental to the aims of the code. It is to be taken into consideration that one of the goals of the code is to balance the interests of the stakeholders. In such a situation, the decision of the courts that the inherent powers can be exercised thriftily to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to uphold justice goes hand in hand. https://lnkd.in/gxnPedzP

Navigating the complexities of resolution plans can be challenging, especially when higher court stays come into play. Discover if delays caused by such stays can be excluded from the implementation timeline of a resolution plan. Read the full article for detailed insights: https://lnkd.in/gpPsVuBv #LawFirm #Insolvency #Bankruptcy #ResolutionPlan #LegalInsights #indialawllp #IBC

?????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ???? ?????????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? >Establish fast track Tribunals >Urgent list system for insolvency cases >Allowing the appointment of resolution professionals outside of courts >Introducing a provision under the IBC, similar to Article 226(3) of the Constitution >Enhance RPs standards with rigorous certification, specialized training, and independent performance reviews >Explore PPP models to improve judicial processes >Ensure NCLT members and adjudicating bodies possess specialized knowledge >Provide clearer guidelines on the treatment of government dues Access here full report: https://lnkd.in/gHyzcSFy

A detailed analysis of a court's decision to dismiss an application for disclosure in an insolvency matter. Read Hannah Hooper's article to understand the factors courts consider in such cases and why proper explanation of the need for documents is crucial ?? https://ow.ly/kJ9h50TWabU #InsolvencyProceedings #DisclosureApplication

Important Judgment:? Valuation based on relevant material requires no interference | Dues not included in Resolution Plan are extinguished post approval | IBC provisions override SEZ Act and Rules – Supreme Court? Coram: Mr. Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Case Citation: (2024) ibclaw.in 286 SC In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies following issues: A. Valuation does not call for any interference if it is based on relevant material on record. B. All the dues is not the part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be pressed into service or continues. C. Claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc. were not to be interfered with by courts or tribunals as the same stood related to the commercial wisdom of the CoC. D. Does provision of IBC override Special Economic Zone Act and Rules? https://lnkd.in/gw3NwjMz Subscribe now and get access of case laws summaries with extra search features: https://lnkd.in/fkpcwfa

Dear Connections, I recently authored an article with Nitish Raj on the anomaly present in Section 100(4) of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code. We argue in the article that the peculiar language of the Subsection (4) of Section 100 defeats the legislative intent. This is so because reference to Section 95 in Section 100(4) creates an anomalous situation which could not have been intended by the parliament. We further provide insight about the resolution of this legislative conundrum. This article has been published by Money Control. Any comments are welcome! It can be accessed here: #law #ibc #insolvency #bankruptcy #research #supremecourt #legal #anomaly

Thank you for sharing this important judgment from the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Based on the details provided, it appears that the NCLAT has allowed financial creditors to submit their full claims against the corporate debtor in the insolvency proceedings, as the one-time settlement (OTS) agreed upon earlier was deemed ineffective due to the corporate debtor's failure to comply with the settlement terms. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the terms of a settlement agreement, especially in insolvency matters. When a corporate debtor enters into an OTS with its financial creditors, it is expected to fulfill the agreed-upon obligations, which may include repayment of a portion of the outstanding debt or adherence to specific timelines. If the corporate debtor fails to comply with the OTS terms, the NCLAT's decision in this case establishes that the financial creditors can revert to their original claims and seek recovery of the full outstanding amount through the insolvency process. This ruling upholds the rights of financial creditors and ensures that corporate debtors cannot take undue advantage of settlement agreements without fulfilling their obligations. It also emphasizes the need for corporate debtors to take such settlements seriously and make sincere efforts to comply with the agreed terms, as failure to do so may nullify the settlement altogether. Overall, this judgment reinforces the principles of fairness and accountability in insolvency proceedings and underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations for both debtors and creditors.

Whether the practice of serving "notices" to the creditors is mandatory under specific sections of the IBC laws, except Sections 7 and 9 where serving notices to the opposite party is a matter of right? This article analyses various provisions under the Insolvency Laws which necessitates the issuance of "public announcement" in order to inform the creditors of the ongoing CIRP process. The practice of issuing public announcement to the general public is provided under S.15 of the Code which aligns with the basic intention of the CIRP which focuses on the rights in-rem and matters of "insolvency" which are of larger public interest.