NCLAT Framework on Withdrawal of CIRP Under Section 12A Before CoC Constitution

Ibclaw
The NCLAT provided guidelines for Adjudicating Authorities considering withdrawal of CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC before the CoC is formed.

Summary

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) issued a significant decision outlining factors Adjudicating Authorities must consider when evaluating applications to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This guidance applies specifically to cases where withdrawal is sought *before* the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is constituted. The NCLAT emphasized the need to hear all concerned parties and assess ‘all relevant factors,’ referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran.

The Tribunal clarified that assessing the corporate debtor’s (CD) solvency is crucial, as the initial presumption of insolvency upon default may not accurately reflect its financial health. It also highlighted that the Code doesn’t differentiate between creditors based on the source of their funds, requiring a balance of interests. The withdrawal mechanism under Regulation 30A(1)(a) allows for a pragmatic approach, supporting entrepreneurship and fair exits.

The NCLAT provided a non-exhaustive list of factors for consideration, including NPA status, wilful defaulter declarations, pending decrees, creditor lists, ongoing litigation, and evidence of solvency. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of unpaid Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) fees, stating that processing a settlement application should only proceed upon advance payment of these fees. The NCLAT directed the appellant to present a settlement offer to the IRP, who can then submit an application under Section 12A, establishing a clear framework for consistent and reasoned decision-making in these cases.

(Source:Ibclaw)

CNET

Oura Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Inaccurate AI Sleep Tracking

CP24 Toronto

Harvard to pay US$53M over sold stolen body parts

The Associated Press

Harvard agrees to pay $53 million after former morgue manager stole and sold body parts | AP News

Bloomberg Tax News

Missouri Case Over Double Pot Taxation Stays in State Court

Racing Post

2026 Yorkshire Oaks tips: the runners, the odds, the verdict

The Boston Globe

Mass. high court rules in favor of Boston in White Stadium lawsuit

UPI News

Harvard settles for $53M in stolen body parts case - UPI.com

Financialcontent

Landmark $100 Million Settlement Reached in Equifax Credit Score Misreporting Class Action Lawsuit; Gibbs Mura is Co-Lead Counsel on Behalf of 4 Million Estimated Class Members

The Globe and Mail

For the director of Mutiny, Jason Statham is the ‘perfect working-class action hero’

Hoodline

Lemon Township Farm Market Faces County Lawsuit Over Deli, Bar and Event Space

The Boston Globe

Harvard to pay $53 million to settle class action lawsuit in morgue body parts scandal

Boston

Harvard agrees to $53 million settlement in body parts theft scandal

South China Morning Post

Evergrande liquidators challenge watchdog’s HK$1 billion settlement with auditor PwC

Wcvb

Harvard University to pay $53 million in morgue scandal settlement funds; plaintiff says 'not enough'

Springfield Business Journal

ABC files lawsuit against FCC