<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (7) TMI 766 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295761</link>
    <description>A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found compliant because it satisfied the statutory approval requirements, including creditor voting, eligibility conditions, stakeholder treatment, and payment above liquidation value. The plan was therefore approved and treated as binding on the corporate debtor and stakeholders. The commentary also states that scrutiny by the adjudicating authority is confined to statutory parameters, and that it cannot substitute its view for the committee of creditors on viability, feasibility, or distribution. A challenge to the distribution formula was rejected as an impermissible attack on commercial wisdom, particularly where the objector had itself voted in favour of the plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2021 10:17:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 766 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL BENCH CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295761</link>
      <description>A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found compliant because it satisfied the statutory approval requirements, including creditor voting, eligibility conditions, stakeholder treatment, and payment above liquidation value. The plan was therefore approved and treated as binding on the corporate debtor and stakeholders. The commentary also states that scrutiny by the adjudicating authority is confined to statutory parameters, and that it cannot substitute its view for the committee of creditors on viability, feasibility, or distribution. A challenge to the distribution formula was rejected as an impermissible attack on commercial wisdom, particularly where the objector had itself voted in favour of the plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>