https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446143 NCLAT Principal Bench allowed the application challenging the adjudicating authority's rejection of a resolution plan. The tribunal held that the resolution plan's provisions for extinguishing security interests and guarantees of financial creditors, including dissenting creditors, did not contravene Section 30(2) of IBC or CIRP Regulations 2016. The court clarified that dissenting financial creditors are not entitled to upfront payment but must receive payment in priority over assenting creditors as per liquidation waterfall under Section 53(1). Since the successful resolution applicant committed to pay dissenting creditors within 90 days with appropriate priority, the plan complied with statutory requirements. The adjudicating authority's order was set aside. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446143 NCLAT Principal Bench allowed the application challenging the adjudicating authority's rejection of a resolution plan. The tribunal held that the resolution plan's provisions for extinguishing security interests and guarantees of financial creditors, including dissenting creditors, did not contravene Section 30(2) of IBC or CIRP Regulations 2016. The court clarified that dissenting financial creditors are not entitled to upfront payment but must receive payment in priority over assenting creditors as per liquidation waterfall under Section 53(1). Since the successful resolution applicant committed to pay dissenting creditors within 90 days with appropriate priority, the plan complied with statutory requirements. The adjudicating authority's order was set aside. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446143