<?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>2024 (6) TMI 630 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754023</link>
    <description>Commercial wisdom of the CoC governed approval of the resolution plan, and the appellate review of valuation was limited. The valuation reports were obtained from registered valuers, shared with stakeholders, and no procedural infirmity or haste was shown to justify interference. Differential treatment among creditor classes, including the haircut to financial creditors and the treatment of homebuyers as a separate class, was consistent with the Code and the statutory safeguards for plan approval. Dissenting financial creditors were entitled only to the minimum amount under the insolvency framework and could not payment based on the full value of their security interest. The resolution plan approval was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:21:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 630 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754023</link>
      <description>Commercial wisdom of the CoC governed approval of the resolution plan, and the appellate review of valuation was limited. The valuation reports were obtained from registered valuers, shared with stakeholders, and no procedural infirmity or haste was shown to justify interference. Differential treatment among creditor classes, including the haircut to financial creditors and the treatment of homebuyers as a separate class, was consistent with the Code and the statutory safeguards for plan approval. Dissenting financial creditors were entitled only to the minimum amount under the insolvency framework and could not payment based on the full value of their security interest. The resolution plan approval was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>