Restructuring and Insolvency Archives

CIRP Amendment Regulations 2025: Streamlining Resolution Processes and Protecting Homebuyer Interests

Insights | February 25, 2025 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Real Estate, Restructuring and Insolvency

As of December 2024, insolvencies in the real estate sector accounted for approximately 22% of admitted cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), making it second only to the manufacturing sector that accounted for 37% of admitted cases. The high volume of insolvencies in the real estate sector, the imperative to protect homebuyer interests and specific challenges faced by this sector have resulted in several amendments focused specifically on the insolvency process for real estate projects. Recently, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 (“2025 Amendments”) amending certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”), which once again have a special focus on the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) of real estate developers. This note discusses the 2025 Amendments and their likely impact on streamlining the resolution process and protecting homebuyer interests.

From Rescue to Ruin: The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Jet Airways and the Future of Airline Insolvencies

Insights | November 21, 2024 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited, bringing an end to the five-year-long saga of efforts to revive the distressed airline. Two years after the airline entered the corporate insolvency resolution process, the National Company Law Tribunal, in June 2021, approved the resolution plan submitted by the Jalan Fritsch Consortium, the successful resolution applicant. However, various challenges arose with implementation of the resolution plan, which led the successful resolution applicant to seek multiple extensions and concessions from the adjudicating authority. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the March 2024 order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and used its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the airline’s liquidation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is significant as it underscores the importance of implementing resolution plans within agreed upon timelines and identifies certain gaps and shortcomings in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as far as implementation of resolution plans are concerned. This note analyzes the judgment to discuss its implications for the implementation of resolution plans as well as specific challenges in the context of insolvencies in the aviation industry.

Bombay High Court: Enforcement Directorate Should Necessarily Release Attachment over Assets of a Corporate Debtor after Approval of Resolution Plan

Insights | April 5, 2024 | Practice Area: Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

In the matter of Shiv Charan and Others v. Adjudicating Authority and Others, a division bench of the esteemed Bombay High Court has pronounced upon the legal status pertaining to attachments made by the Enforcement Directorate over assets belonging to a corporate debtor which has obtained approval for a resolution plan under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Investing in India: An Overview of Legal Considerations

Insights | February 27, 2024 | Practice Area: Capital Markets, General Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity, Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency

Foreign investment is a key contributor to India’s growth story and India continues to consistently experience growth in inflow of foreign direct investment (“FDI”). The Government of India has announced that the provisional figure of FDI inflow into India for the financial year ended March 31, 2023 was USD 71 billion and according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report, India remains a favored destination for global investors.
In this note we discuss certain key legal considerations for a foreign investor investing in India.

Government Dues and IBC Waterfall: Are We Heading Towards a Non-uniform Approach Across Sectors?

Insights | June 5, 2023 | Practice Area: Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

The waterfall mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) gives priority to debts owed to financial creditors over operational dues, including statutory dues. However, certain recent case law and proposed statutory amendments have questioned this principle. In particular, a proposal has emerged that government dues secured pursuant to a transaction or an agreement should have priority over other dues (including financial dues). The Telecommunication Bill, 2022 proposes that the spectrum of telecom companies under insolvency should be returned to the central government on failure of payment of dues. This note discusses certain implications of such proposed changes.

Renewed Challenges to the IBC Distribution Waterfall

Insights | December 28, 2022 | Practice Area: General Corporate, Mergers and Acquisitions, Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) ushered in a new era in the Indian insolvency regime by introducing a distribution waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC. The waterfall mechanism prioritizes dues owed to financial creditors over dues owed to operational creditors and government authorities.
The waterfall mechanism in the IBC is based on the recommendations of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee. The preamble to the IBC also highlights its objective of balancing the interests of the stakeholders, including by alteration in the order of priority of payment of government dues.
There has recently been a rising trend of courts and tribunals seeking to deviate from the distribution waterfall under the IBC. Unfortunately, this tends to put the success of an insolvency resolution process at risk. In this note, we examine three recent examples and discuss why any such deviation could disturb the delicate balance sought to be achieved under the IBC.

Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank: An Unsettling Literal Interpretation

Insights | November 25, 2022 | Practice Area: General Corporate, Regulatory, Restructuring and Insolvency

The enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) marked a historic shift in India’s insolvency regime shifting the focus from recovery to resolution. The Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee (“BLRC”) reports highlighted the need for the legislative policy to initiate a resolution process at the instance of default to prevent erosion of value. Keeping this objective in mind, the IBC lays out a party driven process which places the creditors at the helm of the resolution procedure.
The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) has repeatedly held that keeping in mind the objectives of the IBC, the adjudicating authority at the stage of admission into the corporate insolvency resolution process needs to restrict its analysis to: (1) the existence of debt and (2) default in payment of debt. However, on July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited (“Vidarbha”), relying on the use of the word “may” in the relevant statutory provision, applied the literal interpretation test and held that National Company Law Tribunal has the discretion to admit an application after it is satisfied regarding the existence of debt.
This judgment, which departs from precedent, could have serious consequences for the insolvency regime in India. This note discusses the implications of a literal interpretation test in context of Vidarbha and highlights the need for an intervention to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Resolution Plan Approved by the Committee of Creditors Cannot be Modified or Withdrawn

Insights | September 28, 2021 | Practice Area: Litigation and Arbitration, Restructuring and Insolvency

Recently, pursuant to its decision in Ebix Singapore Private Limited v Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Anr., the Supreme Court of India extensively analyzed the status of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors but pending approval of the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court observed that such a resolution plan binds the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Applicant and reinforced the strength of the decision of the Committee of Creditors in favor of a resolution plan. The Supreme Court also, once again, clarified the scope of scrutiny, at the stage of approval of a resolution plan, by the National Company Law Tribunal and consequently by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

An Alternative Approach to a Code of Conduct for the Committee of Creditors in an IBC Process

Insights | September 22, 2021 | Practice Area: Corporate Governance and ESG, Litigation and Arbitration, Mergers and Acquisitions, Restructuring and Insolvency

Recently the Standing Committee on Finance in a report placed before the Parliament on August 3, 2021 proposed a Code of Conduct for the Committee of Creditors in a corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Following such report, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has published a discussion paper on August 27, 2021 which includes, among other things, a draft Code of Conduct. This note considers an alternative approach for such a Code of Conduct.

Pre-pack Resolution Route Needs Incentives

Insights | September 1, 2021 | Practice Area: Banking and Finance, Restructuring and Insolvency

The recent amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) replaces an ordinance promulgated earlier this year, and provides for a pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (“PIRP”) for micro, small and medium enterprises (“MSMEs”). The PIRP comes in the backdrop of the financial stress caused by COVID-19 and aims to cause minimal disruption to business and to ensure job preservation. While the PIRP is well intended, how effective it will be in resolving stress on corporate debtors in the MSME sector will come down to how it is implemented and if required, fine tuning its design.