When compared to international standards, India's present legal and administrative framework for handling loan defaults is inadequate. Despite utilising the Contract Act and specialised legislation such as the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (2002) and the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act of 1993, creditors have not been successful in recovering delinquent debts. The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Companies Act, 1956/Companies Act, 2013 both contain liquidation provisions, but it has been shown that these laws do little to help businesses reorganise or repay their creditors. Regulations pertaining to personal bankruptcy were set up by the Presidential Towns Insolvency Act of 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920, which were approved about a century ago. The lenders' trust has gradually been lost because of this.

In terms of economic change, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 is considered second only in importance to the Goods and Services Tax. An act of consequential law, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 standardises the rules and laws controlling the dissolution and restructuring of any kind of business or person, regardless of their legal status. The recently passed laws primarily aim to encourage business ownership, make it easier to get a loan, and guarantee that everyone's interests are fairly and evenly distributed. The goal will be accomplished by streamlining and improving the rules for individual, partnership, and company bankruptcy reorganisation and resolution within a certain time limit. Maximising the value of their assets while efficiently handling any associated matters is the main objective. The goal is to unify the various bankruptcy laws that exist today for people, limited liability companies (including LLPs and other LL entities), and partnerships with unlimited liability. By making rules more clear and unifying them, we can make sure that everyone affected by a company going bankrupt or a debt being unpaid gets treated fairly.

Risks of Coronavirus:

In light of the serious public health concern posed by the worldwide spread of the coronavirus, the Government of India (GOI) decided to implement a countrywide closure. The government has launched a plethora of programmes in an effort to achieve the "Atmanirbhar Bharat Yojana." The continuing worldwide epidemic has wreaked havoc on financial markets around the world and subjected people to physical and mental anguish. A rise in the unemployment rate and a fall in income have resulted from this major interruption to the company's operations. Yet, this closure has had a disproportionately negative effect on MSME, or micro, small, and medium-sized businesses. Decisions regarding corporate creditors, contractual duties, and fresh insolvency processes followed as a result of the crucial need to preserve the status quo. The government of India has launched a number of programmes to address the country's complicated market conditions and lower the probability of corporate insolvency. These include things like making loans available, launching stimulus initiatives, and updating the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with new laws and regulations. The Resolution, which amends the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, was retroactively executed by the President on June 5, 2020. An organisation that has suddenly stopped operations and cannot pay its debts may be in danger of going bankrupt if the Ordinance is not followed.

  1. The Ordinance adds Section 10A to the IBC, 2016 so that Section 7 (which deals with financial creditors' insolvency applications) might be temporarily suspended.
  2. The insolvency petition filed by a creditor who is presently engaged in business activities is specifically addressed in Section 9 of the text.
  3. The corporate debtor's voluntary insolvency petition is addressed directly in Section 10 of the document.
  4. Amendment to subsection (3) of section 66, which forbids a Resolution Professional ("RP") from launching an application under subsection (2) of section 66 involving the unethical or dishonest dealings of the director or partner of the corporate debtor.

The six-month term that follows the payment failures (henceforth the Suspension term) begins on or after March 25, 2020. The government has the authority to prolong the Suspension Period for a maximum of one year through a notification, as stated in the Ordinance. Consequently, the government has made an effort to enact targeted policies that will help firms recover more quickly and with less stress.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Ordinance (Amendment) for 2020

If the default happened before March 25, 2020, bankruptcy proceedings can be launched per Section 10A of the IBC Amendments. The bankruptcy court will keep hearing cases even after the 180-day January deadline has passed. There has to be some connection between the default choice and COVID-19 for avoiding or getting around the problem to be possible. There is a clause that temporarily suspends corporate activities for six months, with the option of an extension to one year starting on March 25, and the main concern is that debtors could use this to avoid insolvency procedures. The only option is for the default to remain open until it is fully paid off or settled according to the agreed-upon terms and conditions. No matter what happens during the suspension time, it will automatically remain in effect even after the period ends.

The major goal of this law was to provide aid to companies with outstanding debts that have suffered losses due to the widespread interruption of their economic activities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The operational creditor, who may include a transferee or legal assignee, has the right to an operational debt and may seek recoupment through a civil lawsuit during the suspension period. One other option is for the corporate debenturers to willingly sell off their assets via the winding-up process that was established on April 1, 2020, by the Companies (Winding up) Rules of 2020 and the Companies Act of 2013.

Operational creditors are obligated to serve the corporate debtor with a demand notice. Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 states that the demand notice must have been delivered by the notification date of 25 March 2020 for the operational creditor to be qualified to make an application under section 9. The only change has been made to ensure that the amount in default is greater than 1 crore. Following an increase from 1 lakh, the minimum threshold for default was raised by the Amendment Ordinance of 2020. To protect micro, small, and medium-sized businesses (MSMEs) from the closure's detrimental effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the threshold limit was raised. The submission of a section 9 application will be barred if the demand notification is received after March 25, 2020. The crime of participating in fraudulent or unlawful trade, defined as dealings made with the aim to deceive the creditors of a financially troubled organisation, is dealt with in Section 66 of the statute. The goal is to find out who did these fraudulent transactions and make sure they pay for it. Directors and partners are obligated to contribute to the assets of the debtor as stated in Section 2 of the clause. This situation arises when the Resolution specialist starts the application process and finds out that the director or partner did not do their homework before the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) started, or that they deliberately misled creditors with their business activities. While the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) is halted under Section 10A, directors and associates are protected from any legal culpability under Clause 3 in the event of default.

Clause 3 of section 66 was added so that enterprise directors and associates can continue to operate in the market throughout the pandemic without fear of personal liability in the event that the company fails. It is essential to prioritise the economic development of individuals and businesses if we want to see economic growth on a national scale. The recently passed ordinance's prospective effects on the future, rather than the past, are the subject of the current discussion. Following lengthy precedent and generally accepted rules of law, the Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the S.L. case. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills v. Union of India established that laws are presumed to continue in effect indefinitely until specifically declared differently. Rather than a substantial alteration, the current understanding of the higher threshold limit is attributed to judicial action because it was imposed by notification. The ban on Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) for term loans has been extended by an extra three months, according to a notice issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on May 23, 2020. Now that section 7 gives financial creditors a full six months to wait out legal action or intervention, its suspension isn't necessary. However, operational creditors are unfairly disadvantaged by the law compared to financial creditors, who have already received a moratorium from the RBI.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)'s Kolkata and Chennai Benches announced orders pertaining to M/s. on March 20, 2020. In the case of M/s. Foseco India Limited v. In relation to M/s. There was a shutdown at Om Boseco Rail Products Limited on June 2, 2020. Conflicting with M/s. Products (P) Arrowline Organics Ltd. This matter has been clarified by Rockwell Industries Limited. The Adjudicating Authorities deliberated and concluded that the delegate lacked clear authority to retroactively deliver the contested notification under the Act. It was concluded that the message sent out on March 24, 2020, was only relevant to events that might happen. Consequently, it is now possible to use the minimum threshold limit of default to determine eligibility for consideration in current cases before various Adjudicating Authorities across the nation.

Protecting companies by giving them a chance to recover in the event of their financial or operational collapse is the main goal of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). As stated in Section 10, corporate debtors have the power to independently start the CIRP process and petition to maximise assets for the benefit of all parties involved.

After the Finance Minister made major changes to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, the present insolvency and bankruptcy procedure has certain unclear parts. Mainly, the ideas of "wrongful trading" and "default" have been changed.

When the COVID-19 pandemic ended

Restructuring companies is made easier by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which is an essential part of India's economic recovery after the epidemic. In 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was passed with the intention of creating a thorough legal framework that could effectively handle cases of financial hardship and insolvency. Its importance has grown in the wake of the global pandemic.

Corporate restructuring, a key component of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), has had a significant and positive impact on tackling the complex challenges caused by the pandemic. Unprecedented disruptions caused financial challenges and operational hurdles for a multitude of businesses across a wide range of industries. These businesses must take advantage of the chance for corporate restructuring given by the IBC if they want to adapt to the new economic climate by rethinking their strategies, streamlining their operations, and optimising their organisational structures.

The current management team would continue to run the show under the debtor-in-possession framework that the IBC is advocating for, with the help of insolvency experts supervising the reorganisation process. A more effective and efficient restructuring process is made possible by letting the current management use their experience and talents, which ensures a smooth transfer.

Specifically, the code stresses the importance of time-constrained procedures within the framework of company dissolution. Time limits for resolving disputes are imposed by the IBC, which promotes a feeling of urgency and determination among the parties involved and discourages long delays. Businesses facing pandemic-related challenges can greatly benefit from the time-constrained methodology, which allows them to quickly implement reorganisation measures and get back on their feet financially.

In addition, the competitive tendering procedure ensures that financially solid organisations, often motivated by strategic goals, acquire problematic businesses, which is a crucial part of the IBC's resolution mechanism. For the struggling company's financial recovery, job security, and economic value preservation—all in line with India's larger goals of economic rejuvenation—the injection of new cash and managerial skills is essential.

Corporate restructuring is made more effective by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) due to the proliferation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). To ensure a fair and open resolution, these institutions provide a specialised and efficient method of dispute resolution. Investor and creditor confidence is bolstered by these firms' competency, which improves the effective implementation of reorganisation strategies. The impact of the IBC on India's economy will last long after the crisis has passed, thanks to the restructuring of many firms and other measures taken in response. A stricter and more aggressive attitude to managing money has been institutionalised. More and more, companies are realising how critical it is to spot financial problems early on. As a structured framework that offers a disincentive, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) serves to prevent reckless financial behaviour.

Particularly important for India's economic recovery after the pandemic is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which deals with business reorganisation. The steps taken help create a more robust, adaptable, and responsible corporate environment while simultaneously helping troubled enterprises get back on their feet quickly. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) establishes a thorough framework for efficiently addressing the complexities of corporate reorganisation in the face of unprecedented global challenges, which greatly aids India's economic recovery.

In conclusion,

Investors' interests in a company are consistently protected under the IBC, 2016. A series of decisive measures has been prompted by the pressing need to protect the COVID-19 situation. The code must be updated to provide for the efficient restructuring and settlement of insolvency issues within a given time frame in order to optimise asset value in light of the dynamic nature of the business environment. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a set of rules and regulations put in place to help companies and keep them from going bankrupt. Despite the reasonable goals behind the changes, many of the improvements are too narrow in scope and will cause problems for everyone concerned in the end. The relaxations should not target particular groups but rather be inclusive and considerate of all individuals. Therefore, it is critical to carefully examine the suggested changes. In the future, the legislature is likely to be seen as the best way to keep the government organised into pre-packs. The trajectory is challenging, but with some tweaks it might be feasible to incorporate the pre-pack protocol into the Code without a hitch.


Website References

Statutory References

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
  • The Companies Act, 2013
  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Amendement (Ordinance), 2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.