Navigating the Time-Bound Maze
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Shapes a Strategic Path Forward
Harsh Dabas, IIIrd Year Law Student at USLLS, GGSIPU
Dhruv Kalia, IIIrd Year Law Student at NUALS Kochi
Introduction
The legal landscape surrounding Insolvency and Bankruptcy underwent a pivotal moment with a recent ruling RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar (2023) ibclaw.in 102 SC that underscored the time-bound nature of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). At the heart of the matter was the assertion that the IBC inherently operates as a “time-bound process.” The court’s meticulous analysis weighed arguments which advocated for the inclusion of a contingent claims clause in the resolution plan, drawing parallels with precedent.
However, the court deemed such provisions unnecessary in this instance, as the resolution plan had been meticulously crafted in alignment with the information memorandum. The court did not outright prohibit such claims but emphasized the need for a case-by-case evaluation, recognizing the potential for unfounded claims to disrupt the insolvency process. This article aims to analyze this ruling and how it impacts the IBC Sphere.
The Emphasis on IBC Timelines
In this ruling, the Court has clearly emphasized the important notion that the IBC is a “time-bound process” by nature. RPS argued, based on State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 140 SC, that a clause accounting for contingent claims ought to be included in the resolution plan. According to this interpretation, any claim filed by RPS that is not covered by the contingent claim clause will be deemed invalid if the appeal is finally dismissed and the award is finalized.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the inclusion of provisions for dependent claims was superfluous in this case, since the resolution plan had been carefully drafted in accordance with the information memorandum. Consequently, the statutory intent of the IBC is adhered to by the Supreme Court’s reliance on the Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorized Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) ibclaw.in 07 SC, which issued a warning against admitting claims after the Committee of Creditors (COC) approved the resolution plan.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not come to the conclusion that claims that were approved by the COC must not be entertained right away. Rather, it recognized that the deadline might be extended in certain situations. The Court emphasized that these extensions have to be assessed individually, depending on the particular merits of every case. The Supreme Court appropriately determined that the 287-day delay in submitting the claim in this case constituted a considerable delay in the given setting. Additionally, the Court used the word “vigilant” very wisely when it claimed that RPS ought to have been watchful in recognizing KST’s insolvency proceedings. This justification is based on the assumption that RPS ought to have known about KST’s participation in the CIRP and ought to have initiated their claim. The overarching concern is that allowing claims following a resolution plan’s approval could potentially open the door for unfounded claims to disrupt the process.
Other laws set out more specific requirements as to what information is required in relation to the debtor’s financial situation and the proposals that can be included in a plan. Information on the financial situation of the debtor could include asset and liability statements; cash flow statements; and information relating to the causes or reasons for the financial situation of the debtor. Information relating to what is proposed by the plan could include, depending upon the objective of the plan and the circumstances of a particular debtor.
It further details on classes of claims; claims modified or affected under the plan and the treatment to be accorded to each class under the plan; the continuation or rejection of contracts that are not fully executed; the treatment of unexpired leases; measures and arrangements for dealing with the debtor’s assets (e.g. transfer, liquidation or retention); the sale or other treatment of encumbered assets; the disclosure and acceptance procedure; the rights of disputed claims to take part in the voting and provisions for disputed claims to be resolved; arrangements concerning personnel of the debtor; remuneration of management of the debtor; financing implementation of the plan; extension of the maturity date or a change in the interest rate or other term of outstanding security interests; the role to be played by the debtor in implementation of the plan and identification of those to be responsible for future management of the debtor’s business; the settlement of claims and how the amount that creditors will receive will be more than they would have received in liquidation; payment of interest on claims; distribution of all or any part of the assets of the estate among those having an interest in those assets; possible changes to the instrument or organic document constituting the debtor (e.g. changes to by-laws or articles of association) or the capital structure of the debtor or merger or consolidation of the debtor with one or more persons; the basis upon which the business will be able to keep trading and can be successfully reorganized; supervision of the implementation of the plan; and the period of implementation of the plan, including in some cases a statutory maximum period.
Rather than specifying a wide range of detailed information to be included in a plan, it may be desirable for the insolvency law to identify the minimum content of a plan, focusing upon the key objectives of the plan and procedures for implementation. For example, the insolvency law may require the plan to detail the classes of creditors and the treatment each is to be accorded in the plan; the terms and conditions of the plan (such as treatment of contracts and the ongoing role of the debtor); and what is required for implementation of the plan (such as sale of assets or parts of the business, extension of maturity dates, changes to capital structure of the business and supervision of implementation).
The Solved Problem; The End of the Endless Loop
It is worth emphasizing that while the COC had approved the plan, it was still pending approval from the adjudicating authority. The Supreme Court adopted the position that the fact that the plan was pending approval of the adjudicating authority should not result in a perpetual oscillation, which would effectively transform the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) into an unending ordeal. Implicitly, this underscores the Court’s continued respect for the commercial judgment exercised by the COC, upholding the significance of the COC’s approval in the CIRP Process.
With a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has made a significant contribution to maintaining the IBC’s time-bound nature. By doing this, it has confirmed the need of following procedures carefully and the vital function of the IRP. It is imperative that claimants, such as RPS Infrastructure, take extra care in their representations, since the Court correctly noted that the IRP had complied with due procedure in its claim collection. The obvious 287-day wait in this case provides a clear warning about the dangers of admitting claims after the COC has approved them. Doing so might potentially allow an endless stream of claims to be made, sending the CIRP into an endless chasm.
This ruling is a critical turning point in guaranteeing the smooth and timely implementation of the CIRP. It sends a clear message to businesses and individuals to be on the lookout for continuous corporate investigative reporting involving their stakeholders. This decision thus serves as a strong defense against the impending threat of endless CIRP.
Conclusion
The court’s meticulous analysis highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory intent of the IBC, emphasizing the need for a case-by-case evaluation when considering contingent claims in resolution plans.
The decision underscored the significance of timely adherence to the insolvency process, particularly in approving and admitting claims. The Court’s stance on the 287-day delay in submitting a claim serves as a warning against the potential disruption caused by unfounded claims post-approval of a resolution plan. By acknowledging the careful crafting of the resolution plan in alignment with the information memorandum, the Court affirmed the need for vigilance and due diligence in the claims submission process.
Furthermore, the ruling clarified the role of the COC and its approval in the CIRP. While respecting the commercial judgment exercised by the COC, the Court cautioned against perpetual oscillation and the transformation of the CIRP into an unending ordeal.
Disclaimer: The Opinions expressed in this article are that of the author(s). The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in). The entire contents of this document have been prepared on the basis of the information existing at the time of the preparation. The author(s) and IBC Laws (http://www.ibclaw.in) do not take responsibility of the same. Postings on this blog are for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-client relationship.
Follow for daily updates: