The dire need for an elaborate Framework for Cross Border Insolvency in India – By Nishal Makharia

The Dire need for an Elaborate Framework for Cross Border Insolvency in India

-By Nishal Makharia

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 What is Cross Border Insolvency?

Cross-border insolvency regulates the treatment of financially distressed debtors where such debtors have assets or creditors in two or more countries.[1] In a general sense, cross-border insolvency deals more with the insolvency of companies that operate in more than one country, rather than bankruptcy of an individual person. Like traditional conflict of laws and rules, cross border insolvency focuses upon three areas, which are as follows:

• choice of law rules,
• jurisdiction rules, and
• enforcement of judgment rules.[2]

However, in relation to insolvency, the principal focus tends to be the recognition of foreign insolvency officials and the powers they possess and exercise.[3]

1.2 Theories used in tackling Cross Border Insolvency

There are broadly three approaches that are used to tackle cross-border insolvency, which are as follows:[4]

• The territorial approach: Under this approach, each country, where the debtor has existing property, exercises its domestic insolvency laws with respect to all the debtor’s property and all of the creditors located in places that fall under its jurisdiction. This approach does not recognise any extraterritorial dimension to insolvency or cross border insolvency law.
• The universalist approach (or universal approach): Under this approach any cross-border insolvencies are initiated under a specific insolvency law, and all of the debtor’s assets are distributed by a single insolvency officer, regardless where the assets, debtors or creditors are located.
• Hybrid approach: A number of hybrid approaches exist in theory or practice, including:
• Modified universalism: Under this approach, individual countries seek to identify the most relevant jurisdiction, under which the insolvency proceeding against the debtor can be carried out, and all other countries opt to cooperate with such proceedings (subject to limits of public policy), in order to expedite the proceedings[5]; or
• Co-operative territorialism, which is broadly predicated on territorial approach affixed by multi-lateral conventions.[6]

The universalist approach remains largely a holistic approach to deal with Cross Border Insolvency and, countries are divided as a majority of them use a purely territorial approach, and there are a few that apply some form of either of the hybrid approach.

1.3 Areas of Conflict

In any attempt for harmonisation or facilitation of the administration of cross border insolvency of corporate entities, domestic insolvency regimes have the option of taking an approach which is completely different on the following points of importance:

• “Secured creditors: Whether or not Insolvency proceedings can operate as a stay upon the enforcement of secured creditor’s rights in relation to the manner of conduct of any proceedings”.
• “Corporate rehabilitation regimes: Insolvency and Bankruptcy systems predicated on trying to carrying out recovery attempt for companies, have a fundamentally different intention to and effect on winding-up procedures that seek to liquidate companies and distribute the proceeds from such liquidation to the creditors of the company”.
• “Set-off rights: While certain countries allow creditors who have mutual claims with the debtor to set-off those claims in full, other countries require the creditors to pay any sums owed to the debtor in full before claiming in the proceedings. There may arise variations, in jurisdictions that permit the carrying out of a set-off, as to whether set-off must be on an individual or group basis”.[7]

 

CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT CROSS BORDER REGIME IN INDIA

2.1 Laws in India regarding Cross Border Insolvency

Currently, the law governing Cross Border Insolvency in India are 2 sections under the IBC, namely Section 234 and Section 235, which are follows:

“234. (1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for enforcing the provisions of this Code.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of provisions of this Code in relation to assets or property of corporate debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, as the case may be, situated at any place in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangements have been made, shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified. [8]

235. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any law for the time being in force if, in the course of insolvency resolution process, or liquidation or bankruptcy proceedings, as the case may be, under this Code, the resolution professional, liquidator or bankruptcy trustee, as the case may be, is of the opinion that assets of the corporate debtor or debtor, including a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor, are situated in a country outside India with which reciprocal arrangements have been made under section 234, he may make an application to the Adjudicating Authority that evidence or action relating to such assets is required in connection with such process or proceeding.

(2) The Adjudicating Authority on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) and, on being satisfied that evidence or action relating to assets under sub-section (1) is required in connection with insolvency resolution process or liquidation or bankruptcy proceeding, may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority of such country competent to deal with such request.” [9]

2.2 Understanding the Law

S. 234- The code allows the Government of India to enter into an agreement with another country for the purposes of this code and cross border insolvency.

S. 235- If under an agreement with another country under S. 234, there is a reciprocal arrangement, an application can be made by a foreign representative or entity, to the adjudicating authority requesting for evidence or an action relating to such assets is required in connection with such process or proceeding. It further provides that the Adjudicating Authority, on satisfaction of the application of sub-section (1), may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority of such country, with whom such an agreement is signed, to deal with such request.

2.3 Complexities in the Law

As of now, there has been no instance where either of the 2 sections have been utilized. No agreement has been signed by the Central Government, nor has any Application been made.

This clearly states the need for a proper Cross Border Insolvency law in India. The 2 sections have not yet been enforced.

A committee was constituted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) on 16 November 2017, called the Insolvency Law Committee (“Committee”), assess  the operations and applications of the Code and identify issues and problems that influence the productivity of the system set i[ for carrying out a corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP”) and liquidation process under the Code.[10] In  report of the Committee which is dated March 2018, the need to re-evaluate the cross border insolvency framework that is currently applicable in India discussed, as it was fragmented, incompetent, incomplete and not as per the current global standards, after looking at the current level of globalisation.[11] The Committee also noted that even the Report that was submitted by the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, which is said to have laid down the foundation for the Code as we see today, had discussed and recommended the dire need for a legal framework with regards to cross border insolvency after the Code was set up and showing a smooth and proper functioning.[12]

The IBBI report of the Insolvency Law Committee stated the following:

“The Committee noted the need for a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework. It was discussed that adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is a complex exercise and requires detailed research of the manner of such adoption in international jurisdictions, and the approach to be adopted for India. Thus, the recommendations vis-à-vis a cross-border insolvency framework will be provided separately, after such exercise has been undertaken.”[13]

The UNCITRAL Model Law is said to be a regulation that has proven to be one of the most adopted regime for cross border insolvency throughout the world. The Model Law gained approval from UNCITRAL in the year 1997 and from that time, it has been adopted in over than 44 countries throughout the world, w of which countries like the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.[14] However, it is understandable that if we, in India, are to adopt the Model Law, a heavily detailed study and discussion would be required to get it in accordance with get it in accordance with Code, and hence it was decided by the Committee that they shall provide their recommendations Cross Border Insolvency in another report, which was released by them in October 2018, which was called the IBBI Report on Cross Border Insolvency.[15]

After carrying out an analysis of the framework as mentioned in the UNCITRAL Model Law, the Committee has advised that the UNCITRAL Model Law can be accepted as a viable framework, but after making relevant changed to it. A detailed study of the current regulations, namely Section 234 and 235in India that speak about cross border insolvency have not been talked about in an extensive manner. It is sufficient to say that present sections in the Code with respect to cross border insolvency which provide for signing a bilateral agreements with another country, and issuance of letters of request to foreign courts, with whom such a bilateral agreement is signed, by Adjudicating Authorities under the Code resulted in an ad-hoc mechanism that was prone to delay and severe uncertainty for not only creditors and debtors, but for the courts that are or could be involved with respect to the matter as well. Even under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”), the mechanism for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the is not viable enough to cover all decrees and judgments regarding insolvency, causing several judgments and decrees in a cross border insolvency process to not be enforced  in India.[16]

The Code does not contain any specific provision on how Indian authorities would provide or ask for assistance to or from foreign authorities or how the Indian authorities would recognize and deal with debtors that are undergoing insolvency proceedings in multiple countries. Although the two sections that speak about cross border insolvency were notified on 30 March, 2017, they do have not had any immediate impact on the resolution of insolvent companies with cross border interest, except that the Adjudicating Authority can now issue a letter of request as given in section 235.

2.4 Need for a proper regulatory framework

Indian Markets are becoming a sought market-to-enter for a large number of foreign investors, which is why it is important to have a procedure that ensures that companies and corporates based in foreign countries can exercise the similar and full rights to collect their dues just like Indian entities have. With the rapid increase in globalisation, we can see that there is an extremely noticeable climb in activities of investments from one country to the other throughout the world. In such a setting, issues of insolvency can have large-scale global consequences. An argument has long been made to provide a framework for coordination and co-operation between judicial authorities with respect to insolvency situated in different countries, with the viewpoint of negating any situation that can cause a conflict of law and to secure and expand the worth of the assets that are owned by the debtor. It is absolutely sure that the only thing that can improve trade and investment between two countries is setting up an elaborate and detailed regime to tackle the issue of cross border insolvency. Recognition of foreign proceedings with regards to insolvency are one of the primary objective to address cross border insolvency for any legal. Currently, the laws of India only have provisions which approve the recognition of judgments and decrees of some countries, such as the UK and Singapore (provided by section 13 and 44A of the CPC) that have a reciprocity clause with India, however, till date, there is no data that shows that recognition has been accorded to proceedings of other countries, including proceedings that are related to insolvency.[17]

2.5 Implementation and issues of the current regulatory framework

The aim of the mechanism that is set up for reciprocal arrangement appears to be reducing the red-tapism across borders, that exists in the judicial system, which should function hand-in-hand with the greater objective, that is the recovery of debts under the Code in a very timely manner. Strong attempts have been made to streamline and smoothen the cooperation between resolution professional’s liquidators in India and insolvency administrators from foreign countries and allow for easier and smooth-flowing access to assets of entities undergoing insolvency in India, that are situated in foreign countries, or the same thing other way round. However, in order for reciprocal agreement to be put in place, extensive levels of discussion and negotiations need to be carried out between the countries that are looking forward to sign such a reciprocal agreement, however, one of the most noticeable and agreeable contention is that signing reciprocal agreements will not be as effective as there being an uniform code being present. It is obvious that each and every reciprocal agreement will have significant differences, some of which may be minor, whereas some may be drastic. It is highly possible that these differences that will exist in the reciprocal agreements will cause some grave complications in the manner in which insolvency proceedings are carried out, and how the distributions off the debtor’s assets will take place when such assets are located in several foreign countries  It is also possible that a mechanism that is set under a reciprocal agreement may fail to address issues with respect to the co-ordination and recognition of insolvency proceedings that have been commenced in several jurisdictions and involve multiple branches of a single entity.

Issues relating to cross border insolvency in India, have previously been examined by the two committees, namely:

1. Eradi Committee (2000) (“Eradi Committee Report”), and
2. NL Mitra Committee (2001) (“NL Mitra Committee Report”).

In the year 2000, the high level committee, that was being headed by retired Justice V Balakrishna Eradi, that was debating on the laws that speak about the insolvency and winding up of companies, gave a suggestion which said that there is a need to amend the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in order to incorporate some really important articles that are mentioned in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, that has been accepted by the United Nations through a resolution passed by the General Assembly =in 1997. The Report of the advisory group that was head b yDr. NL Mitra, on insolvency bankruptcy laws, is said to be one of the most elaborate report that speaks about the cross border insolvency laws that are present in India. In one way or the other, both the committees recommended adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law in India, with necessary amendments incorporated.[18]

The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the IBC, while discussing the IBC, stated that the Code can be considered to be incomplete if the Code is not amended and no provision with respect to cross border insolvency are added to it, and hence, two new sections were added, which stated the following:

1. Section 234: Agreements with foreign countries and
2. Section 235: Letter of request to a country outside India in certain cases.

After taking into consideration

the difficulties that may arise when dealing with a case of insolvency with cross border properties, and also taking into account that there is currently no elaborate regulation for insolvency and bankruptcy, it is extremely important to tackle them one at a time. Even while focusing on insolvency matters with respect to India only, the Committee did acknowledge that there is a dire need for a cross border insolvency regime in the final report submitted by them.^[19]

Shri T.K. Viswanathan, during the course of deposition before the Committee stated as under: “The UNCITRAL and other international conventions are debating that India should become a party to cross border insolvency. We have not so far formalized our views because first we want to put this Bill and the court into action and then explore how best we should handle that. So, we have not fully formalized our views on that”. [20]

 

CHAPTER 3: WHAT REGIME SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN INDIA

3.1 The IBBI Report on Cross Border Insolvency

A committee was constituted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) on 16 November 2017, called the Insolvency Law Committee (“Committee”), assess  the operations and applications of the Code and identify issues and problems that influence the productivity of the system set i[ for carrying out a corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP”) and liquidation process under the Code.[21] In  report of the Committee which is dated March 2018, the need to re-evaluate the cross border insolvency framework that is currently applicable in India discussed, as it was fragmented, incompetent, incomplete and not as per the current global standards, after looking at the current level of globalisation.[22] The Committee also noted that even the Report that was submitted by the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, which is said to have laid down the foundation for the Code as we see today, had discussed and recommended the dire need for a legal framework with regards to cross border insolvency after the Code was set up and showing a smooth and proper functioning.[23]

The reports that were mentioned previously, the UNCITRAL Model Law was highly recommended as a framework that could be adopted as it was one of the most accepted regime for cross border insolvency. UNCITRAL approved and accepted the Model Law in 1997 and ever since its approval by UNCITRAL, more than 44 countries, including countries United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, have adopted the Model Law after making changes in accordance with their domestic law.[24] However, it is understandable that if we, in India, are to adopt the Model Law, a heavily detailed study and discussion would be required to get it in accordance with get it in accordance with Code, and hence it was decided by the Committee that they shall provide their recommendations Cross Border Insolvency in another report, which was released by them in October 2018, which was called the IBBI Report on Cross Border Insolvency.[25]

In the next Chapter, i.e. Chapter 3.2, we will be discussing the UNCITRAL Model Law and the way in which it can be adopted.

3.2 Adopting The UNCITRAL Model Law in India

The UNCITRAL Model Law provides us with a basic framework and procedure as to how to go about in the case of Cross Border Insolvency. The Model Law, has been drafted in a really interesting manner. It has been drafted keeping in mind the international standards, and has been able to maintain a very good amount of flexibility. The Model Law, can be adopted in India, and can be changed or modified to be in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This is why, along with other reasons, the reports of the committees, one headed by Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi and the other by NL Mitra, suggested that we should adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency. It is a ready framework, accepted in over 40 countries. This Model law, if adopted, will radically change the orientation of Indian law and make it suitable for dealing with the challenges arising from globalization and increasing integration of Indian economy with the world economy.

The law in India, in its current existence, has provisions only for recognising of judgments from foreign jurisdictions. Neither the Civil Procedure Code nor any other law deals with the recognition of foreign proceedings. The UNCITRAL Model law does tend to this deficit in the Indian Laws. The Model law defines “foreign proceeding” as a “collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a foreign State, including an interim proceeding, pursuant to a law relating to insolvency in which proceeding the assets and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purpose of reorganisation or liquidation”. In this regard, it may be added, the definition of “foreign judgment” that is given in the CPC is also not quite efficient when it comes to dealing with situations.[26]

There are a few drawbacks with the UNCITRAL, for example, reciprocity is not defined under the Model Law, but due to the flexibility of the Model Law, in India, if we adopt the Model Law, a reciprocity clause can be added.

Reciprocity can be defined with an example: let’s say there are 2 countries- Country A and Country B. Country A has adopted the Model Law, but Country B has not. A cross border insolvency proceeding can be initiated in Country A by a representative or competent authority from Country B, but the other way is not possible. If a reciprocity clause is added, this can be changed.

Another drawback that arises in defining the COMI is that as many of the recognition, coordination and cooperation provisions that are present in the Model Law depend on how an insolvency proceeding going on in a foreign country is classified, and there are only two options, which are as follows:

1. foreign main proceeding or
2. non-main proceeding.

The determination of “centre of main interests” or “COMI” of the debtor also has valuable importance, as that will help immensely in identifying a proceeding as “foreign main proceeding” or “foreign non-main proceeding”. However, there is a possibility for encountering several difficulties while determining ‘Centre of Main Interest’, especially with regards to MNCs, who have a business setup in foreign countries, which would also mean that they have assets in those countries. The UNCITRAL Model Law does not contain a specific definition for ‘Centre of Main Interest’, which can lead to a certain amount of confusion, but it does mention that there is a refutable assumption that ‘Centre of Main Interest’ can be said to be the location at which debtor has its registered office located. 

Since the UNCITRAL Model Law does not contain any guidance provision for the factors that could invalidate this assumption, numerous courts have given their own interpretations on what can be considered to be ‘Centre of Main Interest’, however, these interpretations provide a really broad scope to the definition. If the UNCITRAL Model Law this is to be adopted in India, it would be immensely helpful if the legislation adopted in India could give a much clearer understanding of what can constitute ‘Centre of Main Interest’, which would help in the determination of ‘Centre of Main Interest’ in actual practice. Particularly, while there can be a presumption that ‘Centre of Main Interest’ can be the where the debtor had been incorporated, this presumption is refutable, on the basis of several factors, which are inclusive of place where the debtor’s principal economic activities and operations take place and places where the assets of the debtor are located. Such provisions could help minimize the confusion over the determination of ‘Centre of Main Interest’ and also provide guidance to Indian courts and tribunals making this determination.[27]

The problems that have been noted above and possibly several more must be reviewed with utmost care when it comes to determining how to UNCITRAL Model Law should be adopted in order to suit specific needs with respect to India.  However, these cannot be considered to be reason reasons to be considered for not adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law, but rather these are the things that the Model Law may need to improved and amended to ensure that the implementation of the UNCITRAL Model Law is the most effective. As a matter of fact, the UNCITRAL Model Law provides an excellent point of initiation as India considers adopting provisions relating to issues of cross border insolvency in accordance with its domestic legislation by providing a vigorous procedural framework that addresses the difficulties that arise when it comes to cross border insolvencies. 

The Model Law provides an elaborate framework to facilitate a much more effective and harmonized character for carrying out cases with respect to cross border insolvency where an debtor who is insolvent, has assets or debts in more than one countries. The feature of the Model Law that can be said to one of its best feature is that it does not mandate a substantive unification of laws and gives due respect to the differences that may be there between the domestic insolvency laws, by allowing the implementation by allowing countries to modify it, as may be required by the country in order to make the UNCITRAL Model Law compatible with the domestic insolvency law of the country. The entire law is based on four key principles, which are as follows:

1. the access principle,
2. the recognition principle,
3. the relief principle and
4. the co-ordination principle.

In accordance with what was practiced earlier, the Insolvency Law Committee consolidated views and recommendations from a large number of shareholders based, on a draft of the cross border insolvency regulation, which is an amended version of the UNCITRAL Model Law in accordance with the Code, that was released and for which public comments were requested. The Committee discussed upon several issues, and considered best practice that is carried out at an international level, legal principles of India and relevant material prepared by the UNCITRAL including the texts issued by UNCITRAL for guidance on the Model Law, Reports of the UNCITRAL Working Groups that formulated the Model Law and other international jurisprudence. Based on this detailed study, the Committee has prepared its Report which recommends adoption of the Model Law with certain modifications. The proposed draft is annexed along with the Report and is called “draft Part Z”.

Additionally, certain amendments to the Code shall also be required to be made to streamline the inclusion of draft Part Z in the Code For example, (i) sections 234 and 235 may be amended to exclude corporate debtors; (ii) section 60 may be amended to allow transfer of domestic proceedings to the Adjudicating Authority notified under the draft Part Z in relevant instances; (iii) the inspection and investigation powers of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) may need to be amended to include a suitable mechanism for investigation and adjudication of penalties against foreign representatives; (iv) section 196 may be amended to include regulation of foreign representatives within the functions of the IBBI; and (v) additional rule and regulation making power will need to be incorporated in sections 239 and 240, respectively; (vi) the 11th Schedule may be amended based on the decision to amend section 375(3)(b) of the Companies Act (“2013 Act”), as discussed in paragraph 1.3 below; (vii) Preamble to the Code may be amended to reflect inclusion of cross-border insolvency under the Code. Suitable amendments to subordinate legislations under the Code may also be required.

The report then goes on to discuss the following:

• Access to be granted to a foreign representative.
• Recognition of a foreign proceeding and its relief.
• Cooperation with foreign courts and foreign representatives.

At the end of the report, the committee, along with the report, submitted “Draft part Z”, which is the draft of the UNCITRAL Model Law with proposed changes, in order to make it more efficient, and to achieve more cooperation with other statutes. Since the release of this report, no update has been provided with regards to the UNCITRAL Model Law being enforced in India.

Conclusion

In recent times, India is becoming a really popular destination for foreign investors, MNCs, Foreign companies. They are allowed to conduct business in India, provided they stay within the laws of India. Same way, they have the right to have a proper insolvency proceeding to be carried out in India. Also, many India Investors have investments in foreign companies, several Indian companies have establishments in foreign countries. They also have a right to initiate insolvency proceedings in other countries. But, in India, there is no provision/legislation/framework which will help all the people coming under this ambit to initiate insolvency. Not only that, it will indirectly help in increasing cross border trade. Adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency seems to be the best option currently, as it is a ready framework, it is drafted to be flexible and hence can be altered to suit the domestic law on insolvency.

Indian insolvency laws do not have any extra-territorial jurisdiction, nor do they recognize the jurisdiction of foreign Courts in respect of any immovable property situated in India. Therefore, keeping every aspect into consideration, it is pertinent to enact a separate Insolvency Code in India. The same can also be sufficed by adopting UNCITRAL Model Law in new Companies Act as a Schedule. With these inclusion, most of the deficiency of Indian insolvency laws can be cured successfully. Indian laws need to be potent enough to deal with the complexity of insolvency matters and to foster hassle free economic growth.[28]

 

About the Author:

Nishal Makharia,
Recruited by Wadia Ghandy & Co. as an associate, and a graduate in the course of B.B.A., LL.B (hons.) from NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.

Reference:

[1] Ian Fletcher: Insolvency in Private International Law (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005) available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[2] Andrew Keay and Peter Walton: Insolvency Law, p. 385 (2nd ed. Jordans, 2011) available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[3] “Cross Border Insolvency”, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[4] Andrew Keay and Peter Walton: Insolvency Law, p. 386 (2nd ed. Jordans, 2011) available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[5] Jay Westbrook “Global Solution to Multinational Default”  (Michigan Law Review) [2000] available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[6] Lynn LoPucki “Cooperation in International Bankruptcy: A Post-Universalist Approach” [1999] available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency, accesses on 3^rd February 2020

[7] “Cross Border Insolvency”, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_insolvency accessed on 13^th February 2020.

[8] Section 234, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, available at https://www.ibbi.gov.in/legal-framework/act

[9] Section 235, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, available at https://www.ibbi.gov.in/legal-framework/act

[10] Order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, November 16, 2017, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/constitutionOrder_17112017.pdf   

[11] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, pg. 5, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March 26^th 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[12] Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, paragraph 2, Volume I, November 2015, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[13] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, pg. 13, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March 26^th 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[14] Status, The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/1997Model_status.html, last accessed on 12 September 2018. 

[15] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, pg. 5, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March 26^th 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[16] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, “Report of Insolvency Law Committee on Cross Border Insolvency”, pg. 13, October 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[17] Abhishek Saxena, “Cross-Border Insolvency: Breaking Down The Indian Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016”, July 15, 2016 https://www.mondaq.com/india/InsolvencyBankruptcyRe-structuring/506600/Cross-Border-Insolvency-Breaking-Down-The-Indian-Insolvency-And-Bankruptcy-Code-2016, accessed on March 1, 2020

[18] Abhishek Saxena, “Cross-Border Insolvency: Breaking Down the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016”, July 15, 2016 https://www.mondaq.com/india/InsolvencyBankruptcyRe-structuring/506600/Cross-Border-Insolvency-Breaking-Down-The-Indian-Insolvency-And-Bankruptcy-Code-2016, accessed on March 1, 2020

[19] “IBBI needs a framework to resolve cross border insolvency- study” https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/ibbi-needs-a-framework-to-resolve-cross-border-insolvency-study-117091200133_1.html, accessed on March 7, 2020

[20] “Report of the Joint Committee on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code”, Lok Sabha, pg. 44, April 2016, available at https://www.ibbi.gov.in/

[21] Order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, November 16, 2017, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/constitutionOrder_17112017.pdf   

[22] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, pg. 5, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March 26^th 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[23] Report of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, paragraph 2, Volume I, November 2015, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[24] Status, The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/1997Model_status.html, last accessed on 12 September 2018. 

[25] Report of the Insolvency Law Committee, pg. 5, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, March 26^th 2018, available at http://www.mca.gov.in/.

[26] NL Mitra Committee Report on Bankruptcy, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?ID=225

[27] https://indiacorplaw.in/2016/05/filling-in-gaps-in-insolvency-and.html

[28] 2010 3 MLJ 114, Madras Law Journal, CROSS BORDER INSOLVENCY LAWS IN INDIA: NEED FOR AN URGENT REFORM

 

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.