In spite of the strong emphasis in IBC regarding time-bound implementation, there have been several challenges that have mired timely implementation of resolution plans.

Systemic challenges

Prolonged litigations post-approval of resolution plans by the committee of creditors – either due to objectors to the plan or limited bandwidth of the adjudicating authority in view of paucity of judicial members – often lead to a significant delay in plan approval and, consequently, implementation. Time is of the essence in commercial transactions.

It is also pertinent to highlight that there has been a reluctance by several sector regulators to accept the primacy of provisions of IBC in the context of resolution and settlement of dues under approved resolution plans. With regulators in mining, electricity and telecommunications sectors not providing timely approvals critical for implementing resolution plans on account of insistence for payment of pre-insolvency dues, resolution applicants are increasingly wary of challenges in the implementation of approved plans in companies having government concessions, grants and allotments.

With a resolution professional (an independent person introduced to run the company undergoing insolvency) being dependent on cooperation from the former management and personnel for disclosure of information to prospective resolution applicants, it is critical for adjudicating authority to expeditiously provide directions of cooperation and disclosure in applications filed by resolution professionals under section 19 of IBC in instances, where co-operation is not forthcoming.

Other challenges

The IBC does not provide any material consequence for the erring resolution applicants, such as disqualification or exemplary monetary liability. The sole recourse of creditors in such circumstances is seeking the invocation of the performance guarantee and filing a complaint with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India or the central government to initiate a complaint under section 74 of IBC, which may result in imprisonment and/or penalty up to INR10 million (USD135,000).

The absence of any provision in the IBC regarding the effect of resolution applicant reneging from its commitments in the period between approval by the CoC and approval by the adjudicating authority is a gaping lacuna that has been sought to be exploited by several resolution applicants. Such withdrawal from resolution plan implementation, if allowed, would render the entire resolution process futile. The Supreme Court is seized on several such matters is expected to settle the jurisprudence on this issue soon.

Suggestions on the way forward

A comprehensive and robust framework regarding the implementation of resolution plans is thus the need of the hour. While the Supreme Court has settled the jurisprudence on the limited role of adjudicating authority to only verify legal compliance of the approved resolution plans without interfering in commercial wisdom, providing a mandatory legislative timeline for adjudication of resolution plans and administrative directions necessary compliance is likely to aid in time-bound resolution. It is equally important for the central government to fill vacancies of adjudicating members so that infrastructural challenges plaguing the adjudicating authority are resolved.

The adjudicating authority under IBC may be vested with the power to act as a single-window clearance with powers to direct sector regulators to consider and grant approvals in a time-bound manner during the pendency of the proceedings for approval of the resolution plan. The authority may immediately adjudicate and decide on any issue of withholding of approval by any sector regulator contrary to the scheme and objects of the IBC.

This article was originally published in Asia Business Law Journal on 3 September Written by: Saurav Panda, Partner. Click here for original article

Read Less-