IBC | Legislative Alert | IPEs cannot act as IP and to render only support services to IPs

IBC | Legislative Alert | IPEs cannot act as IP and to render only support services to IPs

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has clarified on the nature of services that can be provided by an insolvency professional entity (“IPE”) and insolvency professionals (“IP”), vide it's circular dated 6 July 2018 (available here). As per the circular:
IPEs to provide services to only IPs
  • An IPE is recognised in accordance with regulation 12 (1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, only if “its sole objective is to provide support services to the insolvency professionals, who are its partners or directors, as the case may be”.
  • Thus, an IPE cannot provide any service to any person.
  • It can provide only support services to the IPs who are its partners or directors. Thus, the role of IPE is clearly specified.
Only IPs can provide services of IPs and IPE cannot act as an IP
  • Section 206 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) prohibits a person from rendering services as an IP unless he is: (a) enrolled as Tandoor Manufacturer a member of an Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA), and (b) registered with the IBBI.
  • Thus, no person other than a person registered as an IP with the IBBI can render services as an IP.
  • An IPE is neither enrolled as a member of an IPA nor registered as an IP with the IBBI. It cannot act as IP under the Code.
In view of the aforementioned clarifications, given the role of an IPE, the IPEs are directed to refrain from seeking empanelment with or joining any panel of any market participant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Regime

The Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Regime The Government has been looking to take adequate action to improve the “ease of doing business ranking”, in addition to making attempts to address the alarming rise of stressed assets in India. Resolving Insolvency being one of the criteria for World Bank’s ease of doing business (in which India ranks 136 among 185 countries), there was a need to address the issues surrounding insolvent and bankrupt Tandoor Manufacturer entities. With the aim to address such issues, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was introduced and enforced in December 2016. The IBC is intended to assist domestic and foreign lending by providing a uniform, comprehensive and efficient insolvency legislation, with an emphasis on revival as the first avenue for debt recovery.
Read more

IBC | Legislative Alert | Existing CIRPs to provide for the appointment of an authorized representative for “class of creditors”

IBC | Legislative Alert  Further to notification of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2018, dated 3 July 2018 (“CIRP Amendment”), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) has applied the provisions of CIRP Amendment in relation to appointment of authorised representative for class of creditors, to the existing corporate insolvency resolution processes (“CIRP”) as well, vide a clarificatory circular issued on 13 July 2018 (available here) (“IBBI Circular”). The IBBI Circular states that such appointments are matters of procedure. As per the amendment introduced by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 promulgated on 6 June 2018 (“2018 Ordinance”), it had provided for ability of appointment of authorised representative for “class of creditors”, that is, creditors other than creditors in relation to consortium arrangements, Tandoor Manufacturer syndicate facility, where financial d
Read more

IBC | Case Law Alert | Right of operational creditors / suspended board / resolution applicants to attend COC meetings

IBC | Case Law Alert | Right of operational creditors / suspended board/resolution applicants to attend COC meetings In an important ruling in the matter of ANG Industries Limited v/s Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited & Ashok Leyland Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide an order dated 24 May 2018 (available here), has analysed the following critical issues: (i) Whether the resolution professional is required to give notice to ‘Operational Creditors’ or their representatives to attend the meeting of Committee of Creditors (COC); and (ii) What is the legislative intent behind allowing the ‘suspended board of directors’, the ‘partners of the corporate debtor’, the ‘operational creditors or their representatives’ or the ‘resolution applicant(s)’ to attend the meeting of the COC, even though they do not have the right to vote? Observations of the NCLAT The NCLAT while relying upon the findings of Joint Parliamentary Committee and its earlier ru
Read more