The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: finance

  • The Insolvency Blind Spot: Why India Needs a Tailored Resolution Framework for Cooperative Banks

    The Insolvency Blind Spot: Why India Needs a Tailored Resolution Framework for Cooperative Banks

    SOMESH RAI, FIFTH- YEAR STUDENT AT DBRANLU, SONEPAT

    INTRODUCTION

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’) was brought in the year 2016. The IBC brought in speed, certainty, and transparency, and for a while, it seemed that India had finally bridged the gaps in its insolvency regime. However, the events of 2020 exposed a critical blind spot in this seemingly comprehensive framework. Even as the IBC extended its ambit to corporate entities, partnerships, and individuals, cooperative banks, an important financial institution and integral part of India’s credit system, remained outside its scope. The fall of the Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank revealed the blind spot of IBC and its inadequacy to deal with the insolvency of cooperative banks, leaving depositors highly vulnerable and regulators constrained. The problem is not only historical but a persistent threat, underscored by more recent incidents of co-operative banks like the New India Co-operative Bank in early 2025. The core blind spot remains in the failure of a framework to handle the failure of co-operative bank is still dangerously absent.

    COOPERATIVE BANKS IN INDIA

    Cooperative Banks are community-driven financial institutions that work on a democratic principle different from commercial banks. Commercial banks, which are typically incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, are ideally profit-driven enterprises. They are financial institutions that are owned by shareholders, managed by professionals, and driven by a primary objective, which is maximizing the profit for their investors. At their core, commercial and cooperative banks are built on different philosophies.

    The fundamental difference lies in who holds the power. While commercial banks are owned by shareholders, cooperative banks are owned and managed by their members, who control the institution through a democratic process based on the “one person, one vote” principle. This democratic governance, where members elect their own board of directors, is the cornerstone of the cooperative model.

    THE TWO CAPTAIN SHIP

    Imagine a single ship with two captains steering it, each with their own set of maps and responsibilities. This is, how a cooperative bank is regulated. The two captains here are the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (‘RCS’). The RBI is responsible for the bank’s “banking and financial” functions. This includes issuing licenses to a new cooperative bank under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, setting prudential norms like the capital to risk-weighted asset ratio and non-performing asset classification, and regulating its core banking operations under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. RCS is a state-level authority (or central, for multi-state societies) that governs the bank’s “cooperative” character. The RCS is in charge of incorporation, registration, management, board elections, and, most critically, the audit and liquidation under Section 86 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, (or winding up) of the society under the respective State Cooperative Societies Act. Cooperative Banks are formed either under acts of the state legislature, depending on their coverage in a state, or under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act of 2002, an act of the Parliament of India, if they provide their services in multiple states. The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act governs the cooperative character of banks. In contrast, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, grants the Reserve Bank of India certain powers related to the financial functioning of banks.

    This bizarre split originates from the Constitution of India itself. Under the Union List, the Central Government has exclusive power to legislate on “Banking” as per Entry 45, List I. In contrast, under the State List, the state governments have power over “Co-operative societies” as per Entry 32, List II. This constitutional division is the legal bedrock of the dual control problem.

    This split establishes a no-man’s land when it comes to regulatory oversight, giving a chance for malpractices to occur. The Punjab & Maharashtra Cooperative Bank crisis is the textbook example of this two-captain system failing catastrophically. This meant that the RBI, the country’s financial watchdog, could see the major red flags in PMC’s lending practices through its false balance sheets and fake entries showing NPA’s as standard assets But even when it spotted these problems, its hands were tied. Under the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, it simply didn’t have the direct power to punish the managers responsible for the fraud.  

    On the other hand, there was the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. This was the authority in charge of the bank’s management and board, but they often lacked the specialized financial expertise to really understand the complex risks involved in modern banking. This created a perfect catastrophe. PMC’s board, which answered mainly to the registrar, was able to manipulate records and hide its massive, fraudulent exposure to Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited for years, knowing that no single authority had complete and effective oversight. It was a classic case of shared responsibility becoming no one’s responsibility, where each regulator could just assume the other was watching, allowing the fraud to grow unchecked until the bank imploded.

    THE INSOLVENCY BLINDSPOT

    When any big company in India goes down, we immediately hear three letters: IBC. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is our country’s modern and powerful tool for addressing corporate failure. So, when a cooperative bank fails, the most logical question is, why can’t we just use the IBC?

    The answer is buried in the legal provisions of the IBC itself, and it is the primary reason cooperative bank depositors are left vulnerable. IBC’s main tool is the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated against a “corporate debtor“.

    This is where the legal trail begins-

    1. Who is a “Corporate Debtor”? The IBC defines it under section 3(8) as a as a “corporate person” who owes a debt to someone.
    2. Who is a “Corporate Person”? Under Section 3(7) of the IBC, it is defined as a “corporate person” as a company, a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), or any other body with limited liability explicitly excluding any financial service provider.
    3. What is a “Financial Service Provider”? The IBC then defines a “financial service provider” in Section 3(17) as any entity engaged in the business of providing “financial services” under a license from a financial sector regulator. The definition of “financial services” in Section 3(16) is broad and includes activities like “accepting of deposits”.

    A cooperative bank, by its very nature, accepts deposits from the public and is partially regulated by the RBI. This makes it a “financial service provider” under the IBC’s definition. Because financial service providers are excluded from the definition of a “corporate person,” hence a cooperative bank is not considered a “corporate debtor.” Therefore, the entire machinery of the IBC, designed for swift and efficient resolution, cannot be applied to it, which creates a legal loophole, a blind spot of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

    It was a deliberate attempt by The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee, which drafted the IBC, to keep the financial institutions out of the standard Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(‘CIRP’) for particular reasons, such as

    1. Systemic Risk: A bank is deeply interconnected with the rest of the financial system. Its failure can trigger a domino effect, causing a “contagion” that could destabilize other healthy institutions and the economy as a whole.
    2. Nature of Creditors: The creditors of a bank are thousands, sometimes millions, of ordinary depositors whose life savings are at stake unlike commercial creditors. A standard insolvency process is not designed to handle this kind of widespread public impact.
    3. Need for a Specialized Framework: Due to these unique risks, lawmakers believed that financial firms required their own specialized framework for resolution. Section 227 of the IBC empowers the union government to create special rules for the insolvency of financial service providers.

    The problem is that while the government did use this power to notify a special framework for certain large Non-Banking Financial Companies, cooperative banks were left out. They were excluded from the primary IBC process but were never included in a viable, alternative one. They were left stranded in a legal grey zone, subject only to the old, slow, and inefficient winding-up processes under the control of State Registrars. This deliberate, yet incomplete, legislative action is the ultimate reason why the failure of a cooperative bank becomes a prolonged nightmare for its depositors.

    FIXING THE BLIND SPOT: IS THERE A WAY FORWARD?

    The 2020 amendment to the Banking Regulation Act was a good first step, but it didn’t go far enough. While it tightened the rules to help prevent future failures, it left the fundamental insolvency gap wide open. The real nightmare for depositors isn’t just a bank failing but the broken, slow-motion, and completely uncertain resolution process that follows. Recognizing this, the RBI constituted an Expert Committee on Urban Co-operative Banks, chaired by former Deputy Governor N. S. Vishwanathan. Its key recommendations included A Four-Tiered Regulatory Framework The idea was to classify Urban Cooperative Banks into four different tiers based on the size of their deposits. It recommended the creation of a national-level apex body for Urban Cooperative Banks, now established as the National Urban Co-operative Finance and Development Corporation (‘NUCFDC’) to provide capital, liquidity support, technological infrastructure, and fund management services.

    Nevertheless, even these vital reforms do not fix the insolvency blind spot. They are a preventative medicine, and not a surgical process. They aim to keep the patient healthy but offer no new procedure if the patient suffers a catastrophic failure.

    The ultimate solution must be legislative. The government needs to either amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to bring cooperative banks under a special, tailored version of the CIRP or create an entirely new, parallel resolution regime for them. The “two captain ship” must now be decommissioned and a new law must establish a single, empowered resolution authority. The RBI can be the sole authority with all financial oversight, supervision and resolution power vested in it limiting RCS to its cooperative governance. This new framework must be time-bound unlike the traditional slow liquidation process to both preserve the bank and protect depositors. A tier-based framework should be brought in where smaller banks in tier 1 should have a simplified process for swift amalgamation or mandatory payout of insured deposits within 15-20 days. And for larger banks a bridge bank can be established to ensure uninterrupted service to depositors during the liquidation process. Further in cases where a cooperative bank is showing signs of financial distress (but is not yet collapsed), the RBI could trigger a “Supervised resolution period.” During this time, the banks management will be statutorily required to prepare a pre-packaged merger or sale plan with a healthy institution like the pre-packed resolution process given for MSMEs under IBC. If the bank’s health deteriorates past a certain point, this pre-approved plan can be activated instantly which will prevent the post collapse chaos. Until these legal loophole in the IBC are closed, the money of millions of Indians will remain exposed to the very paradox that brought PMC Bank to its knees, the paradox of a bank that is not entirely a bank when it matters most.

  • Expanding The Meaning of Sufficient Cause under Section 58 (1)

    Expanding The Meaning of Sufficient Cause under Section 58 (1)

    BY PRIYAM MITRA, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    Through judicial pronouncements and legislative clarifications, the seemingly unbridled power of free transferability of public companies is constrained by two clauses: one stating that any contract between two or more persons would be enforceable as a contract (proviso to Section 58(2)) and; secondly, the public company may refuse to register this transfer of shares by showing sufficient cause (Section 58(4)).

    There is considerable literature on why employee stock option schemes are introduced in various different ways. Specifically in firms where there are capital constraints, which is often the case in unlisted public companies, these strategies are often deployed for the purposes of “employee retention and sorting”. It is also well established that after the lock-in period of these schemes, these shares are to be treated in the same way as other equity shares; this means that for public companies this would lead to principles of free transferability being applicable thereon upon such shares given to employees.

    It is the argument of the paper that in this context, the meaning given to the term “sufficient cause” under section 58(4) must be read in an expansive manner so as to cover instances where allowing further transfer of these allotted shares would be perverse to the interests of the company. To do this, the NCLAT judgement of Synthite Industries Limited v. M/s Plant Lipids Ltd. (2018), which emphasises directors’ duties under Section 166(2) would be relied on.

    FOUNDATIONS OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PROGRAMS AND POSSIBLE ROADBLOCKS

    A. Reasons for ESOP Schemes

    As mentioned before, there has been a growing trend in industries where rather than providing incentives to employees to work, ESOPs are used for sorting and selection of those who are optimistic about the future of the company. This is why it makes sense for even public companies to get the benefit of ESOPs even though traditionally there should have been no restrictions on the transferability of public company shares. However, what is often overlooked in analysis is then how do those who receive these options exercise them and whether these transactions can be restricted in view of other important consideration as out lined later (namely whether there is sufficient cause to believe that the transfer would result in harming the interest of all shareholders).

    B. Nominee Directors

    Before the enactment of the Company Act 2013, there had been academic concerns expressed with respect to independent directors receiving stock options. The reason for this was rooted in the fact that independent directors, by the nature of their role, had to be independent of any pecuniary interest in order to perform their function. Stock options in this context would dampen this independence and rightfully, Indian law averted this error through the SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations, 2014. The rules define “employees” as explicitly not including “independent directors” (Rule 2(1)(f)(ii)).

    However, inadvertently, the category of nominee directors has been categorically excluded from the category of independent directors under Section 149(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, and this means that they are covered under the definition of employee for the purpose of stock option schemes. To understand why this is a possible roadblock to achieving the purpose of stock option schemes, the peculiar role of nominee directors has to be analysed.

    Nominee directors have become a regular part in corporate structures in India. Due to them owing their duty to the nominator but sitting on the board of directors. There is always a speckle of concerns related to conflict of interest. Indeed, it has been observed in decisions that in a situation where these two interests are at conflict, they would be placed in an “impossible position”. Coming back to why this is an issue in the context of ESOPs, it must be understood that while the ESOPs cannot be transferred to any third party (the option to buy (Rule 9)), the shares issued to nominee directors pursuant to ESOPs, however, may be transferred to the nominating institutions. This conspicuously places the nominee directors in such a position where the nominating institutions may meddle in the functioning of these directors pushing for transfer of these lucrative shares.

    There could be an argument that there is a solution already implicit in the rules. That is, the companies may choose any period as the lock-in period (the period during which these shares cannot be transferred). However, unlike the provisions on sweat equity (3 years), there is no such minimum lock-in period prescribed. It is difficult for companies to deploy one single lock-in period for all kinds of employee and having such a strict period would be prejudicial to the employees’ interests. Therefore, it is argued, in exceptional circumstances Section 58(4) must be used to restrict transactions on a case-to-case basis.

    SUFFICIENT CAUSE UNDER 58(4)

    To solve the issues identified in the previous section, this paper proposes an expansive reading of sufficient cause under Section 58(4) as a possible solution. To understand the contemporary legal position, analysis must start from before the introduction of the Companies Act in 2013. Section 58(4) of the 2013 Act clarifies the position established by Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 111A (3) provided an exhaustive list of instances (contravention of and law in India) wherein such refusal would be upheld. It was consistently held by the Courts that sufficient cause had to be read in this narrow manner.

    The recent line of cases starting from Mackintosh Burns v. Sarkar and Chowdhury Enterprises, recognise the wider ambit of sufficient cause under the Companies Act 2013. Mackintosh’s reasoning was based on simple facts of a competitor trying to buy shares in a company, a simple case of conflict of interest, hence, the Supreme Court concluded that at least in such cases, sufficient cause would entail something more than mere contravention of law. Synthite goes further and provides more robust reasoning even though the fact scenario here was very similar to Mackintosh. The court accepts the appellants arguments and holds the wisdom of the Board of Directors in high regard by forming a link between their fiduciary duty (Section 166(2)) to act in a bonafide manner and advance the company’s interests, to their refusal of registration of transfer (under Section 58(4)) (paras [10],[16],[22]). This effectively means that their refusal to register shares in this case was deemed reasonable because the board acted in a bonafide manner to advance the interests of the shareholders.

    In fact, a recent case heard by the Delhi High Court in Phenil Sugars Ltd. v Laxmi Gupta, was decided in a similar vein as that of Synthite (though the NCLT decision is not cited) wherein the Court held that registration of shares can be restricted where:

    “[27]There is an apprehension that the transfer is not in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders including the shareholders;

    ii. The said apprehension is reasonable and there is material on record to support the apprehension.”

    The case is a monumental step forward. Till now, the cases primarily dealt with the transfer being done to a competing company, however, in this case, the court considered the refusal to be reasonable as the transferees had a history of meddling in the corporate affairs of the company through constant complaints. On the twin test laid down, the High Court considered the cause to be sufficient.                                                                                           

    CONCLUSION: RESTRICTING TRANSFER OF ESOP SHARES THROUGH SECTION 58(4)

    Realising the purpose behind ESOPs, that is, rewarding and more importantly retaining employees and shares within the company, leads to the conclusion that the board must be given the power to refuse registration of transfer. This is solidified by the emerging jurisprudence in India with respect to the ambit of sufficient cause under Section 58. It is argued that this determination would vary greatly with the unique facts and circumstances of each case.

    In case of nominee directors transferring the shares to their nominating institutions, one must look at the standard put forth by Synthite (invoking the directors’ fiduciary duty in making this decision)and the courts should not be constrained by the restrictive interpretation that sufficient cause would exist only when shares are transferred to competing companies (Phenil Sugars). It must be accepted that “deferring to the Board’s wisdom” would surely encompass such situations where a transfer would defeat the purpose of ESOPs and indirectly derogate the interests of all stakeholders. If nominee directors transfer shares to their nominating company, then they would be put in a precarious situation caught in between conflicts on interests.

    However, this does not mean that all ESOP receivers would be estopped from transferring their shares, this determination has to be made considering all the terms of the ESOP and the relationship that the company shares with the employee. What this paper has argued is that sufficient clause has to be interpreted in a wide way so as to restrict any transaction that would be prejudicial to the interests of all shareholders. Transfer of ESOP shares (usually) at a lower price needs to be maintained within the company and its employees, specifically when it is at a nascent stage; this should surely constitute sufficient cause.

  • India’s Basel III Paradox: Failure of Mechanics Not Morals

    India’s Basel III Paradox: Failure of Mechanics Not Morals

    BY SMARAK SAMAL, LL.M STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    It is significant to write down a paradox that openly and dauntingly exists in the Indian banking system, and it should not be reduced to a conflict between strict regulations and lax implementation. There have been multiple occurrences in the Indian system, where white-collar actors have been able to get around the procedural flaws in banking regulations without having to go for deceptive techniques because these safety nets work well as a tool. Yes Bank, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (‘IL&FS’), and Punjab National Bank’s (‘PNB’) crises are indications that they were not just typical governance failures but rather savage attacks on particular systemic underpinnings. The article’s main focus is the willful breach of Basel III regulations, which clarifies topics outside the typical crisis history and improves comprehension of system convergence. To give certain clarity, Basel III relies on 3 core Pillars. Pillar 1 ensures that banks have sufficient capital to absorb market, credit and management risks and hence sets up minimum capital requirements. Whereas supervisory guidance compelling regulators to measure bank’s internal risk control mechanisms and inducing concrete steps when defaults are recognized are acknowledged in Pillar 2. Lastly, Pillar 3 integrates market discipline by warranting public disclosures, permitting market participants and investors to judge a bank’s risk portfolio.

    PNB: THE CIRCUMVENTION OF PILLAR 1 OPERATIONAL RISK CAPITAL

    To start with the PNB scam, which was made possible by Letters of Undertaking (‘LoUs’), was both dramatic and a prime example of the inherent flaws in the Basel III methodology. The Basic Indicator Approach (‘BIA’) is being used by Indian banks to model operational risk in capitalisation. According to the BIA, banks must have capital that is equivalent to 15% of their average gross earnings over the previous three years.The true deception of the scheme lay in avoiding this exact calculation.

    Basically, the fabricated LoUs were exchanged through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (‘SWIFT’) mechanism but never really entered into PNB’s Core Banking Solutions (‘CBS’). Since the official books of the bank were never made aware of these transactions, they never fed into the gross-income figure upon which the BIA is calculated.Thus, PNB’s reported operational-risk capital appeared adequate on paper but was derived from data that unobtrusively sidestepped multi-billion-dollar exposure. Theoretically, there was nothing technically wrong with the BIA formula except that its inputs were corrupted, rendering the compliance meaningless.

    This indicates that Pillar 1’s strict capital ratios come into play only when the bank’s data generation processes are maintained rigorously. The collapse of Pillar 2 calls for Supervisory and Evaluation Process (‘SREP’), which is marked at this juncture. Since 2016, the Reserve Bank of India has issued warnings regarding the dangers of handling SWIFT outside of the CBS.These cautions went unheeded and hence, PNB’s non-compliant “compliance reports” were approved during inspections.  This further suggests that, Pillar 2 supervision can’t be a mere ministerial exercise. It requires digging into the technical details of the Bank’s system since even one missing integration can render the entire Pillar 1 capital framework useless.

    IL&FS: SUBVERTING PILLAR 1 CREDIT RISK VIA A CORRUPTED PILLAR 3

    On the other side, the crisis of IL&FS highlights how  failure in market discipline can directly poison the foundation of Pillar-1’s credit risk calculation. The failure in market discipline can be attributed to violation Pillar 3. Referring to the Basel III Standardised Approach, rating a corporate borrower according to its external credit rating enables Indian banks to establish the corresponding risk weight. For instance, a borrower with a credit rating of “AAA” only attracts a risk weight of 20 percent, and thus, a bank is only required to set aside a tiny amount of capital to cover such an exposure. With an unmanageable debt load exceeding ₹91,000 crore in origin, IL&FS maintained the highly sought-after “AAA” rating from the establishment of Indian rating agencies till a few weeks prior to its default. In fact, the agencies damaged all banks holding IL&FS assets since they failed to raise an alarm in their purported Pillar 3 role of market discipline. The Standardised Approach forced lenders to classify what was effectively a ticking time bomb as a low-risk asset, making their reported capital adequacy levels misleading and needless.

    The distinctive lesson is that the credibility of credit rating organisations closely correlates with the effectiveness of a standardised methodology. In addition to the active supervision of rating agencies and knowledge of conflicts of interest inherent in the issuer-pays model, the self-correcting nature of market forces is a myth. In the absence of trustworthy ratings, Pillar 1’s capital calculations will be a wasteful exercise that will give the financial system a false sense of security.

    YES BANK: GAMING CREDIT RISK NORMS THROUGH ASSET MISCLASSIFICATION

    The bedrock of credit risk management’s honest asset classification was hit hard by the Yes Bank debacle. Evergreening, or lending to problematic borrowers to pay off the interest on past-due obligations, was the fundamental strategy used by the bank. According to the RBI’s Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification, and Provisioning (‘IRAC’), any loan that is past due by more than ninety days must be recorded as a non-performing asset (‘NPA’).

    The connection to Basel III is rather straightforward. The classification of a loan determines the risk weight that is allocated to it under Pillar 1. The risk weight of a corporate loan is typically 100%. However, the risk weight rises to 150 percent and the provision requirements dramatically increase resulting in poor NPA levels. Yes Bank overstated its capital adequacy ratio and negated the need for the Pillar 1 framework by concealing problematic loans under a “standard” classification, understating both its provisioning and its Risk-Weighted Assets (‘RWAs’).

    This only adds to the troubles past this case because under the regulator’s Pillar 2 supervision, the bank showed massive NPA divergences, meaning banks’ reported bad loans and practically a margin higher by regulators. In FY19, as per RBI’s report the gross NPA stood at Rs.11,159 Crore against the declared Rs.7,882 Crore, revealing glaring disparity of 41%. However, strong action from the central bank was delayed, allowing CEO Rana Kapoor’s evergreening to become systemic. Hence, after the RBI finally stepped in, it forced his resignation and arranged the rescue.

    The takeaway is straightforward, though details concerning the classification of assets create credit risk and capital rules. The supervisors who willfully ignore the innocent misreporting don’t simply look the other way; they knowingly participate in the manipulation of Basel requirements, pushing systemic risk under the cover of compliance.

    THE INEFFECTIVE LEGAL BACKSTOP

    When regulation and supervision collapse, the legal system is supposed to provide the last remedy, but in Indian banking the legal backstop has not been able to fulfil this role effectively. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was designed to give time-bound resolution and has indeed changed promoter behaviour, but in practice most cases have crossed statutory deadlines, and by the time resolution occurs, the asset value is already diminished. The haircut problem therefore reflects not the defect of IBC alone but the failure of governance and supervision before insolvency. Nevertheless, law as a mechanism of providing remedy, loses its efficacy when procedural timelines are disregarded and asset value is diminished.

    The legal backstop that would have been the ultimate means of holding to account has turned out to be the weakest link. Instead of introducing speed of action, it introduces filters of postponement and ambiguity. Systematic risks continue to be exist even with Basel III plus in action due to lack of effective deterrence which results in further intensifying the paradox and calling for effective solutions.

    These financial crises highlight the necessity to strengthen the Basel Pillars through structural, technological and supervisory reforms. To prevent breakdown of Pillar 1 operational risk safeguards, regulators shall make any manipulation technologically undoable by compulsory, forensic system-integration audits under the RBI’s Pillar 2 ‘SREP’. It will further enable Straight Through Processing (‘STP’) between SWIFT and CBS, supported by verifiable automated reconciliation and alerts for accurate entries. Failure of Pillar 3 market discipline and disputes in Credit Rating System (‘CRA’) was exposed in IL&FS crisis and situations like this could be avoided if RBI adopts a supervisory veto by imposing higher risk weights when external ratings hide stress. Further, by enforcing penalties on auditors and CRA’s for negligence to secure integrity and accountability implementation.

    CONCLUSION: FORGING A CULTURE OF CONSEQUENCE

    The study is also looking at the main bank frauds from the Basel III perspective, within the framework of an analytical grouping with a goal at its limits. In the end, they show that the primary flaw in the Indian banking system is not laws or regulations that take on complicated shapes, but rather how they are applied. This seems to be a recurring theme: the supervisory review in Pillar 2, as covered in more detail in this section, has not adequately evaluated the procedural integrity of Pillar 1 and Pillar 3 processes. Capital ratios are regarded as final measures since they focus entirely on quality of inputs such as credit ratings, asset classification and transactional data acting as key quantitative benchmarks and headline indicators.

    India’s Basel paradox therefore is not about rules but about accountability. It is only when consequence is enforced swiftly and firmly that Basel norms can function as real protection rather than a symbolic framework. Cultivating this culture of consequence is essential if the integrity of the financial system is to be preserved.

    In the long run, this involves more than just anticipating when the banks will file their compliance reports. Supervisory oversight must shift to real time analytics from retrospective assessment, alerting instant identification of evergreening and misclassification through integrated monitoring mechanism .

    The integrity of the systems themselves as well as the integrity of the gatekeepers engaged need to be examined more thoroughly. Bank audits with a technological bent, credit rating agencies’ accountability, and the heightened examination of the misclassified asset class. Systemic integrity will be a regulatory fantasy but not an institutional reality unless India adopts the mechanical foundations of the Basel framework.

  • The Digital Dilemma: Reimagining Independent Directors’ Liability under Companies Act, 2013

    The Digital Dilemma: Reimagining Independent Directors’ Liability under Companies Act, 2013

    BY SVASTIKA KHANDELWAL, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NLSIU, BANGALORE

    INTRODUCTION

    The 2025 breach compromising the personal data of 8.4 million users of Zoomcar underscores the growing prevalence of digital risks within corporate governance. Such incidents raise pressing concerns regarding the oversight obligations of boards, particularly independent directors (‘IDs‘), and call for a critical examination of S.149(12), Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’), which limits ID liability to instances where acts of omission or commission by a company occurs with their knowledge, attributable through board processes and with their consent or connivance, or where they have not acted diligently.

    This piece argues that S.149(12) has not kept pace with the digital transformation of corporate operations and requires legislative reform to account for the dual challenges of digitalisation: the increasing integration of digital communication in corporate operations, and its growing impact on digital corporate governance failures like data breaches and cybersecurity lapses.

    Firstly, the piece traces the evolution of the IDs’ liability regime. Further, it examines the knowledge and consent test under the first part of S.149(12), arguing it fails to address accountability challenges in the digital-era. Subsequently, it analyses the diligence test as a more appropriate standard for ensuring meaningful oversight.  Finally, the article explores how S.149(12) can be expanded to effectively tackle the liability of IDs for digital governance failures.

    UNDERSTANDING S.149(12) OF THE ACT: SCOPE AND DEVELOPMENT

    In India, the emergence of ID has evolved in response to its ‘insider model’ of corporate shareholding, where promoter-driven concentrated ownership resulted in tensions between the majority and minority shareholders. This necessitated safeguards for minority shareholders and independent oversight of management. Before the 2013 Act, the duties of directors were shaped by general fiduciary principles rooted in common law. This lacked the specificity to address the majority-minority shareholder conflict effectively. A regulatory milestone came when SEBI introduced Clause 49, Listing Agreement 2000, requiring listed companies to appoint IDs. However, it offered limited guidance on the functions and stakeholder interests these directors were expected to protect. A more detailed approach was followed in the 2013 Act, which explicitly defined the role of IDs in S.149(6), S.149(12), and Schedule IV. This marked a transition from treating IDs as general fiduciaries to assigning them a more distinct role. IDs facilitate information symmetry and unbiased decision-making. Furthermore, they are essential for raising concerns about unethical behaviour or breaches of the company’s code of conduct. Significantly, they must safeguard the interests of all stakeholders, especially minority shareholders. By staying independent and objective, they help the board make informed decisions.

    This article focuses on S.149(12) of the Act, which contains two grounds for holding IDs liable. First, if the company’s actions occurred with the ID’s knowledge and consent or connivance, provided such knowledge must be linked to board processes. Secondly, liability arises due to the lack of diligence. Since the provision uses “or,” both grounds function independently; failing either can attract liability. While knowledge must relate to board proceedings, the duty of diligence extends beyond this. It is an autonomous and proactive duty, not confined to board discussions.

    REASSESSING THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT TEST

    The piece argues that S.149(12)’s knowledge and consent standard is inadequate in the context of digital governance, where risks emerge rapidly and information is frequently acquired through digital channels.

    Firstly, courts have tended to apply S.149(12) narrowly, often solely focusing on the knowledge and consent test. They fail to go a step further to assess the duty of diligence. This incomplete approach weakens accountability and overlooks a key aspect of the provision. This narrow interpretation was evident in  Global Infratech, where the IDs were cleared of liability due to insufficient evidence indicating their participation in board proceedings. Interestingly, while SEBI held executive directors to a standard of diligence and caution, it imposed no such obligation on IDs. The decision emphasised that an ID can escape liability solely on the ground of not having knowledge acquired through board processes, without demonstrating that he exercised diligence by actively seeking relevant information. A similar restricted interpretation was evident in the Karvy decision, where SEBI absolved IDs of liability as they had not been informed of ongoing violations in board meetings, without addressing their duty to proactively seek such information through due diligence.

    Further concern arises from the judiciary’s conflation of the knowledge test with involvement in day-to-day functioning. In MPS Infotecnics and Swam Software, IDs were not held liable because they were not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. This finding was grounded in the belief that the ID lacked knowledge of the wrongdoing. Such a reasoning exposes a critical flaw in the knowledge test, which lies in treating an ID’s absence from daily affairs as proof that they were unaware of any misconduct, thereby diluting the ID’s duty to exercise informed oversight over core strategic decisions and high‑risk domains, including cybersecurity.

    This interpretation is especially problematic in view of digital governance failures. Various grave catastrophic corporate risks like data breaches and ransomware attacks arise from routine technological processes. Storing user data, updating software, and managing cybersecurity are daily activities that are central to a company’s operations and survival. The “day-to-day functioning” standard creates a perilous loophole. It allows an ID to escape liability by remaining willfully ignorant of the company’s most critical area of risk. An ID can simply claim they lacked “knowledge” of a cybersecurity flaw because it was part of “day-to-day” IT work. Thus, this piece argues that the judiciary’s narrow reading of S.149(12), which applies only the knowledge test, is inadequate in the digital domain. IDs need not be technology experts. Still, they must ask the right questions, identify red flags and ensure appropriate governance mechanisms are in place, including cybersecurity, thus reinforcing the need to apply the diligence test more robustly.

    Another shortcoming of this test is its over-reliance on attributing ID’s knowledge only to matters in formal board processes. In the digital era, this approach overlooks the reality that board decision-making and oversight increasingly occur outside the confines of scheduled meetings. The integration of real-time digital communication channels such as Gmail and WhatsApp highlights crucial gaps. It creates an evidentiary vacuum, since highly probative indications of negligence, like the dismissal of a whistleblower’s alert or a decision to ignore a cybersecurity risk, may be discussed within informal digital communications. Limiting knowledge to board meetings enables plausible deniability. IDs may engage in and even influence critical decisions through private digital channels, omit these discussions from the official record, and later easily escape liability under the knowledge standard, despite having complete awareness of the wrongdoing. Cyber crises unfold without warning, long before the next board meeting is convened. Their rapidity and opacity require IDs to act through digital channels. The exclusion of these communications from the liability framework offers an easy shield from responsibility.

    Compounding this issue, the requirement of “consent or connivance” fails to capture digital corporate environment nuances. Consent is no longer limited to clear, documented paper trails, but is often expressed by various digital cues in businesses. A “thumbs up” emoji in a WhatsApp group could signal agreement, acknowledgement, or simply receipt, therefore giving IDs room to deny intent and escape liability. This problem is exacerbated by end-to-end encryption and disappearing messages features on some instant-messaging applications. It allows erasing potential evidence. Moreover, connivance or covert cooperation can now take subtler digital forms, like an ID editing a cloud-sharing Google Document, replacing “imminent risk” with “need routine system check” in an audit report, intentionally downplaying a serious breach warning. The current wording of the provision is silent on whether this would make an ID accountable.

    Therefore, it is evident that the knowledge and consent test is insufficient in the face of pervasive digitalisation and warrants a wider interpretation in light of the foregoing developments in corporate operations.

    THE DILIGENCE TEST: A STRONGER STANDARD

    While ID liability has often been confined to the narrow ‘knowledge test,’ SEBI’s order in Manpasand Beverages Ltd. reasserts the importance of diligence. On 30 April 2024, SEBI held the company’s IDs responsible, noting that although they claimed a lack of access to vital documents, they made no effort to obtain them. This ruling signals a renewed commitment to holding directors accountable beyond mere knowledge.

    This is beneficial in the context of digital governance failures, as the diligence test provides a stronger framework for ensuring accountability; it imposes an obligation on IDs, as highlighted in Edserv Soft systems, where it was observed that due diligence requires questioning irregular transactions and following up persistently with uncooperative management. The Bombay Dyeing case held that IDs in audit committees are expected to question the presented information and actively uncover irregularities, even if deliberately hidden. It emphasised that IDs must question accuracy and demand clarity without relying solely on surface-level disclosures. The same heightened duty must apply to digital governance, where concealed cyber risks like breaches or ransomware pose equally serious threats and require equally proactive investigation.

    Therefore, the diligence test is more effective for tackling digital corporate governance failures as it replaces passive awareness with active oversight. Since these digital threats often remain hidden until too late, waiting for information is insufficient. It is not a tool for operational meddling but for high-level strategic scrutiny, like questioning a cybersecurity budget marked below industry benchmarks for a data-intensive organisation.

    CONCLUSION: CHARTING THE WAY FORWARD

    As shown, S.149(12) of the Act, in its current form, appears ill-equipped to tackle the realities of digital corporate governance failures. This concern may be addressed through an evolved interpretation of the existing framework, potentially supplemented by a clarificatory Explanation to S.149(12), specifically tailored to digital threats.

     A logical starting point for this evolution is a broader reading of “knowledge.” It can be expanded to include not only information attributable to formal board meetings but also any material information communicated to, or reasonably accessible by, the ID through any mode, including digital means. Additionally, a rebuttable presumption of “consent or connivance” can be inserted where IDs, after gaining such knowledge, fail to record objection or dissent within a reasonable time, especially when the matter involves a material risk to the company or a breach of law. This approach does not set a high threshold; it merely shifts the onus and strengthens timely oversight, encouraging IDs to speak up. Given the potential severity of cyberattacks, such an approach aligns with the need for heightened vigilance in digital governance.

    Further, the timeless duty of due diligence may be interpreted to include a baseline level of digital literacy. While they need not be technology professionals, they must understand enough to ask relevant questions and assess whether management has adequately addressed digital risks. Without this foundational competence, IDs cannot meaningfully engage with cybersecurity, data governance, etc, leaving oversight dangerously superficial.  Embedding this requirement under S.149(12) makes it a statutory duty, ensuring that failure to acquire or apply such skills can directly trigger liability. In the modern corporate landscape, technology is not optional; rather, essential and enduring. Therefore, IDs must be equipped to fulfil their duties in this environment.  

  • India’s Social Stock Exchange: How Compliance Strains Impact NPOs and Social Impact Assessors?

    India’s Social Stock Exchange: How Compliance Strains Impact NPOs and Social Impact Assessors?

    BY DHARSHAN GOVINTH R AND SIDDHARTH VERMA, FOURTH- YEAR AT GNLU, GANDHINAGAR

    INTRODUCTION

    India’s Social Stock Exchange (‘SSE’) is a trend-setting initiative introduced by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in 2022, which by aiming to align capital markets and philanthropic purposes intended to give a fund-raising ground for non-profit organizations (‘NPO’) and other social entities. But this initiative is displaying some strains especially after the SEBI circular issued in late September 2025 which made some modifications in SSE’s compliance framework bringing forth the credibility-capacity paradox, which would be examined in this research work.

    This article explores this paradox of credibility and capacity, by first outlining the recent modification brought out by SEBI. Secondly it is followed by a thorough analysis of the modified compliance architecture is done to assess as to what makes this framework problematic. Thirdly, an analysis of SSEs in different countries is done to highlight upon potential modifications which can be done in India.  Finally, it gives some ideas of reform to balance the rigor and inclusivity in the present framework.

    THE MODIFIED FRAMEWORK AND ITS FAULTLINES

      The circular of SEBI has established a compliance framework, where the modifications as follows are of significance. The circular mandates 31st October of each year as the deadline to submit a duly verified Annual Impact Report (‘AIR’) by all fundraising non-profits. It also mandates those non-profits which have been registered on SSE but haven’t listed their securities to submit a self-reported AIR covering 67% of the program expenditure. Then, there is a mandate that all the above AIRs need to be assessed by Social Impact Assessors (‘SIA’).

      Although initially these modifications may show that there is a sense of strengthened transparency, three problems emerge upon implementation. Firstly, the dual-track approach—which creates unequal degrees of credibility by having separate compliance requirements for two types of NPOs. Secondly, there is a problem of supply-demand as the limited supply of SIAs (approximately 1,000 nationwide) is insufficient to meet demand as hundreds of NPOs enter the SSE. Finally, smaller NGOs with tighter finances are disproportionately affected by compliance expenses, such as audit fees and data gathering. These concerns need to be analyzed further inorder to determine whether the SSE can provide both accountability and inclusivity.

      HOW THE PRESENT COMPLIANCE ARCHITECTURE LEADS TO CREDIBILITY-CAPACITY PARADOX?

        The present modification of the compliance framework by SEBI has in its core, the aim to grow the trust of the investors by means of mandating independent verifications. Nevertheless, this framework exhibits inconsistencies which need to be undone. The first gap that is visible is the problem of credibility. This modification proposes a dual-track SEBI’s modification institutes a dual-track compliance: NPOs that raise funds must file an auditor-verified AIR, whereas SSE-registered entities that have not listed securities (mostly smaller NPOs) may submit a self-verified AIR. This distinction creates a clear credibility gap where investors and donors will reasonably rely on audited AIRs, effectively privileging well-resourced organisations and marginalising smaller, self-reporting grassroots NPOs that lack access to auditors or the capacity to procure independent verification. Another issue is the mandatory coverage of 67% of the program expense in the AIR by the non-listed NPOs , which on one hand may lead to extensive coverage of the financials of those NPOs, but on the other hand pose a heavy operational burden on these NPOs which manages diverse programmes.  The expenses of fulfilling this duty may be unaffordable for NPOs without baseline data or technological resources.

        Moving from the issue of credibility, the challenge of capacity—stemming from the scarcity of SIAs—presents a more significant concern. The industry faces a supply-demand mismatch as there are only around 1,000 qualified assessors across India in self-regulatory organizations (‘SRO’) like ICAI, ICSI, ICMAI, etc., who are selected through qualification examinations conducted by National Institute of Securities Market. The problem is that compliance becomes contingent not on the diligence of NPOs but on the availability of auditors.

        Financial strain completes the triad of challenges. Impact audits are resource-intensive, requiring field verification, outcome measurement, and translation of qualitative change into quantifiable indicators. These tasks incur substantial fees, particularly in rural or remote contexts. Unlike corporations conducting corporate social responsibility activities (‘CSR’), which under Section 135 of Companies Act 2013 caps impact assessment costs at 2% of project outlay or ₹50 lakh, SSE-listed NPOs do not enjoy any such relief. The absence of stronger fiscal offsets weakens the fundraising advantage of SSE listing, making the cost-benefit calculus unfavorable for many small organizations.

        These dynamics create what may be described as a credibility–capacity paradox. The SSE rightly seeks to establish credibility through rigour, but the costs of compliance risk exclude the very grassroots non-profit organizations it was designed to support. Larger, urban, and professionalized NPOs may adapt, but smaller entities operating at the community level may find participation infeasible. Nevertheless, it would be reductive to see the SSE’s framework as wholly burdensome. Its emphasis on independent audits is a landmark reform that aligns India with global best practices in social finance. The challenge is to recalibrate the balance so that transparency does not come at the expense of inclusivity.

        LEARNING FROM GLOBAL SSES: AVOIDING EXCLUSIONS, BUILDING INCLUSION

          India’s SSE is not the first of its kind. Looking at examples of abroad helps us see what works and what doesn’t. For instance, Brazil’s SSE, established in 2003 raised funds for about 188 projects but mostly attracted larger NPOs, leaving smaller groups behind. In the same way, the SSE of UK, established in 2013 favored professional entities as it operated more as a directory than a true exchange, raising €400 million. Both examples show how heavy compliance rules can narrow participation leaving small NPOs and eventually these SSEs failed to be in the operation in due time.

          The SSEs of Canada and Singapore, both established in 2013 also set strict listing criteria but unlike the above, paired them with direct NPO support, including capacity-building and fundraising assistance, especially for small scale NPOs. This made compliance more manageable. India can learn that it can prevent these exclusions of certain non-profits and create an SSE that is both legitimate and inclusive by combining strict audit regulations with phased requirements and financial support.

          BRIDGING GAPS THROUGH REFORM: MAKING INDIA’S SSE MORE EQUITABLE

          A multi-pronged reform agenda can address these tensions. Firstly, SEBI could ease compliance costs for small NGOs by creating a centralized digital platform with standardized reporting templates and promoting shared auditor networks to spread expenses. Further, in order to breakdown entry barriers to smaller NPOs, a phased-tier system of compliance could be implemented to the requirements for audits in the initial years. This phased tier system can be achieved for instance by first mandating 40-50% of coverage of expenditures in the audit in the initial years and then gradually rising the threshold to the 67% requirement as per the recent modification to ease compliance.

          Secondly, the creation of a SSE Capacity Fund, which could be funded by CSR allocations would be a viable step for reducing the burden of compliance and to preserve the resources of NPOs which are already limited. These subsidies and grants through these funds could maintain both financial stability and accountability of NPOs.

          Third, SROs have to develop professional capacities in a short time, which could be done by the increase in accelerated certification programmes among people who have pertinent experience. In addition, in order to protect credibility, the SROs must require the auditors to undergo rotation and then make sure that the advisory and auditory functions are never combined. Lastly, expenditure on digital infrastructure will help diminish compliance costs greatly. This could be done for instance by establishing a common platform of data collection and impact reporting which might allow small NPOs to be prepared to comply effectively. These systems could assist in bridging the gap between the professional audit requirements and the small capacity of smaller NPOs.

          CONCLUSION

          India’s SSE has undoubtedly increased the credibility of the social sector by instituting mandatory audits and transparent reporting for listed social enterprises, thereby strengthening the confidence of investors and donors. This is a significant achievement in formalizing social finance. However, this audit-driven transparency also illustrates a “credibility–capacity paradox”: rigorous accountability measures, while necessary, impose high compliance burdens on smaller grassroots nonprofits with limited resources. If there is no support or mitigation mechanisms, the SSE may inadvertently narrow the field of participants and undermine its inclusive mission. In contrast, international peers show more balanced regulatory models, thereby showing a way forward for India as well. For instance, Canada’s SSE combines stringent vetting with tailored capacity-building programs, and Singapore’s SSE employs a social-impact framework and supportive ecosystem to enforce accountability while nurturing small social enterprises. Ultimately, a mature SSE should balance oversight with inclusivity and support. If India implements this balance, which it lacks, its SSE could be an equitable, inclusive, digitally integrated and resource-efficient platform in the coming decade. Such an SSE would leverage digital reporting to cut costs and uphold rigorous transparency standards, while genuinely empowering grassroots impact.

        1. The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

          The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

          BY VAISHNAV M, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NUALS, KERALA

          INTRODUCTION

          The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) ensconces a mechanism known as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) that attempts to revive the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’) through restructuring and strategic resolution of debts. With the CD managed by a Resolution Professional (‘RP’), the Resolution Applicants (‘RA’) can propose restructuring plans to resolve debts and sustain the CD as a going concern.

          Where the plan involves acquisition, merger or amalgamation (collectively, ‘Combination’), it is important that the restructuring does not distort the competition in the market. This is where merger control and the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) step in. The Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram & Ors (‘ISC’)dealt with the procedure to seek the CCI’s approval for combination during the insolvency process.

          The piece is not a general comment on the decision; instead, it aims to examine a particular point in the judgement that has not received the critical attention it deserves. That is, the particular stage at which the CCI-nod for the combination is to be obtained. This question is especially pertinent in the context of the recently introduced IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (‘2025 Amendment’), which proposes to relax the timeline for the CCI’s approval for resolution plans.

          THE ISC CASE AND THE STATUS QUO

          In the ISC case, one of the RAs challenged the CIRP, citing many procedural laxities. One of the grounds was failure to seek approval of the CCI before placing the resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) for voting. According to Section 31(4) of the IBC, an RA has one year from the approval of the Adjudicating Authority (‘AA’) to obtain necessary clearances under other laws. But the proviso clarifies that the approval of the CCI for the combination is to be obtained before the approval of the CoC.

          Hitherto, the position was that this proviso is directory and not mandatory in nature, as laid down by the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in Arcellor Mittal v Abhijit Guhakartha & Ors. The Supreme Court (‘SC’), in the ISC case, reversed the position by holding that the proviso is to be read literally, and treating it otherwise would render it obsolete. However, the proviso does not specify who seeks approval and at what stage before the CoC nod. In the scheme of CIRP, the stages preceding the CoC approval are:

          • Stage 1: Invitation for expression of interest from prospective RAs
          • Stage 2: Request for resolution plans from prospective RAs
          • Stage 3: Examination and confirmation of the plans by the RP
          • Stage 4: Voting by the CoC on the plans

          The SC in ISC clarified that the RA need not wait till submission of the plan to the RP before sending a notice to the CCI for approval. In effect, the approval of the CCI can be sought at any time, even in Stage 1 during the invitation for expression of interest at any point before Stage 4. The next section shall discuss the workability of the same.

          DETERMINING THE TRIGGER POINT FOR CCI NOTICE

          When to send the notice?

          According to Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, (‘the Competition Act’) an enterprise must send a notice of combination to the CCI when it executes any agreement or document for acquisition, or when the Board of Directors (‘Board’) of the enterprises involved approves the proposal for a merger or amalgamation.

          As held in ISC, an RA can send a notice to the CCI much before it submits its resolution plan to the RP. But is the requirement of an agreement or a decision for acquisition or the Board’s approval for merger met at Stages 1 and 2?

          An ‘agreement’ to acquire is a broad and liberal construct, and includes an arrangement of understanding or even an action in concert. Such an arrangement or understanding can be reflected in a formal or written form, and it need not have been formulated with the intent legal enforceability. In the case of the CIRP, the RP is tasked with managing the CD, including entering into contracts on behalf of the CD, courtesy Section 23 read with Section 20 of IBC. Resultantly, an agreement or understanding for the purpose of acquisition has to be between the RA proposing the combination on one side and the RP on the other side.

          But such an understanding or arrangement is absent at Stage 1. An agreement requires a meeting of minds of at least two parties, which is lacking when the RA is yet to share their proposal with the RP. Similarly, Stage 2 only marks a point where the RAs have prepared the plan. That does not signify an agreement as it is yet to be examined and understood by the RP.  

          At Stage 3, the RP examines the resolution plans proposed by the RAs and confirms whether they comply with the minimum essentials mandated by the law. This confirmation implies an agreement or an understanding, making Stage 3 and onwards the appropriate trigger for notice.

          Now, in the case of a merger or amalgamation, the notice is triggered only after the proposal is approved by the Board of both parties.[i]  In the case of a CD, the interim RP (‘IRP’) or the RP steps into the shoes of the management. Resultantly, the approval would have to be sought from the RP himself. Therefore, a notice for merger or amalgamation cannot be sent to the CCI before the plan is submitted to the RP and confirmed by them, which is Stage 3. So, the same conclusion follows – it is at Stage 3 that the notice is triggered.

          Who should send the notice?

          In the case of acquisition, the acquirer sends the notice.[ii] Generally, the successful RA submitting the plan acquires the target CD company, as was seen in the case of ISC. Therefore, it is the RA who is required to send the notice to the CCI. For merger or amalgamation, notice must be sent jointly by the RA and the RP.[iii]

          Suppose there are RAs intending to propose an acquisition in Stages 1 and 2, then all those RAs must send the notice to the CCI with the requisite fees,[iv] even before the plan is seen and examined by the RP. So, even RAs whose plan might not be voted in later would have to bear the cost at an early stage. Quite similarly, in the case of merger or amalgamation, the RP and the respective RA have to send the notice and pay the fees, jointly or severally.[v]Whether the RA or the RP handling the stressed CD would want to take the liability to pay the fees amid relative uncertainty is doubtful.

          WELCOMING THE 2025 AMENDMENT

          The 2025 Amendment has been appreciated for many desirable introductions, from the new ‘creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process’ to ‘group insolvency’. Clause 19(d) amends the proviso to Section 31(4), allowing the RA to obtain the CCI approval before submission to AA. So, the approval process can be deferred till the CoC votes on the plan and the Successful Resolution Applicant is identified. The minor change resolves the above-discussed problem of redundancy, while leaving room for seeking approval at an earlier stage.

          There are certain concerns regarding the amendment as well, but these can be addressed duly. One of the concerns is regarding compliance with the CIRP timeline of 330 days under Section 12 of the Code. However, 330 days is a general rule. The Court has already held, previously as well as in ISC, that the breach of the time-limit can be condoned in exceptional circumstances where any blame for such a delay cannot be attributed to any of the parties.

          In case the plan approved by the CoC is rejected by the CCI, it must be modified to address those objections. However, the successful RA cannot make any change at its own behest. So, once changes are made, the CoC must approve it again. Essentially, such a rejection need not be fatal to the CIRP, though it may elongate the process. In any case, Clause 19(b) of the 2025 Amendments allows the AA to return back the plan to the CoC for correcting any defects. What it reflects is that alterations made post first CoC approval is not doctrinally unacceptable. When CCI recommends changes, the CoC is well-equipped to accommodate it then and there. 

          Therefore, the proposed amendment to the procedure for CCI approval of the resolution plan is a pragmatic improvement as it spares the RA and the RP from the additional paperwork and costs that are characteristic of the existing position.

          CONCLUDING REMARKS

          The current position as settled in the ISC case does not gel well with reality. Even though it seems to make available a broad period for sending the notice, starting from Stage 1, it is generally not possible to send a notice until Stage 3 when the trigger for the notice under the Competition Act is activated. In rare cases with only one RA and mutual certainty as to the terms of the combination, this proposition in ISC might be of some use. Such cases are rare in the typically uncertain flow of business in the CIRP.

          The proposed change in the 2025 Amendment reflects the reality. The RAs and the RP can even wait till the CoC approval to send the notice. This improves ease of doing business and provides more leeway for the stakeholders to ensure compliance.

          [i] Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2024, Reg. 5(7).

          [ii] Id., Reg. 9(1).

          [iii] Id., Reg. 9(3).

          [iv] Id., Regs. 10, 11.

          [v] Id., Regs. 10(2), 9(3).

        2. Sustainable Finance: Deconstructing SEBI’s Framework for ESG Debt Securities

          Sustainable Finance: Deconstructing SEBI’s Framework for ESG Debt Securities

          VIDUSHI AND AADARSH GAUTAM, FIFTH -YEAR STUDENTS AT NLUD, NEW DELHI

          INTRODUCTION

          On June 5, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), in its Circular titled “Framework for Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) Debt Securities (other than green debt securities)” (‘Circular’) has come out with an operational framework Circular for issuance of social bonds, sustainability bonds and sustainability-linked bonds, which together will be known as Environment, Social and Governance (“ESG”) debt securities. Before this amendment and the introduction of the ESG Framework, SEBI had formally recognised only green bonds. While the regulatory landscape in India was initially focused solely on green bonds, market practices had already begun embracing broader ESG categories. This Circular is significant as it will help issuers to raise money for more sustainable projects, assisting in closing the funding gap for the Sustainable Development Goals.

          The Circular is part of a larger regulatory trajectory that began with SEBI’s consultation paper released on August 16, 2024. The consultation paper had proposed to expand the scope of the sustainable finance framework in the Indian securities market, recognising the growing global demand for capital mobilization to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”). It had set the stage for subsequent amendments to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 through the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2024, which formally introduced the definition of ESG Debt Securities under Regulation 2(1)(oa). This blog analyses how the Circular operationalises these regulatory intentions to create a structured ecosystem for the issuance and listing of a broader class of ESG debt instruments in India.

          UNDERSTANDING ESG DEBT SECURITIES

          ESG Debt Securities in their definition include green debt securities (“GDS”), social bonds, sustainability bonds, and sustainability-linked bonds. While GDS have already been defined under Regulation 2(1)(q) of NCS Regulations, with effect from date of release, SEBI’s new Circular governs the issuance and definition of ESG Debt Securities, excluding GDS. The definition is deliberately wide to encompass advancements in international standards encompassing the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Principles, the Climate Bonds Standard, and the ASEAN Standards among others. This permit the incorporation of additional categories of ESG Debt Securities as designated internationally and by SEBI periodically. Thus, if any activity qualifies internationally to ESG Standards, it will be able to secure the tag in India, too. These international standards are also relevant for issuers for adherence to initial and continuous disclosures for issuance of ESG Debt Securities as will be discussed later in this blog.

          This Circular provides the definition of social bonds as a way for firms to gain finances for initiatives that positively benefit society. For example, governments may involve projects aimed at improving water supply, supplying necessities like medical care and education, ensuring food security, and improving fundamental infrastructure. Similarly, sustainability bonds are defined as made for the purpose of financing green and social projects. They acknowledge the convergence of environmental and social goals. For instance, in 2020, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent organisation, made the prominent move of offering a USD 5.75 billion bond in support of sustainability. Part of these bonds went to finance green buildings and electric transport, demonstrating how sustainability bonds can be multipurpose.

          Besides, under this framework, sustainability-linked bonds (“SLBs”) are very different from bonds tied to the use of funds. They do not depend on a single project but are based on the issuer’s continuous ESG achievements. The issuers make forward-looking commitments to enhance their sustainability by using Key Performance Indicators (“KPIs”) and comparing their outcomes with their agreed-upon Sustainability Performance Targets (“SPTs”). Even though the proceeds from these bonds are flexible, the issuance process is only credible if the issuer is able to accomplish the set goals.

          As ESG bonds are distinct in their manner of use of investment obtained, separate obligations and requirements are laid down by the Circular for these bonds as will be explored next.

          THE PROPOSED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

          At the outset, an issuer desirous of issuing these social bonds, sustainable bonds or SLBs have to comply with initial disclosure requirements, continuous disclosure obligations and appoint independent third-party certifiers as per the Circular. The issuance of social and sustainable bonds requires adherence to requirements as per Annexure A and for SLBs as per Annexure B. The primary aim behind the requirements remains transparency and investor protection. For instance, as per Annexure A, the initial disclosure regarding how the project benefits the public put an end to the raising of money for projects without adequate information and instil trust in investors. Significantly, the Circular provides for the qualification of a third-party reviewer by mandating independence, expertise and lack of any conflict of interest. It is to be highlighted that while the presence of third-party reviewers remains essential and a step forward in right direction, the regulations governing ESG credit rating agencies are still evolving to enhance clarity and transparency and are at a comparatively nascent stage. The ability of reviewers to provide accurate and tailored reviews rather than template ones remains untested and the Circular does not provide guidelines that could ensure it.

          In addition to the above requirements, as per Annexure B, SLBs need to comply to certain unique requirements due to the forward-looking, performance-oriented characteristics of these instruments. During the issuance phase, issuers must furnish exhaustive information on chosen KPIs, encompassing definitions, calculation benchmarks, while elucidating the justification for picking such KPIs. Similar to the framework for social and sustainable bonds, an independent third-party need to be appointed to verify the credibility of the selected KPIs and SPTs. If there is any change in the method by which the company sets or measures KPIs or SPTs, this information has to be examined and notified. This strict structure guarantees that SLBs are both ambitious and transparent, providing investors with a reliable means to evaluate issuers’ ESG performance over the course of time.

          ACTION MEETS AMBITION: ELIMINATING PURPOSE-WASHING

          One of the significant change brought by the framework is to ensure that the instruments are “true to their labels”. The issuer is not allowed to use any misleading labels, hide any negative effects or choose to only highlight positive outcomes without informing negative aspects. Herein, to prevent purpose washing, that is misleadingly portraying of funds as impact investments, the regulator mandates that the funds and their utilisation to meet the agreed ESG objectives are continuously monitored. Any misuse of the allocated funds has to be immediately reported and the debenture holders’ have the right to early redemption.

          The mandatory nature of impact reporting by the issuer ensures to provide clear and transparent assessments of the outcomes of their ESG labelled initiatives. Such report shall include both qualitative (explaining narratives, approaches, case studies and contexts of social impact) and quantitative indicators (specific metrics and measurable data, such as carbon emissions reduced, of the social impact) and should be supplemented by third party verification. As a result, SEBI ensures to create a culture of responsibility that extends beyond initial issuance and to the complete lifecycle of the management. These mechanisms ensures a comprehensive framework of safeguards aimed at protecting investors and maintaining the integrity of India’s sustainable finance ecosystem.

          THE WAY FORWARD

          SEBI’s ESG Debt Securities Framework is a relevant and progressive regulatory advancement that broadens India’s sustainable finance repertoire beyond green bonds to encompass social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked bonds. The Circular enhances market integrity and connects India’s ESG debt landscape with global best practices by incorporating stringent disclosure standards, and protections against purpose-washing. The industry has welcomed Larsen & Toubro’s announcement of a Rs 500 crore ESG Bond issue, marking it as the first Indian corporation to undertake such an initiative under the newly established SEBI ESG and sustainability-linked bond framework. With the need to strengthen certain aspects including third-party reviews, as implementation progresses, strong enforcement, market awareness, and alignment with international standards will be essential to realising the framework’s full potential.

        3. Decoding NCLT’s Philips India Ruling: Evolving Judicial Reasoning & Broader Implications

          Decoding NCLT’s Philips India Ruling: Evolving Judicial Reasoning & Broader Implications

          Vaibhav Mishra and Sparsh Tiwari, Fourth- year student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

          INTRODUCTION

            Capital reduction is a salient aspect of corporate finance that is dealt with under section 66 (‘the section’) of the Companies Act of 2013 (‘2013 Act’). It entails a reduction in the issued share capital of the company. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore explains the commercial rationale for undertaking the capital reduction as including a plethora of reasons such as simplifying capital structure, and ownership structure, increasing dividend-paying capacity, etc.

            Indian  corporate jurisprudence has evolved through numerous judgments that have elucidated the scope of this section. The established position was that the company’s rationale for the invocation of the section cannot be questioned, affirming its wide application. Last year, in September 2024, a petition was filed by Phillips India Limited before National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) Kolkata (‘the tribunal’) under the section seeking permission for the reduction of capital. The company provided two reasons for the application i.e. providing liquidity to the minority & reducing administrative costs. However, the tribunal, in its order dismissing the petition, held that such a transaction fell outside the scope of capital reduction.

            Though a development in last year, the vacuum of judicial discretion under Section 66 still remains in the Indian regime. This article attempts to critically analyse NCLT’s order vis-à-vis precedents. The article also analyses relevant foreign authorities to clarify the scope of the section. Furthermore, it also delves into the possibility of effecting the takeover outside these traditional arrangements.

            NCLT’S ORDER VIS-À-VIS PRECEDENTS

              In this matter, Koninklijke Philips N. V., which held 96.13% of shares in Philips India Limited, wanted to effect capital reduction by purchasing shares of minority shareholders. For this, a two-fold reason was provided by the company, viz., firstly, providing liquidity to the shareholders who could not liquidate their holdings following the company’s delisting in 2004, and secondly, reducing the administrative costs associated with minority shareholders. However, the tribunal dismissed the petition, with the interpretation of the statutory scheme of the section playing a key role in its decision.

              Before delving into judicial reasoning, it is crucial to examine the existing precedents on this section’s interpretation. In a similar factual scenario, the Bombay High Court in Capital of Wartsila India Limited v. Janak Mathuradas, confirmed the petitioner company’s capital reduction that was undertaken to provide liquidity to minority shareholders who had no way to liquidate their holdings after the company was delisted in 2007. Similarly, the single judge bench of Delhi NCLT in Devinder Parkash Kalra & Ors. v. Syngenta India Limited allowed capital reduction as a means of providing liquidity to the minority shareholders. It is pertinent to note that NCLT confirmed the application of capital reduction even though it called for revaluation by an independent valuer. Also, in Economy Hotels India Services Private Limited v. Registrar of Companies, Justice Venugopal termed the process of capital reduction under the section as a “domestic affair”, affirming its expansive scope. These precedents reflect the traditional line of reasoning where the courts did not interfere in the application of the section except to secure certain equitable objectives, such as securing the minority’s interest.

              ASSESSING THE NCLT’S ORDER IN LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE SECTION

                In this matter, the tribunal characterised the nature of the transaction as a buy-back and not a capital reduction. The rationale for this decision was twofold: first, the present transaction did not fall under any of the three instances outlined under the section, and second, the inapplicability of the section in light of section 66(8). As evident, the order was a departure from the established line of judicial reasoning associated with capital reduction.

                Firstly, on the rationale that the present transaction did not fall under instances provided under the section, it is pertinent to note that the tribunal failed to give any consideration to the words “in any manner” as used in the section. These words are of wide import and must be given their natural meaning. Moreover, a reference may be made to the corresponding provision of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) for guidance. Section 100 of the now-repealed Act further clarified the generality of the provision by incorporating the words “in any manner; and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power”. Therefore, the incorporation of the words “in any manner”, though not the same as section 100, supports an expansive interpretation not limited to the instances mentioned under the section.

                Furthermore, an expansive interpretation could reasonably allow the present transaction to fall within the purview of section 66(b)(ii), which states that a company can “pay off any paid-up share capital which is in excess of wants of the company”.The reasoning is that one of the motivations behind the company’s decision to undertake this transaction was to reduce the administrative costs of managing around 25,000 shareholders who collectively held a minuscule 3.16% of the total share capital. This objective of reducing administrative costs can reasonably be interpreted as falling within the scope of being in “excess of wants” under section 66(b). Further support for this interpretation is provided by Ramaiya’s commentary[i], where he suggests that “a company may be in need of money so paid-up through capital in business but still may not be in want of the money through share capital”. Thus, an expansive interpretation brings this transaction within the ambit of the section.

                Secondly, section 66(8) states that “nothing in this section shall apply to buy-back of its securities under Section 68”. To clarify the scope of this provision, the tribunal referred to section 100 of the Act, highlighting that it lacked a provision like section 66(8). The tribunal interpreted this discrepancy to mean that section 66(8) restricted the buy-back of securities under the section. However, this reasoning is beset by the fact that the Act lacked any provision for buy-back of securities. It was only in 1999 that such a provision, viz. section 77A, was included. The 2013 Act creates a separate section i.e. section 68, to deal with buy-back transactions. Hence, it is contended that 66(8) is clarificatory in nature, implying that capital reduction and buy-back of shares are governed under separate sections, and does not serve to restrict the scope of capital reduction. Thus, the author opines that the tribunal has erred in its order, creating an uncertain position in a relatively established position on the applicability of the section. 

                JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN CAPITAL REDUCTION TRANSACTIONS: AN ANALYSIS

                Judgements from the UK offer critical cues on understanding capital reduction. For instance, inBritish American Trustee and Finance Corporation v. Couper, judicial discretion over the capital reduction process was affirmed by the court. The courts also laid the relevant principles like fairness and equitable process for minority shareholders, creditors, etc., to guide this ‘judicial discretion’. In Re Ranters Group PLC[ii], the court interpreted the section 135(1) of the Company Act, 1985. Interestingly, section 135, though no longer in effect, uses similar wording, like the section in the context of capital reduction i.e. “reduced in any way”. Harman J. here held that the court needs to ensure broadly three things, viz, equitable treatment of shareholders, protection of creditor’s interest and ensuring that shareholders are aware of the proposal. The NCLT’s order exceeds this ‘judicial discretion’. In the instant case, there was nothing in the order to prove inequitable treatment or violation of the creditor’s interest. Therefore, the deviation in NCLT’s order could affect the business autonomy of the company and could potentially create various challenges for the corporate sector in executing transactions.

                Thus, the situation calls for legislators to reassess the structure & statutory scheme of the section of the 2013 Act. NCLT’s order, if treated as precedent, implies that the whole process under the section becomes dependent on the tribunal’s discretion. As is evident, the section starts with ‘subject to confirmation by tribunal’. It is contended that the role of the judiciary is limited to protecting the interests of shareholders, creditors and ensuring equity in transactions.

                EXPLORING THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF CAPITAL REDUCTION

                In this matter, Phillips was unable to effect capital reduction even after obtaining the consent of 99% of shareholders. This highlights the need for an alternative structure that allows companies to undertake capital reductions outside the bounds of the traditional arrangement. In this context, valuable insights could be drawn from section 84 of the Companies Act of Ireland, 2014, which outlines two methods of capital reduction: the Summary Approval Procedure ( SAP) and the Court-bound method. The SAP allows a company to carry out a capital reduction through a two-fold process, firstly, by passing a special resolution of the shareholders and lastly, declaration of solvency from the directors. This process avoids the need of court approval, bringing in the efficiency and flexibility that our system currently lacks.

                Another example of a highly relaxed framework can be found in section 256B of the Corporations Act, 2001 in Australia, where companies wishing to effect capital reduction may do so, provided they lodge a notice with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) prior the meeting notice is sent to the shareholders. The shareholders hold the final authority to decide on the capital reduction, and their decision does not require any confirmation. Thus, capital reduction remains entirely within the domain of the shareholders.

                In the Indian context, section 236 of the 2013 Act, mirroring section 395 of the Act, could potentially serve as an alternate mechanism for the acquisition of minority shares. This provision allows any person or group of persons holding ninety percent or more of the issued equity capital of a company to acquire the remaining minority shareholdings. However, there are few precedents on its application, and the provision lacks clarity due to its clumsy drafting. For example, while section 236(1) & (2) allows the majority with more than 90% shareholding to buy minority shares, 236(3) dealing with minority shareholders does not obligate them to sell their shareholding. Thus, 236 offers an incomplete remedy from the perspective of the company. It is contended that this provision should be interpreted in light of its objective, well-stated in its JJ Irani Committee report. The evident intention of the committee in introducing section 395 of the Act was to create a legal framework for allowing the acquisition of minority shareholding. However, as noted above, the provision in its current form does not put an obligation on the minority shareholders while providing a ‘buy-out’ mechanism to the majority, illustrating a conservative approach of legislators.

                Therefore, it is suggested that necessary amendments be made to section 236(3) to impose a mandate on minority shareholders to divest their shareholding, while also ensuring an equitable valuation for them. Such amendments would facilitate the full realisation of the remedy provided under this provision, serving as an alternative to the section of the 2013 Act.

                CONCLUDING REMARKS

                While the NCLT’s deviation from the established precedent on capital reduction may be flawed in its reasoning, it has nonetheless sparked a debate about the necessity of exploring alternatives to traditional capital reduction methods.  The need for such alternatives is further underscored by the economic and time-related costs associated with seeking tribunal confirmation. The focus should be on identifying alternative methods that safeguard minority shareholders from exploitation, while also enabling companies to undertake capital reduction quickly and efficiently.

                [i] Ramaiya, Guide to the Companies Act, 2013, vol. 1 (25th ed. LexisNexis 2021)

                [ii] [1988] BCLC 685.

              1. COMI Confusion: Can India Align With The Global Insolvency Order?

                COMI Confusion: Can India Align With The Global Insolvency Order?

                Prakhar Dubey, First- Year LL.M student, NALSAR University, Hyderabad

                INTRODUCTION

                In the contemporary global economy, where firms often operate across various countries, the growing complexity of international financial systems has made cross-border insolvency processes more complicated than ever. International trade and business have proliferated, with companies frequently possessing assets, conducting operations, or having debtors dispersed across multiple nations. In a highly interconnected environment, a company’s financial hardship in one jurisdiction may have transnational repercussions, impacting stakeholders worldwide. Consequently, addressing insolvency with equity, efficacy, and certainty is essential.

                A fundamental challenge in cross-border insolvency is establishing jurisdiction—namely, which court will manage the insolvency and which laws will regulate the resolution process. The issue is exacerbated when several nations implement disparate legal norms or frameworks for cross-border recognition and collaboration. Two fundamental concepts, forum shopping and Centre of Main Interests (‘COMI’), profoundly influence this discourse.

                Forum shopping occurs when debtors take advantage of jurisdictional differences to file in nations with more lenient rules or advantageous outcomes, such as debtor-friendly restructuring regulations or diminished creditor rights. Although this may be strategically advantageous for the debtor, it frequently generates legal ambiguity and compromises the interests of creditors in alternative jurisdictions. To mitigate such exploitation, the United Nation Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (‘UNCITRAL Model Law’) has formalised the COMI test, a principle designed to guarantee openness and predictability in cross-border procedures. It offers an impartial method to determine the most suitable forum based on the locus of a debtor’s business operations.

                Although recognising the need for cross-border bankruptcy reform, India has not yet officially adopted the Model Law. Instead, it relies on antiquated processes such as the Gibbs Principle, which asserts that a contract covered by the law of a specific country can only be terminated under that legislation, along with ad hoc judicial discretion. These constraints have led to ambiguity, uneven treatment of creditors, and prolonged cross-border remedies.

                This blog critically assesses India’s present strategy, highlights the gap in the legislative and institutional framework, and offers analytical insights into the ramifications of forum shopping and COMI. This analysis utilises the Jet Airways case to examine comparable worldwide best practices and concludes with specific measures aimed at improving India’s cross-border insolvency framework.

                INDIA’S STANCE ON ADOPTING THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW

                The existing cross-border insolvency structure in India, as delineated in Sections 234 and 235 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( ‘IBC’ ), 2016, is predominantly inactive. Despite the longstanding recommendations for alignment with international standards from the Eradi Committee (2000) and the N.L. Mitra Committee (2001), India has not yet enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law.

                More than 60 nations have implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law to enhance coordination and collaboration across courts internationally. India’s hesitance arises from apprehensions of sovereignty, reciprocity, and the administrative difficulty of consistently ascertaining the COMI. Adoption would include not only legislative reform but also institutional preparedness training for judges, fortifying the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’), and establishing bilateral frameworks.

                KEY PROVISIONS OF THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

                The four fundamental principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law, Access, Recognition, Relief, and Cooperation, are designed to facilitate the efficient and fair resolution of cross-border bankruptcy matters. They facilitate direct interaction between foreign representatives and domestic courts, expedite the recognition of foreign procedures, protect debtor assets, and enhance cooperation among jurisdictions to prevent delays and asset dissipation.

                The effectiveness of these principles is evident in global bankruptcy processes, as demonstrated by the rising number of nations implementing the UNCITRAL Model Law and the more efficient settlement of complex international cases. Nonetheless, its implementation has not achieved universal acceptance, with certain countries, such as India, opting for different approaches, which may pose issues in cross-border insolvency processes.

                In the case of In re Stanford International Bank Ltd., the English Court of Appeal faced challenges in establishing the COMI due to inconsistencies between the company’s formal registration in Antigua and Barbuda and the true location of its business operations. This case underscores the imperative for a well-defined COMI standard that evaluates significant commercial operations rather than merely the jurisdiction of incorporation. The Court of Appeal finally determined that the Antiguans’ liquidation represented a foreign primary procedure, underscoring that the presumption of registered office for COMI may only be refuted by objective and verifiable elements to other parties, including creditors. This case highlights the complexity that emerges when a company’s official legal domicile diverges from its practical reality, resulting in difficulties in implementing cross-border insolvency principles.

                Moreover, India’s exclusion of a reciprocity clause hindered the global implementation of Indian rulings and vice versa. In the absence of a defined statutory mandate, ad hoc judicial collaboration often demonstrates inconsistency and unpredictability, hence compromising the global enforceability of Indian insolvency resolutions. This reflects the challenges encountered by other jurisdictions historically, as demonstrated in the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Re Eurofood IFSC Ltd. This pivotal judgment elucidated that the presumption of the registered office for the COMI can only be contested by circumstances that are both objective and verifiable by third parties, including the company’s creditors. These cases highlight the pressing necessity for a comprehensive and globally harmonised legal framework for insolvency in India, with explicitly delineated criteria to prevent extended and expensive jurisdictional conflicts.

                FORUM SHOPPING AND INSOLVENCY LAW: A DELICATE BALANCE

                Forum shopping may serve as a mechanism for procedural efficiency while simultaneously functioning as a strategy for exploitation. Although it may assist debtors in obtaining more favourable restructuring terms, it also poses a danger of compromising creditor rights and creating legal ambiguity.

                In India, reliance on the Gibbs Principle, which posits that a contract can only be discharged by the governing law, has hindered flexibility. This was seen in the Arvind Mills case, where the disparate treatment of international creditors was scrutinised, and in the Dabhol Power issue, where political and legal stagnation hindered effective settlement.

                While a certain level of jurisdictional discretion enables corporations to seek optimal restructuring, India must reconcile debtor flexibility with creditor safeguarding. An ethical framework grounded in transparency and good faith is crucial to avert forum shopping from serving as a mechanism for evasion.

                COMI IN INDIA: NEED FOR LEGAL CLARITY

                India’s judicial involvement in COMI was prominently highlighted in the Jet Airways insolvency case, which entailed concurrent processes in India and the Netherlands. The NCLT initially rejected the acknowledgement of the Dutch proceedings owing to the absence of an explicit provision in the IBC. The NCLAT characterised the Dutch process as a “foreign non-main” proceeding and confirmed India as the COMI. In a recent judgment dated November 12th, 2024, the Supreme Court ultimately ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways, establishing a precedent for the interpretation of COMI. This decision solidifies India’s position as the primary jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings involving Indian companies, even when concurrent foreign proceedings exist. It underscores the Indian judiciary’s assertive stance in determining the COMI and signals a stronger emphasis on domestic insolvency resolution, potentially influencing how future cross-border insolvency cases are handled in India.

                This case illustrates the judiciary’s readiness to adapt and the urgent requirement for legislative clarity. In the absence of a defined COMI framework, results are mostly contingent upon court discretion, leading to potential inconsistency and forum manipulation. Moreover, it demonstrates that India’s fragmented strategy for cross-border cooperation lacks the necessary robustness in an era of global corporate insolvencies.

                To address these difficulties, India must execute a set of coordinated and systemic reforms:

                Implement the “Nerve Centre” Test (U.S. Model)

                India should shift from a rigid procedure to a substantive assessment of the site of significant corporate decision-making. This showcases the genuine locus of control and decision-making, thereby more accurately representing the commercial landscape of contemporary organisations.

                Apply the “Present Tense” Test (Singapore Model)

                The COMI should be evaluated based on the circumstances at the time of insolvency filing, rather than historical or retrospective factors. This would deter opportunistic actions by debtors attempting to exploit more lenient jurisdictions.

                Presumption Based on Registered Office

                Utilising the registered office as a basis for ascertaining COMI provides predictability; nonetheless, it must be regarded as a rebuttable presumption. Judicial bodies ought to maintain the discretion to consider factors outside registration when evidence suggests an alternative operational reality.

                Institutional Strengthening

                India’s insolvency tribunals must be endowed with the necessary instruments and experience to manage cross-border issues. This encompasses specialist benches within NCLT/NCLAT, training initiatives for judges and resolution experts, and frameworks for judicial collaboration. The adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law must incorporate a reciprocity clause to enable mutual enforcement of judgments. India should pursue bilateral and multilateral insolvency cooperation agreements to augment worldwide credibility and enforcement.

                By rectifying these legal and procedural deficiencies, India may establish a resilient insolvency framework that is internationally aligned and capable of producing equitable results in a progressively interconnected financial landscape.

                CONCLUSION

                The existing cross-border bankruptcy structure in India is inadequate to tackle the intricacies of global corporate distress. As multinational businesses and assets expand, legal clarity and institutional capacity become imperative. The absence of formal acceptance of the UNCITRAL Model Law, dependence on antiquated principles such as the Gibbs Rule, and lack of a clearly defined COMI norm have resulted in fragmented and uneven conclusions, as shown by the Jet Airways case. To promote equity, transparency, and predictability, India must undertake systemic changes, including the introduction of comprehensive COMI assessments, a reciprocity provision, and institutional enhancement. Adhering to international best practices will bolster creditor trust and guarantee that India’s bankruptcy framework stays resilient in a globalised economic landscape.

              2. Contractual ‘Non-Use’ Covenants: Plugging the Shadow-Trading Gap

                Contractual ‘Non-Use’ Covenants: Plugging the Shadow-Trading Gap

                Aditya Singh, THIRD- Year Student, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

                INTRODUCTION

                The successful prosecution in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Panuwat has introduced “shadow trading” as a novel enforcement concept for securities regulators. While India is yet to confront a concrete instance of shadow trading and its cognizance by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), the U.S. experience highlights a potential lacuna in domestic regulations. Under SEBI’s current framework, insiders face civil liability only when trading in the stock of the very issuer, whose Unpublished Price-Sensitive Information (‘UPSI’) -they possess, and SEBI must prove both that the information “likely to materially affect” a particular security and that the insider used it with profit motive. The application of the shadow-trading principle domestically would therefore demand a framework which captures UPSI-driven trades beyond the issuer’s own stock, without becoming entangled in intricate economic-linkage or intent inquiries.

                This piece shows how India can strengthen its insider-trading regime by requiring all “designated persons” to pre-commit—via an expanded Code of Conduct—to refrain from using any UPSI for profit, and then empowering SEBI to invoke misappropriation principles against any breach. It begins by defining “shadow trading,” contrasts the classical and misappropriation theories, and then sets out the covenant-plus-notice proposal and its statutory foundation. The piece goes on to address proportionality and practical objections before concluding with implementation steps.


                THE SHADOW-TRADING PUZZLE

                Scholars have defined shadow trading as – when private information held by insiders can also be relevant for economically-linked firms and exploited to facilitate profitable trading in those firms. In SEC v. Panuwat, the U.S. District Court for Northern California confronted a novel fact pattern: Matthew Panuwat, a Senior Director at Medivation, received a confidential email revealing Pfizer’s imminent acquisition of Medivation. Rather than trading Medivation stock, he bought shares of Incyte—a competitor whose share price would rise on news of the Medivation deal.

                On the anvils of misappropriation theory, it was held that Panuwat’s breach of Medivation’s insider trading policy which expansively prohibited trading (while in possession of Medivation’s inside information) in not only Medivation’s securities, but arguably in any publicly traded securities in which Medivation’s inside information would give its insiders an investing edge. This fiduciary duty to Medivation—gave rise to insider-trading liability, even though he never traded Medivation securities. In rejecting Panuwat’s argument that liability requires trading in the issuer whose information is misused, the court emphasized that “misappropriation of confidential information for trading any economically linked security” falls within the scope of securities fraud under Rule 10b-5.

                The above discussion necessitates understanding 2 main principles behind insider trading. Under the classical model, insider-trading liability arises when an insider breaches a fiduciary duty by trading in the issuer’s own securities. By contrast, misappropriation theory treats any breach of duty to the source of confidential information as actionable; and India has consistently adhered to the classical approach.

                POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION IN INDIA THROUGH EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION

                While the market-protection, investor-equity, and price-discovery rationales behind the prohibition of insider trading have been extensively examined by scholars, those same principles equally justify a similar regulatory approach to shadow trading, which is effectively an extension of insider trading itself.

                An interpretative reading of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’), can be used for the domestic application of shadow trading . Regulation 2(1)(n) defines UPSI as any information “directly or indirectly” relating to a company’s securities that is “likely to materially affect” their price. The qualifier “indirectly” can thus for instance bring within UPSI material non-public information about Company A that predictably moves Company B’s shares due to their economic linkage. Indian tribunals have already endorsed expansive readings (see FCRPL v SEBI).  Likewise, the definition of “Insider” under Regulation 2(1)(g) encapsulates anyone who “has access to” UPSI. Once that information is used to trade Company B’s securities, the trader effectively becomes an “insider” of Company B.

                However, relying solely on this interpretative route raises a host of practical and doctrinal difficulties. The next section examines the key obstacles that would complicate SEBI’s attempt to enforce shadow‐trading liability under the existing PIT framework.

                CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

                Key implementation challenges are as follows:

                No clear test for “indirect” links: Using “indirectly” as a qualifier posits the problem that no benchmark exists to determine how tenuous an economic link between two entities may be. Is a 5 % revenue dependence enough? Does a 1% index weight qualify? Without clear criteria, every “indirect” claim becomes a bespoke debate over company correlations in the market.

                Heavy proof of price impact: To show UPSI would “likely materially affect” a non-source instrument, SEBI and insiders can each hire economists/experts to argue over whether UPSI about Company A truly “likely materially affects” Company B’s price. Disputes over timeframes, statistical tests, and which market indicators to use would turn every shadow-trading case into an endless technical showdown.

                Uncertain Profit-Motive Standards: Courts already grapple with an implicit profit-motive requirement that the PIT Regulations do not explicitly mandate—a problem Girjesh Shukla and Aditi Dehal discuss at length in their paper—adding an ambiguous intent element and uncertain evidentiary burden. In shadow‐trading cases, where insiders can spread trades across stocks, bonds or derivatives, this uncertainty multiplies and is compounded by the undefined “indirect” linkage test and the need for complex price impact proofs as outlined above.

                THE CONTRACTUAL “NON-USE” COVENANT AND IMPORT OF MISAPPROPRIATION THEORY

                The author argues here that, despite there being many ways through legislative action to solve the problem, the quickest and most effective solution to this problem would be through an import of Misappropriation theory.

                This can be done by leveraging SEBI’s existing requirement for written insider-trading codes. Regulation 9(1) of the PIT Regulations mandates that every listed company adopt a Code of Conduct for its “designated persons,” incorporating the minimum standards of Schedule B, with a designated Compliance Officer to administer it under Regulation 9(3).

                Building on this foundation, SEBI could introduce a requirement to each Code to include a “Non-Use of UPSI for Profit” covenant, under which every insider expressly agrees to (a) abstain from trading in any security or financial instrument while in possession of UPSI, except where a safe-harbour expressly applies, (b) accept that a formal “UPSI Notice” serves as conclusive proof of materiality, obviating the need for SEBI—or any adjudicator—to conduct fresh event studies or call expert testimony on price impact and (c) Safe-harbour provision: extent to which trades can be made, to be determined/formulated by SEBI from time to time. Section 30 of the SEBI Act, 1992 authorises the Board to make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act, thereby making the addition procedurally valid as well. It is important to note here that this covenant works alongside SEBI’s trading-window rules under PIT Regulations: insiders must honour the temporary ban on trading whenever they hold UPSI.

                Time-bound blackouts are already standard: EU MAR Article 19 enforces a 30-day pre-results trading freeze, and India’s PIT Regulations enforces trade freeze during trading window closures. This covenant simply extends that familiar blackout to cover any UPSI capable of moving related securities to adapt to evolving loopholes in information asymmetry enforcement.

                Under this covenant structure, SEBI’s enforcement simplifies to three unambiguous steps:

                1. UPSI Certification: The company’s board or its designated UPSI Committee issues a written “UPSI Notice,” categorising the information under pre-defined, per se material events (financial results, M&A approvals, rating actions, major contracts, etc.).
                2. Duty Evidence: The insider’s signed covenant confirms a clear contractual duty not to trade on UPSI and to treat the Board’s certification as definitive.
                3. Trade Verification: Any trade in a covered instrument executed after the UPSI Notice automatically constitutes a breach of duty under misappropriation theory—SEBI needs only to show the notice, the covenant and the subsequent transaction.

                To avoid unduly rigid freezes, the covenant would operate as a rebuttable presumption: any trade executed after a UPSI Notice is prima facie violative unless the insider demonstrates (i) a bona-fide, UPSI-independent rationale or; (ii) eligibility under a defined safe-harbour.

                The import of the misappropriation theory will help execute this solution, that is to say, as soon as this covenant is breached it would be a breach of duty to the information’s source, triggering the insider trading regulation through the misappropriation principle.

                The misappropriation theory can be embedded in the PIT regulations through an amendment to the Regulation 4 by SEBI to read, in effect:

                4(1A). “No Insider shall misappropriate UPSI in breach of a contractual or fiduciary duty of confidentiality (including under any Company Code of Conduct) and trade on that information in any security or financial instrument.”

                The blanket restraint on trading engages Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution but survives the four-part proportionality test articulated in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of MP and applied to financial regulation in Internet & Mobile Association of India v RBI.

                WHY NOT A FACTOR-BASED TEST?

                An alternative approach,  advocates for a similar factor based test to determine “abuse of dominant position” by antitrust regulators to be adopted to the PIT regulations to determine cognizable economic linkage. Under this model, SEBI would assess a mix of metrics to decide when Company A’s UPSI is “economically linked” enough to Company B’s securities to trigger liability.

                However, the author argues that the covenant-based approach would be more effective. Unlike a factor-based linkage regime, which demands constant recalibration of revenue shares, index weights and supply-chain ties; fuels expert-driven litigation over chosen metrics and look-back windows; produces unpredictable, case-by-case outcomes; imposes heavy database and pre-clearance burdens; and leaves insiders free to game the latest matrices—the covenant-plus-misappropriation model skips the entire exercise as relies on one clear rule: no trading on UPSI. SEBI’s job becomes simply to confirm three things: the insider signed the promise, the information was certified as UPSI, and a trade took place afterward. This single-step check delivers legal certainty, slashes compliance burdens, and sharply boosts deterrence without ever reopening the question of how “indirectly” two companies are linked.

                CONCLUSION

                The covenant-plus-misappropriation framework streamlines enforcement, preserves SEBI’s materiality standard, and leverages existing Code-of-Conduct machinery—allowing rapid roll-out without new legislation. However, its success depends on corporate buy-in and consistent compliance-monitoring: companies must integrate covenant execution into their governance processes, and SEBI will still need robust surveillance to detect breaches. Therefore, SEBI should publish a consultation paper and pilot the covenant with select large-cap companies
                to identify practical challenges before a market-wide rollout.