Timelines in Crisis: Addressing Delays and Charting a Path to a Stronger Insolvency Framework under IBC

In a bustling metropolis, amidst the noise of economic growth and the rise of new enterprises, there exists a silent undercurrent - a ticking clock, where every minute counts for companies on the brink of insolvency. Imagine a company once thriving, now gasping for survival. The workers are left staring at uncertain futures, creditors anxiously waiting to recover their dues, and homebuyers yearning for the homes they were promised. Yet, the clock ticks on, and what should be a timely resolution drags into months, sometimes years. Welcome to the current reality of the?Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - a framework initially designed to resolve such crises swiftly but now entangled in its own delays.

The IBC was hailed as a game-changer when it was introduced in 2016. It was meant to be the saviour of India’s insolvency landscape - a law designed to deal with failing businesses quickly and efficiently, to safeguard the interests of creditors, employees, and other stakeholders. A maximum timeline of 330 days was put in place for the resolution process. Swift resolution, maximization of asset value, and ensuring businesses could either be revived or efficiently liquidated - these were the founding goals of the IBC. But, as the years rolled by, something unexpected happened:?the clock stopped working.

The Delays: A Crisis in Timelines

Let’s step into the shoes of a creditor for a moment. The company you lent money to is insolvent. You initiate the IBC process, hoping that within 330 days, you will get some of your money back. But what do you get instead? Court adjournments. Procedural roadblocks. Judicial backlogs. Before you know it, those 330 days have come and gone - and the company you once believed in continues to fall deeper into insolvency. The once-promising assets are now shadows of their former selves, shrinking in value as the process drags on. You start wondering, “Wasn’t this supposed to be resolved quickly?”

The narrative is the same for all stakeholders.?Workmen and employees, waiting anxiously for their unpaid wages, which the IBC had promised would be given priority, now see their hopes dim as the days stretch on. Their legal right to receive 24 months of unpaid dues remains just that - a legal right, but not a practical reality.?Homebuyers, who have poured their savings into real estate projects, are left in a state of perpetual waiting. They find themselves in a legal midpoint, unsure if they will ever get the homes they paid for or even a fraction of their money back.

The source of these delays is not hard to identify:?an overburdened National Company Law Tribunal, a judicial process that lacks sufficient manpower, and a system where procedural inefficiencies rule the day. While the IBC intended to move cases swiftly, the sheer volume of insolvency cases has overwhelmed the system, leading to frequent breaches of the 330-day timeline. Stakeholders have lost confidence. The objectives of the IBC - to restore the health of companies, protect creditors, and ensure fair distribution of assets - are now in jeopardy.

But in every crisis, there is an opportunity for transformation.

Restoring Confidence and Ensuring Timely Resolutions: Solutions for a Stronger Insolvency Framework

The good news is that the IBC is far from beyond saving. To truly address the crisis of timelines, we need?solutions that are not just reactive but transformative, innovative, and proactive. It is time to?reimagine the IBC?as more than just a legal framework. It is time to view it as a?dynamic ecosystem; one that requires the nurturing of stakeholders, the swift movement of cases, and the efficient maximization of value. This is how we can make it happen.

The Rise of Single Member Benches and Fast-Track Courts

Picture this: a separate, dedicated fast lane for insolvency cases. Single member benches within the NCLT and NCLAT, staffed by insolvency professionals who breathe life into the cases they handle with their deep understanding of the complexities involved. These single member benches would be able to handle double the cases that are being handled presently, enabling them to resolve issues faster and with more precision. For smaller cases, say less than a certain amount of claims,?fast-track courts?would operate like express lanes - simple, direct, and focused on cutting through procedural noise to deliver swift resolutions.

This solution would?decongest the system, allowing complex cases to be handled with the depth they require while ensuring smaller, more straightforward cases do not clog up the system.

Technological Overhaul: Enter AI and Blockchain

It is time to let technology do the heavy lifting. Imagine the power of?artificial intelligence?and?blockchain combined in the insolvency process. AI could revolutionize case management - tracking timelines, predicting delays, and alerting stakeholders to potential bottlenecks before they become crises. It could automate routine tasks like claim verification, freeing up time for more complex decision-making. Blockchain could offer?secure, transparent voting?by creditors, ensuring tamper-proof processes and reducing disputes.

This technological transformation would bring?unparalleled efficiency, ensuring that cases move forward at the pace they’re supposed to.

Early Warning Systems: Catching Distress Before It Is Too Late

What if companies could signal distress before falling into insolvency? Introducing an?early warning system?could do just that. By monitoring key financial indicators - such as declining cash flows, rising debt ratios, and missed payments - this system would alert companies, creditors, and regulators to potential insolvency risks well in advance. Pre-emptive restructuring or intervention could be initiated, giving companies a better chance at recovery?before the crisis escalates.

This would change the narrative from reactive resolution to?proactive prevention, improving the overall health of businesses and reducing the number of cases entering the IBC process.

Insolvency Insurance Fund: A Safety Net for Vulnerable Stakeholders

Here’s a radical idea: create an?insolvency insurance fund?that acts as a safety net for vulnerable stakeholders—workmen, employees, and homebuyers. Funded through levies on companies or contributions from industry, this pool of resources would ensure that priority payments to these stakeholders are made?even if the insolvency drags on. No more waiting for assets to be sold; no more uncertainty about whether dues will ever be paid. This fund would step in to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.

This solution would restore?faith and confidence?among stakeholders, knowing that they are no longer at the mercy of delayed resolutions.

Real-Time Data Sharing Platform: Transparency Equals Trust

Imagine a?real-time data-sharing platform?where creditors, investors, and resolution applicants have access to up-to-the-minute information on the financial health of the distressed company. This would be a digital hub where all relevant data—financials, operational reports, creditor claims - are available at the click of a button. Such transparency would not only?speed up decision-making?but also ensure that all stakeholders are on the same page, reducing disputes and aligning interests.

This move towards transparency would foster greater?trust and collaboration, making the insolvency process smoother and more efficient.

Comprehensive Stakeholder Representation: Giving Everyone a Voice

One of the key challenges in the current system is the?disproportionate influence?of large financial creditors within the Committee of Creditors, leaving smaller operational creditors, employees, and homebuyers feeling sidelined. To address this, the IBC must move towards?comprehensive stakeholder representation?by ensuring that all classes of creditors have a voice in the resolution process.

This could involve creating mandatory stakeholder committees for homebuyers, workmen, and employees, allowing them to have more meaningful participation in decision-making. Additionally, weighted voting rights could be introduced, giving priority to creditors based on the nature of their claims and ensuring that the most vulnerable groups have their interests protected. This shift toward equitable representation would foster a greater sense of inclusion, reducing legal disputes and improving the overall effectiveness of the insolvency process.

Introduction of a Tiered Resolution System: Tailoring the Approach

Not all insolvency cases are created equal, and it is time the IBC acknowledges this with the introduction of a?tiered resolution system. By categorizing cases based on their complexity, size, and sector, this system could streamline resolutions, allowing smaller and less complex cases to be resolved faster while allocating more resources and time to large, intricate cases.

• Track 1: A fast-track system for SMEs and simple insolvencies, resolved within 90-180 days.
• Track 2: A medium-complexity track for mid-sized companies, offering a more flexible but still time-bound approach.
• Track 3: A complex track for large corporations and cross-border insolvencies that require deeper legal and financial analysis.

This?tailored approach?would ensure that each case gets the attention it needs without overburdening the system with one-size-fits-all processes. It would also prevent smaller cases from clogging the system and allow for more efficient management of resources.

Mandatory Mediation and Arbitration Framework: Speeding Up Dispute Resolution

Disputes are inevitable in the insolvency process, but they do not always need to end up in court. A?mandatory mediation and arbitration framework?could provide a faster, more collaborative approach to resolving disputes, reducing the burden on the NCLT and NCLAT. Mediation could help settle conflicts related to claims, asset valuations, and distribution among creditors, while arbitration could be used to handle more complex disputes that require legally binding resolutions.

By diverting disputes from the courts to alternative resolution mechanisms, the insolvency process would move more smoothly, avoiding the lengthy adjournments and procedural delays that currently plague the system. This framework would ensure that disagreements are settled quickly and fairly, keeping the focus on the timely resolution of insolvency cases.

Post-Resolution Monitoring Mechanism: Ensuring Accountability

The insolvency resolution of a company is only the beginning of the journey. Many cases fail during the implementation of the approved resolution plan due to a lack of oversight and accountability. Introducing a?post-resolution monitoring mechanism?would ensure that resolution plans are not just approved but also effectively implemented. This mechanism could involve periodic reviews by independent professionals or regulatory bodies to ensure compliance with the approved resolution plan over the course of 12-24 months.

By providing continued oversight, this system would help prevent companies from falling back into distress and ensure that creditors receive the payouts they were promised. It would also create a more stable post-resolution environment, fostering greater confidence among stakeholders that the outcomes of insolvency cases will be sustainable and effective.

Comprehensive Review of Section 53 – Distribution of Assets: Balancing the Scales

Section 53 of the IBC lays out the?distribution waterfall?for assets, prioritizing secured creditors and leaving operational creditors, employees, and other vulnerable stakeholders with minimal recovery. While this section has been pivotal in guiding asset distribution, it is time for a?comprehensive review?to ensure more equitable outcomes for all stakeholders.

The review could focus on creating a?minimum guaranteed payout?for workmen, employees, and operational creditors, ensuring that they receive a fair share of the recoveries even if the asset pool is limited. Additionally, given the significant investments made by homebuyers, their place in the distribution waterfall could be revisited to better reflect their interests. This review would restore trust in the IBC, particularly among stakeholders who currently feel marginalized by the distribution process.

The Future of IBC: Where Innovation Meets Timeliness

The IBC was never meant to be static - it was always designed to evolve. The current crisis of timelines offers the perfect opportunity to?innovate?and?rebuild confidence?in this vital framework. The radical suggestions here are just the beginning. The solutions are within reach, but they require a commitment to rethinking how insolvency is managed, resolved, and prevented.

If we implement these changes, the future of the IBC could be one where?delays are minimized,?stakeholders are empowered, and businesses are either revived or liquidated efficiently. The ticking clock will no longer be a source of anxiety but a symbol of a system that works - on time and with precision. The IBC can reclaim its place as a pillar of India’s economic stability, driving confidence in the financial system and ensuring that insolvency is not a death sentence but a step towards resolution and renewal.

The time for transformation is now.

?