The Confluence of Insolvency and M&A: Analyzing the IBC's Influence on Corporate Transactions in India

I. Introduction

The Indian corporate world has undergone remarkable changes over the past decade, with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of 2016 standing out as a transformative piece of legislation. Designed to consolidate and amend laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals in a time-bound manner, the IBC has had far-reaching implications for the business environment in India.

Assets are essential to the success of the company today and in the future because they facilitate the smooth operation of the firm and its growth. They are listed on the balance sheet of the business and serve as a safety net for difficult situations like bankruptcy or debt payments. If a company cannot pay its debt, it may sell its assets in response to a bank order or other directives. Often known as winding up, liquidation is the act of selling assets at a loss in order to meet financial commitments, settle legal claims, or initiate bankruptcy proceedings start The assets that were sold to start the bankruptcy process are referred to as "Distressed Assets". "Distressed debts" are the associated debts, while "distressed assets" are the assets that were sold during a financial crisis.

The system governing distressed assets in India has undergone major revisions in response to the growing volume of these assets. Owing to the intricacy of this matter, both new regulations and amendments to the current legislation have been passed. The IBC is a particularly useful rule for handling assets among these others. The number of M&A has increased in recent years as investors have recognized possibilities to purchase valuable assets, despite the fact that the IBC's success rates differ between resolutions and liquidations²

The identification of financially stressed firms, the choice of qualified insolvency specialists, and the formulation and approval of resolution plans are all part of the methodical framework that the IBC offers. The involvement of creditors, who comprise the Committee of Creditors (COC), in the decision-making process is highly valued in the framework. The resolution plans, developed by potential investors or acquirers, provide practical approaches for the financial recovery of struggling companies. These tactics usually involve the infusion of cash, debt restructuring, or the application of calculated restructuring techniques. The outcome for the distressed firm is significantly influenced by the approval of these plans by the COC and the subsequent support of them by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).When a settlement is not possible, the IBC provides a clear liquidation procedure to ensure a systematic and effective resolution of the company's affairs.Implementing this comprehensive approach provides certainty to stakeholders and strengthens the insolvency ecosystem by offering a viable alternative to unorganized and time-consuming proceedings.

II. Background and overview of the ibc

The IBC was created in response to the need for a strong insolvency resolution mechanism capable of addressing the growing problem of non-performing assets (NPAs) in the Indian banking industry. Before the IBC, India's insolvency procedure was fragmented and ineffective, resulting in protracted delays and unsatisfactory outcomes for creditors. The IBC established a streamlined and time-bound framework for insolvency resolution, with the goal of improving corporate efficiency and attracting more investment.

A. Key characteristics of the IBC include:

Time-bound resolution: The IBC requires a 180-day resolution procedure, which can be extended by 90 days, forcing parties to act quickly and decisively.

Creditor-centric approach: The IBC prioritizes secured creditors' interests, granting them influence over the insolvency resolution process via the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

Corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP): The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) is the process by which distressed enterprises are either revived through a resolution plan or liquidated.

B. Key Provisions of IBC impacting M&A

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of India contains several provisions that directly and indirectly impact mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by providing a legal framework for the resolution of distressed companies. These provisions facilitate the sale, restructuring, and acquisition of companies undergoing insolvency proceedings. Below are the key provisions of the IBC that deal with M&A:

1. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

• Section 6: This section initiates the CIRP, which can be triggered by a financial creditor, operational creditor, or the corporate debtor itself when there is a default in payment.³
• Section 12: Mandates a time-bound resolution process, which must be completed within 180 days, extendable by a further 90 days. This time-bound process is crucial for M&A as it ensures that deals are not delayed indefinitely.⁴

2. Committee of Creditors (CoC)

• Section 21: Establishes the CoC, which consists of the financial creditors of the corporate debtor. The CoC plays a vital role in evaluating and approving resolution plans, which often include M&A deals.⁵
• Section 30: Allows the CoC to approve or reject resolution plans submitted by potential buyers, including M&A proposals. The resolution plan must provide for the payment of debts and outline the restructuring or sale of the debtor's assets.⁶

3. Moratorium Period

• Section 14: Imposes a moratorium on all legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during the CIRP. This prevents any legal action that could derail the resolution process or affect the assets of the company, providing a stable environment for potential M&A transactions.⁷

4. Resolution Plans

• Section 29A: Lists persons who are ineligible to submit a resolution plan. This section prevents promoters or related parties involved in the company’s downfall from regaining control, ensuring that the resolution process is fair and transparent.⁸
• Section 31: States that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), it is binding on all stakeholders, including the corporate debtor, employees, creditors, and shareholders. This approval often leads to the execution of M&A deals as part of the resolution plan.⁹

5. Liquidation Process

• Section 33: If the CoC rejects all resolution plans or the resolution process fails, the NCLT can order the liquidation of the company. During liquidation, the company’s assets can be sold off to pay creditors, which may include asset sales through M&A transactions.¹⁰

6. Fast Track Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

• Section 55: Provides a fast-track resolution process for certain categories of companies, such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which can expedite M&A transactions for distressed companies that meet the criteria.¹¹

7. Cross-Border Insolvency

• Section 234 and 235: These sections allow the central government to enter into

agreements with other countries to enforce the provisions of the IBC across borders. This is significant for M&A deals involving foreign investors or cross-border acquisitions of distressed assets.¹²

8. Protection of Transactions during Insolvency

• Section 43: Deals with preferential transactions, ensuring that transactions that unfairly benefit one creditor over others are avoided.¹³
• Section 50: Addresses transactions made to defraud creditors. These sections protect the integrity of the resolution process, including M&A deals, by preventing the unfair transfer of assets.¹⁴

9. Transfer of Assets

• Section 32: Allows the sale of the corporate debtor’s assets during liquidation. Assets can be transferred to a new entity or buyer, which is often done through an M&A deal. The section provides a legal mechanism for such transfers, ensuring transparency and compliance with the law.¹⁵

10. Impact on Shareholders

• Section 53: Outlines the order of priority in distributing the proceeds from the sale of assets. Shareholders typically rank last, which can influence the structure of M&A deals, especially in distressed scenarios where equity holders might receive little to no value.¹⁶

III. Impact of the ibc on mergers and acquisitions

A. Distressed Asset Acquisitions

The market for distressed assets has witnessed one of the IBC's most notable effects. There has been a surge in M&A activity in this sector since the IBC was introduced because it has given buyers of distressed companies a precise and organized framework. A market for corporate restructuring has been created as a result of the legislation, which has made it simpler for financially stable businesses to purchase the assets of struggling businesses at competitive prices.

Case Study: In 2018, Tata Steel acquired Bhushan Steel through the IBC procedure, making it one of the biggest M&A transactions in Indian history. This acquisition highlighted the importance that the code plays in enabling strategic acquisitions as well as the efficacy of the IBC in resolving troubled assets¹⁷

B. Improved transparency and creditor protection

The IBC has increased the overall openness of the insolvency process, providing a more accurate picture of a distressed company's financial health. This has made it easier for prospective purchasers to do due diligence and evaluate the risks associated with purchasing distressed properties. Furthermore, the IBC's creditor-centric approach ensures that secured creditors have a strong voice in the resolution process, preserving their interests and making M&A transactions more predictable.

Case Study: In 2019, Reliance Industries and JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company acquired Alok Industries, highlighting the greater transparency and creditor protection provided by the IBC. The CoC-approved resolution plan enabled the resurrection of Alok Industries while ensuring that creditors received a fair settlement.¹⁸

C. Acceleration of corporate restructuring

The IBC has hastened corporate restructuring in India, with corporations employing the code to divest non-core or underperforming assets. The IBC's capacity to promptly resolve bankruptcy proceedings has enabled businesses to restructure their operations and focus on their main business sectors. This has resulted in a surge in strategic M&A transactions, in which businesses purchase assets that complement their existing operations.

Case Study: In 2017, UltraTech Cement acquired Jaypee Group's cement assets, demonstrating how the IBC aided corporate restructuring. UltraTech Cement bought these properties as part of a goal to increase its market position in the Indian cement business.¹⁹

D.Exclusions from regulations pertaining to delisting: Regulations pertaining to thedelisting of companies listed on stock exchanges typically require a minimum public Shareholding of 25%. The IBC regulations allow for the withdrawal of equity shares if done in accordance with a resolution plan, despite other constraints. The exemption recognizes the importance of capital infusion or stock conversion amid financial hardship to revitalize the company, rather than strictly adhering to public shareholding rules. The flexibility allows acquirers to purchase and revitalize financially ailing enterprises without the expense of delisting.

E.Challenges in Valuation and Regulatory Compliance

While the IBC has opened up new opportunities for mergers and acquisitions, it has also posed new problems, particularly in valuation and regulatory compliance. Valuing distressed assets can be difficult since it involves thorough analysis of the company's liabilities, market conditions, and future prospects. Furthermore, the legal system governing M&A transactions under the IBC can be complex, requiring approvals from a variety of regulatory agencies, including the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Case Study: The valuation disagreement in ArcelorMittal's acquisition of Essar Steel highlighted the issues associated with distressed M&A transactions under the IBC.

The case entailed numerous legal challenges and debates over the proper assessment of Essar Steel's assets, which eventually led to a lengthy resolution.²⁰

F.Moratorium period

The impact of the moratorium period on ongoing merger and acquisition (M&A) negotiations on the implementation of the IBC entails the commencement of a moratorium period, wherein all legal actions and proceedings against the debtor company are temporarily halted. The ongoing M&A transactions may encounter difficulties due to the suspension of any further activities until the completion of the resolution process. The presence of the moratorium mandates that acquirers involved in M&A transactions exercise prudence in their timing and implementation strategies.

IV. Challenges and opportunities

A. Challenges

• Valuation Disputes

Issue: The valuation of distressed assets or companies in insolvency remains one of the most contentious topics in M&A transactions. Creditors, resolution applicants, and other stakeholders' valuation expectations can differ significantly.

Impact: Disputes over valuation can cause delays in the settlement process, lead to litigation, and create uncertainty for possible acquirers, ultimately influencing the completion of M&A transactions.

• Eligibility of Bidders (Section 29A)

Issue: Section 29A of the IBC prohibits some individuals and entities from submitting resolution plans, including defaulting company promoters and those involved with non-performing assets (NPAs). The broad reach of Section 29A has resulted in various legal arguments about who is eligible to bid on distressed properties.

Impact: The rigorous eligibility rules have restricted the pool of eligible bidders, resulting in lesser competitiveness and poorer recovery for creditors. Furthermore, disagreements concerning the applicability of Section 29A have caused delays and protracted litigation.

• Regulatory Approvals

Issue: M&A transactions under the IBC are subject to several regulatory clearances, including those from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Competition Commission of India (CCI), and other sector-specific regulators.

Impact: Navigating this intricate web of regulatory regulations may be time-consuming and costly, frequently causing delays in M&A transactions. In certain circumstances, conflicting legislation or jurisdictional overlaps between multiple regulators have increased the complexity.

• Judicial delays:

Issue: Although the IBC places emphasis on timely resolution, the resolution process has frequently been drawn out by judicial delays in the NCLT and higher courts. The court system is overburdened with matters pertaining to bankruptcy and appeals, which has put a strain on its capabilities.

Impact: It is more likely that deals will collapse or lose value over time if court approvals take longer to obtain. This might cause delays in the timeframe for M&A transactions. This has an impact on the IBC framework's overall effectiveness as well.

• Interpretation of the IBC

Issue: Because the IBC is still relatively new, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how to interpret it, which might result in a range of inconsistent court rulings. Legal uncertainties have arisen because certain topics have no prior precedence.

Impact: Parties engaged in M&A transactions face uncertainty as a result of inconsistent legal interpretations, which makes it challenging to forecast results and efficiently organize transactions. The lack of certainty may put off prospective buyers and investors.

• Cross-Border Insolvency

Issue: Although Sections 234 and 235 include some guidelines for collaboration with other jurisdictions, the IBC does not yet have a full framework for handling cross-border insolvency matters. When there isn't a strong system in place, it becomes difficult to settle disputes involving assets or creditors across borders.

Impact: M&A transactions that involve international companies or assets may encounter additional legal challenges, which could impede the resolution process and result in competing claims or problems with enforcement in several countries.

• Treatment of Operational Creditors

Issue: Financial creditors are given a larger say in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) than do operational creditors under the IBC. Conflicts have arisen regarding the equitable treatment of operational creditors as a result, who might feel excluded from the settlement process.

Impact: Operational creditors may file legal challenges to impede the approval of resolution plans, which could hinder the efficient completion of mergers and acquisitions. Lawsuits and requests for reform have been sparked by this discrepancy in treatment.

• Clarity on Avoidance Transactions

Issue: Preferential, undervalued, and fraudulent transactions are examples of avoidance transactions covered by Sections 43 to 51 of the IBC. But it has turned out that identifying and stopping such transactions are legally compliant. However, it has proven to be difficult and controversial to identify and reverse such transactions legally.

Impact: M&A transactions may become more complicated as a result of disputes regarding avoidance transactions, especially when substantial assets or liabilities are involved. Legal difficulties in this field may expose acquirers to risk and financial loss.

• Public Interest and Shareholder Rights

Issue: According to the IBC, a resolution plan is binding on all parties involved, including shareholders, after it has been authorized by the NCLT. On the other hand, shareholders frequently contest the approval of resolution plans, arguing that their rights have been unduly violated or claiming the public interest.

Impact: These types of obstacles may lead to protracted legal disputes and postpone the execution of settlement agreements, which could affect the completion of mergers and acquisitions. These difficulties also call into question how to strike a balance between safeguarding shareholder rights and facilitating creditor recovery.

• Industry-Specific Difficulties

Issue: Under the IBC, certain industries such as banking, telecommunications, and real estate face particular regulatory obstacles that make M&A transactions more difficult. Regulations particular to a given industry could be in contradiction with the IBC's rules, creating more legal challenges.

Impact: Due to industry-specific legal and regulatory constraints, businesses in regulated industries may find it challenging to carry out M&A transactions. This may impact transaction outcomes and delay down the settlement process.

B. Opportunities

• Market for Distressed Assets : The IBC has generated a thriving market for distressed properties, which presents considerable prospects for strategic acquisitions.

Example: Tata Steel's acquisition of Bhushan Steel through the IBC process is an excellent example of how the code has facilitated the acquisition of distressed businesses, allowing Tata Steel to increase capacity at a competitive price.

• Faster Resolution: Because of the IBC process's time constraints, corporations can now acquire and integrate distressed assets more swiftly.

Example: The quick resolution of Alok Industries, which was acquired by Reliance Industries and JM Financial ARC, exemplifies how the IBC has facilitated faster deal completion.

• Enhanced Investor Confidence: The IBC has enhanced India's overall investment climate by establishing a clear and predictable structure for insolvency.

Example: ArcelorMittal’s acquisition of Essar Steel, one of India’s largest distressed asset deals, demonstrates the confidence of global investors in the IBC framework.

• Strategic Corporate Restructuring

The IBC provides a legal framework for businesses to restructure their operations, eliminate non-core or underperforming assets, and concentrate on their main business sectors. This has created opportunities for strategic M&A transactions in which corporations can reorganize their company portfolios for greater growth and profitability.

Example: UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of the cement assets of the Jaypee Group allowed UltraTech to consolidate its position in the cement industry, leveraging the IBC process for strategic growth.

• Greater Control for Creditors

The IBC establishes the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as a key player in insolvency resolution, including approval of mergers and acquisitions, providing creditors with greater control. This has given creditors, particularly financial institutions, more control over the restructuring and sale of distressed assets.

Example :The successful settlement of Bhushan Power & Steel, with JSW Steel emerging as the winning bidder, was primarily due to the CoC's active involvement in analyzing and approving the M&A deal.

• Revival of Stressed Sectors

The IBC has helped revive stressed sectors like steel, infrastructure, and real estate by acquiring and reorganizing distressed enterprises. M&A transactions under the IBC have provided a lifeline to businesses grappling with high levels of debt and operational inefficiency.

Example: The acquisition of Monnet Ispat & Energy by a consortium led by JSW Steel has helped revive the steel company, contributing to the broader recovery of the steel sector in India.

• Opportunities for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs).

The IBC has expanded options for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) to participate in the resolution process, whether by acquiring distressed assets or collaborating with strategic investors in mergers and acquisitions. ARCs can play an important role in turning around troubled businesses by utilizing their experience managing and restructuring non-performing assets.

Example: The contribution of JM Financial ARC in the acquisition of Alok Industries, in collaboration with Reliance Industries, exemplifies how ARCs can help to achieve successful M&A results under the IBC.

• Cross-border M&A Opportunities

Although the IBC's structure for cross-border insolvency is still maturing, the code has created chances for international investors to enter the Indian market. Foreign corporations and investors can now buy troubled assets in India with more legal certainty and protection.

Example: The acquisition of Essar Steel by ArcelorMittal, a Luxembourg-based steel company, is one significant cross-border M&A transaction aided by the IBC.

V. Conclusion and way forward

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) of 2016 has emerged as a watershed moment in India's legal and economic environment, substantially changing the framework for corporate insolvency resolution and mergers and acquisitions (M&A). The IBC has helped to create a strong market for distressed assets, increased investor trust, and allowed for strategic company reorganization. The IBC has simplified the acquisition of troubled enterprises by establishing a clear, time-bound, and creditor-centric process, resulting in successful turnarounds and wealth creation across a wide range of sectors.

However, the implementation of the IBC has not been without difficulties. Valuation conflicts, regulatory compliance, legal delays, and code interpretation have all proven to be significant challenges. Despite these problems, the IBC has demonstrated extraordinary endurance and adaptation, evolving via judicial rulings and legislative modifications to better serve the demands of the Indian economy.

The IBC has had a significant impact on the M&A environment, with several high-profile transactions demonstrating the code's ability to promote business growth and sectors revitalization. As the IBC matures, its impact on the M&A ecosystem is projected to grow, creating new opportunities for firms, investors, and the overall economy.

WAY FORWARD

In order to effectively utilize the potential of the IBC and tackle the current obstacles, a number of crucial actions must be performed:

Strengthening the Judicial Infrastructure: To ensure prompt settlement of insolvency cases and minimize delays, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and other relevant judicial organizations need to be better equipped. This might entail adding additional benches, appointing more judges, and offering specialist insolvency law training.

Improving Valuation Procedures: Standardizing the process of valuing distressed assets could reduce disagreements and increase clarity for all parties involved. Encouraging the employment of impartial, certified valuation experts may also help to increase the fairness and accuracy of appraisals. Encouraging the employment of impartial, certified valuation experts may also help to increase the fairness and accuracy of appraisals.

Clarifying Legal sections: Through legislative changes and judicial interpretations, ongoing efforts should be undertaken to make unclear sections in the IBC clear. This will narrow the potential for legal conflicts and increase the predictability of the settlement procedure.

Improving Regulatory cooperation: Increasing cooperation amongst different regulatory authorities, such the Competition Commission of India (CCI), NCLT, and SEBI, can streamline the regulatory approval process, reducing bottlenecks and expediting M&A transactions. International investors may become more interested if a uniform regulatory framework for cross-border insolvencies is put into place.

Extending the Ambit of Cross-Border Insolvency: Creating a thorough framework for cross-border bankruptcy cases in accordance with global best practices, like the UNCITRAL Model Law, would make it easier for Indian companies and assets to be involved in M&A transactions around the world, strengthening India's integration into the international economy.

Encouraging Stakeholder Participation: More participation from all parties, such as shareholders and operational creditors, in the bankruptcy resolution process can result in more fair and balanced decisions. This could be accomplished by giving these parties in the Committee of Creditors (CoC) greater representation and a louder voice.

Encouraging Innovation in Resolution strategies: Restructuring distressed organizations can have more successful outcomes if an atmosphere is created that supports flexible and inventive resolution strategies, such as unique deal structures and strategic collaborations.

This may entail providing incentives for the application of strategies such as consortium bids, asset monetization, and debt-equity swaps.

Constant Monitoring and Reform: In order to be up to date with changing business practices and economic conditions, the IBC should be constantly reviewed and updated. Frequent impact analyses, feedback channels, and stakeholder engagements can guarantee that the code is still applicable and useful. Frequent impact analyses, feedback channels, and stakeholder engagements can guarantee that the code is still applicable and useful.

CONCLUSION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has established a solid framework for M&A in India going forward, especially with regard to the domain of distressed assets. India may improve its business climate, draw more foreign investment, and fortify its place in the world economy by tackling the present issues and seizing the chances given by the IBC. The government, judiciary, regulators, and business sector must work together going forward to guarantee that the IBC develops to its full potential as a pillar of India's economic stability and progress.

*****

VI. Bibliography

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, No. 31, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).Available at: Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
• Tata Steel acquires Bhushan Steel, Econ. Times (May 18, 2018),Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.
• ArcelorMittal's acquisition of Essar Steel, Bus. Standard (Nov. 15, 2019),Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/.
• Reliance Industries' acquisition of Alok Industries, Fin. Express (July 13, 2019),Available at: https://www.financialexpress.com/.
• UltraTech Cement's acquisition of Jaypee Group's cement assets, Hindu Bus. Line (July 5, 2017),Available at: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/.
• Jet Airways Resolution Plan, Mint (June 17, 2020),Available at: https://www.livemint.com/.
• JSW Steel's acquisition of Bhushan Power & Steel, Times of India (Mar. 5, 2020),Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.
• National Company Law Tribunal, Official Website of the National Company Law Tribunal.
• Securities and Exchange Board of India, Official Website of SEBI,Available at: SEBI.
• Competition Commission of India, Official Website of the Competition Commission of India, Available at: CCI.
• Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade L., U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (1997),Available at: UNCITRAL.
• Impact of the IBC on M&A in India, Indian L.J. (2021), Available at: https://www.indianlawjournal.com/.
• Bhushan Power & Steel Resolution Process, Econ. & Pol. Weekly (Mar. 14, 2020),Available at: https://www.epw.in/.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a Research Scholar at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, India.

2. Distressed M&A under IBC, https://argus-p.com/papers-publications/thought-paper/distressed-ma-underibc/ (last visited Mar 21, 2024) ↩

3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 6 (India). ↩

4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 12 (India). ↩

5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 21 (India). ↩

6. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 30 (India). ↩

7. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 14 (India). ↩

8. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 29A (India). ↩

9. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 31 (India). ↩

10. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 33 (India). ↩

11. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 55 (India). ↩

12. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 234,235 (India). ↩

13. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 43 (India). ↩

14. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 50 (India). ↩

15. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 32 (India). ↩

16. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, § 53 (India). ↩

17. “Tata Steel Acquires Bhushan Through IBC Route.” M&A Critique, available at https://mnacritique.mergersindia.com/tata-steel-acquires-bhushan-through-ibc-route/. ↩

18. Alok Industries Case Study, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, available at https://icsiiip.in/panel/assets/images/performance_analysis/16774817537679Alok%20Industries-Case%20Study.pdf. ↩

19. “Ultratech Buys JP Cement: Merger & Debt Restructuring.” M&A Critique, available at https://mnacritique.mergersindia.com/ultratech-buys-jp-cement-merger-debt-restructuring/. ↩

20. “Case Note: Judgement of the Supreme Court in the Essar Steel Case.” Mondaq, available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/insolvencybankruptcy/1058270/case-note-judgement-of-the-supreme-court-in-the-essar-steel-case. ↩