India: Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

A valuable asset does not solve a debt problem if it cannot generate cash before the debt falls due for long term projects, like infrastructure projects and engineering groups. Projects, operating businesses and long-term investments may take years to generate or release cash, while holding-company debt falls due on a fixed date. The group has to turn its assets into cash, refinance the debt or extend the maturity before the choices become more limited.

The jurisprudence surrounding corporate criminal liability and insider trading in India has undergone considerable doctrinal refinement, particularly in relation to the attribution of knowledge, the evidentiary threshold for establishing regulatory contraventions and the relevance of commercial intention in determining liability.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was originally built as a monolithic architecture. Its primary mandate was clear: when a company defaults, the entirety of its corporate entity must be pulled into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). While this unified entity approach worked seamlessly for manufacturing units or simple corporate structures, its application to the real estate sector triggered catastrophic systemic failures. In real estate, a single developer frequently manages dozens of independent housing projects across varying stages of lifecycle, funding, and construction.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 introduced sub-section (4) into Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), excluding personal guarantors to corporate debtors from the protection of the interim moratorium that automatically arises on the filing of an application to initiate insolvency resolution proceedings under Section 94 or Section 95. The amendment, which came into force on 26 May 2026, does not contain any express statement as to whether it applies to pending applications or applications filed after the introduction of Section 96(4).

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) seeks to facilitate the resolution of insolvency, maximise the value of a corporate debtor’s assets and balance the interests of stakeholders. A central aspect of this framework is the identification and preservation of assets available for resolution or liquidation. However, the position becomes more complex when a corporate debtor holds assets acquired using foreign contributions regulated under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (“FCRA”).

Ten years in, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended to close gaps that case law had quietly opened up in it. The IBC Amendment Act, 2026, in force from 26 May 2026, does three things that matter to anyone advising creditors: it takes the discretion back out of admission, it widens the window for clawing back value that left a company before insolvency was formally declared, and it hands financial creditors a new route into a distressed company that doesn't need a Section 7 petition at all. This piece walks through each change and the litigation that made it necessary.