01st February, 2024 Circular - Measures for rationalisation of the regulatory framework of Insolvency Professional Entities (246.21 KB)
In force — no superseding record on file.
Page 1 of 2
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001 CIRCULAR No. IBBI/IPE/64/2024
1st February 2024
To, All Registered Insolvency Professionals All Recognised Insolvency Professional Entities All Registered Insolvency Professional Agencies (By mail to registered email addresses)
Dear Madam/ Sir,
Subject: Measures for rationalisation of the regulatory framework of Insolvency
Professional Entities
In order to enhance the efficiency of the insolvency resolution processes, in September 2022,
the insolvency professional entities (IPEs), which can be a company, limited liability
partnership, registered partnership firm, were allowed to carry on the activities of an insolvency
professional (IP). This was envisaged to leverage the paraphernalia of their resources and
experience in the insolvency ecosystem by virtue of their constitutional structure. The existing
regulatory architecture was kept unchanged to provide adequate time for implementation of the
said reform. Prior to this amendment, IPEs were allowed to provide only support services to
IPs.
2. Based on the feedback received from stakeholders and experiences encountered during
implementation, it is considered imperative to provide clarity on few areas to facilitate IPEs to
undertake their expanded role. These issues and clarification thereupon have been elaborated
in ensuing paragraphs:
3.1. Clarification in relation to disciplinary proceedings in case of an IP which is an IPE
3.1.1. Sections 217 to 220 of Chapter VI of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code)
read with the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations), IBBI
(Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017 and IBBI (Inspection and
Investigation) Regulations, 2017 provide the process of grievance, complaints handling and
disciplinary proceedings.
nce and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017 and IBBI (Inspection and
Investigation) Regulations, 2017 provide the process of grievance, complaints handling and
disciplinary proceedings. The IP Regulations also provide for the continued eligibility
requirements for recognition as an IPE, its liability and derecognition.
3.1.2. Since, an IPE acting as IP would have multiple individuals as its partners or directors, as
the case may be, a need is felt to clarify on the initiation of disciplinary proceeding in case of
any contravention in relation to an assignment undertaken by an IP which is an IPE.
3.1.3. Clarification: It is hereby clarified that in case the assignment is undertaken by the IP,
which is an IPE, the show-cause notice under regulation 11 of the IBBI (Inspection and
Investigation) Regulations, 2017 shall be issued to:
Page 2 of 2
(a) its partner or director, as the case may be, who is an IP and was authorised to sign and act on behalf of it for the respective assignment; and/or (b) the IPE if in the opinion of the Board, there are either repeated instances of contravention against one or more partners or directors of the IPE or instance of systemic failure on the part of such IPE. 3.2. Clarification on applicability of limit on number of Assignments to an IP which is an IPE 3.2.1. Clause 22 of Code of Conduct specified in First Schedule to IP Regulations imposes a restriction on the number of assignments that can be undertaken by an IP. This restriction has been envisaged for IPs who are individuals. 3.2.2.
fied in First Schedule to IP Regulations imposes a
restriction on the number of assignments that can be undertaken by an IP. This restriction has
been envisaged for IPs who are individuals.
3.2.2. With the introduction of provisions allowing IPE to act as IP, it is not considered prudent
to apply any limit on the number of assignments that may be undertaken by such IPE at this
nascent stage.
3.2.3. Clarification: It is hereby clarified that clause 22 of Code of Conduct specified in First
Schedule to IP Regulations does not apply to an IP which is an IPE.
3.3. Clarification on applicability of fee structure to an IP which is an IPE
3.3.1. Regulation 34B of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)
Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) stipulates the minimum fixed fee structure and a
performance-linked incentive fee for the IPs in a corporate insolvency resolution process
(CIRP). This provision has been envisaged for IPs who are individuals.
3.3.2. With the introduction of provisions allowing IPE to act as IP, it is considered prudent
that IPEs have an expanded role, and their fee should be market-determined at this juncture.
Also, given their institutional framework, IPEs are better placed to negotiate their fees
commensurate with their pool of in-house resources and diverse range of services offered by
them as compared to an individual IP.
3.3.3. Clarification: It is hereby clarified that regulation 34B of CIRP Regulations does not
apply to an IP, which is an IPE.
4.
ange of services offered by them as compared to an individual IP. 3.3.3. Clarification: It is hereby clarified that regulation 34B of CIRP Regulations does not apply to an IP, which is an IPE. 4. This circular is being issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Yours faithfully Sd/- (B. Sankaranarayanan) General Manager Email: b.sankar@ibbi.gov.in
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 26484 --apply.