Effect Of The IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2018 On Operational Creditors

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“the Board“) has recently amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, (“Regulations“) by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (“Amendment“) notified on 5th October, 2018. We examine how the Amendment impacts operational creditors and whether the ongoing concern of operational creditors with relation to the quantum of their dues has been addressed by the Board.

The Amendment states that Sub-regulation 38(1) of the Regulations stands replaced by the following clause: “The amount due to the operational creditors under a resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over financial creditors.

The Erstwhile Regulation 38(1)

Originally, Regulation 38(1) required a resolution plan to mandatorily provide the source of funds for the liquidation value due to operational creditors. It then provided that;

  1. such liquidation value ought to be paid in priority to payments to any financial creditor; and
  2. such payment has to be made within 30 days from the approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority.

In our view, the liquidation value was the bare minimum which had to be paid to operational creditors under the resolution plan in priority and within 30 days from the approval of such resolution plan. Further payments could undoubtedly be made to operational creditors though the same were not compulsorily required to be made in priority.

The Amendment

The amended Regulations now simply state that a resolution plan should mandatorily provide that the amount due to operational creditors under a resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over financial creditors.

There is no minimum amount prescribed for payment to operational creditors under the amended Regulations. However, Sub-section 30 (2)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code“) in any event requires the resolution professional to confirm that the resolution plan provides for the payment of debts of operational creditors which should not be less than the amount to be paid to the operational creditors in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53 of the Code. Therefore, the minimum prescribed amount due to operational creditors remains unchanged and the interests of operational creditors, to the extent of the liquidation value of the amounts due to them, remain protected under the Code.

The main change brought about by the Amendment, is that now all payments due to operational creditors as contemplated under a resolution plan, and not just the minimum prescribed amount, have to be made in priority to financial creditors.

Its implication

Since operational creditors are still excluded from the CoC, the quantum of their dues, which are payable under a resolution plan and which are now prioritised, is still subject to the approval of only the Committee of Creditors (“CoC“).

We note here that there is no fiduciary duty on the CoC to act in the best interest of all stakeholders including the operational creditors. There is no provision which statutorily permits the NCLT to reject a resolution plan on the grounds of inequity or any discrimination against a particular class of stakeholders. The only option available to operational creditors then is to file challenges before the tribunals and courts which causes delays and uncertainties.

Given that all payments due to operational creditors are now prioritised to any payment due to financial creditors, the question that arises is, would a CoC now be more inclined to reduce the amount of such payments? Additionally, would a CoC now be justified in reducing the pay-outs to the claims of operational creditors since financial creditors have to wait longer for their pay-outs and thus need to be adequately compensated for such risk?


The CoC (comprising of only financial creditors) can still, at its absolute discretion, without any statutorily prescribed fiduciary duty, decide on the amounts payable to operational creditors under a resolution plan.

While the efforts of the Board in dealing with the problems of operational creditors are laudable, a look is perhaps needed at the actual mischief and defect that exists, that the Code and Regulations do not provide for, and whether the present Amendment is in any way a step towards remedying it?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Media Coverage

About Dhaval Vussonji

Ask a question

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Legal Disclaimer

User Acknowledgement

By proceeding further and clicking on the “AGREE” button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Dhaval Vussonji & Associates for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Dhaval Vussonji & Associates or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this knowledgesite. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


This knowledgesite (www.dvassociates.co.in) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Dhaval Vussonji & Associates (DVA) does not warrant that the information contained on this knowledgesite is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

DVA further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this knowledgesite, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this knowledgesite does not intend links from this site to other internet knowledgesites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. DVA is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.

This knowledgesite is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the knowledgesite should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this knowledgesite does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this knowledgesite should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.

Furthermore, the owner of this knowledgesite does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this knowledgesite or in a country/state where this knowledgesite fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.