<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Resolution plan review is limited to transparency and statutory compliance, not commercial wisdom, when disclosure is materially flawed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99110</link>
    <description>Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:51:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:51:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Resolution plan review is limited to transparency and statutory compliance, not commercial wisdom, when disclosure is materially flawed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99110</link>
      <description>Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 09:51:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>