<?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>Cross-assignment suspension of insolvency professionals faces proportionality and hearing limits, while creditor committees retain replacement decisions.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104965</link>
    <description>Regulation 13(7) requires communication of an insolvency professional&#039;s disciplinary order to committees of creditors and adjudicating authorities in other ongoing CIRPs. The interim approach described treats that intimation as enabling each committee to decide whether to continue or replace the professional, rather than automatically disqualifying the professional from unrelated assignments. Proportionality and audi alteram partem require that cross-assignment consequences have a disclosed factual basis and an opportunity to respond. The Board retains disciplinary powers, while committees retain their statutory replacement role. Other appellate rulings take the contrary view that suspension of registration makes the professional ineligible across all assignments. Final appellate review and the underlying disciplinary findings remain open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:43:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:43:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cross-assignment suspension of insolvency professionals faces proportionality and hearing limits, while creditor committees retain replacement decisions.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104965</link>
      <description>Regulation 13(7) requires communication of an insolvency professional&#039;s disciplinary order to committees of creditors and adjudicating authorities in other ongoing CIRPs. The interim approach described treats that intimation as enabling each committee to decide whether to continue or replace the professional, rather than automatically disqualifying the professional from unrelated assignments. Proportionality and audi alteram partem require that cross-assignment consequences have a disclosed factual basis and an opportunity to respond. The Board retains disciplinary powers, while committees retain their statutory replacement role. Other appellate rulings take the contrary view that suspension of registration makes the professional ineligible across all assignments. Final appellate review and the underlying disciplinary findings remain open.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:43:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>