Resolution Bazaar

• Corporate Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation processes are inherently complex, involving intricate legal, regulatory, and financial challenges. These processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) aim to streamline the resolution of distressed companies efficiently. However, insolvency professionals often face overwhelming workloads due to regulatory filings, legal queries, claims management, and stakeholder coordination.
• AI-powered “Insolvency Agents” can serve as transformative tools for all stakeholders, including insolvency professionals, lawyers, creditors, and adjudicating authorities. These agents can automate various aspects of the insolvency process, enhancing accuracy and timeliness while significantly reducing the administrative burden. For instance, AI tools can analyze financial data to detect fraudulent activities, automate document reviews, optimize recovery strategies for creditors, and even simulate outcomes of different resolution plans. Additionally, AI-powered chatbots can assist stakeholders by addressing routine queries, while predictive models can forecast insolvency risks based on financial metrics.
• Currently, insolvency professionals are leveraging generative AI applications like ChatGPT to summarize voluminous legal judgments and enhance legal research by identifying relevant case laws and statutory provisions. However, the strategic deployment of AI remains limited to these functions. A broader integration of AI could include advanced case management systems that track timelines and compliance requirements or valuation models that set optimal asset prices during liquidation.
• Globally, jurisdictions like Singapore and the UK are leading by example in integrating AI into insolvency frameworks. Singapore employs AI for insolvency assessments under its Legal Technology Vision, while the UK uses automated platforms for case tracking. Similarly, US bankruptcy courts utilize AI tools for fraud detection[1][3]. India can benefit from these precedents by adopting a robust legal framework for AI integration in insolvency proceedings. This would involve establishing standards for algorithmic transparency and accountability while addressing ethical considerations like data privacy.
• The unexplored potential of AI in pre-insolvency stages is particularly promising. Predictive analytics can identify early warning signs of financial distress, enabling proactive measures to mitigate risks. Furthermore, AI could support group insolvencies by analyzing interconnected entities' financial data for consolidation purposes—a challenge currently addressed through judicial precedents in India.
• AI-powered Insolvency Agents hold immense potential to revolutionize corporate insolvency processes by streamlining operations, reducing costs, and improving outcomes for all stakeholders. Strategic adoption of these technologies could pave the way for a more efficient and transparent insolvency ecosystem while maintaining human oversight for nuanced decision-making and ethical considerations.

IBC stakeholders continue to manipulate the resolution processes and engage in various ‘games’ in order to protect their interests.

• Suspended directors or corporate debtors often engage in various tactics to obstruct the insolvency resolution process. They continue to conceal their assets or transfer assets to diminish the value of the estate, making it harder to realise and maximise value of the CD. Filing of frivolous litigations is a common tactic in order to prolong the processes. They attempt to undermine the role of the insolvency professional, by means like non-cooperation to disrupt the structured resolution process.
• Resolution applicants have been found to collaborate with other co-applicants in order to submit lowball offers in their resolution plans and trying to push the CD to Liquidation, with an aim to acquire control of the distressed company at minimal cost. Inclusion of ambiguous clauses in the resolution plans is also a common practice, leaving room for interpretation to be exploited during plan implementation. They have been found to resort to unnecessary litigation after plan approval, using legal tactics to delay implementation and gain leverage in plan implementation.
• Creditors have also been found to engage in ‘strategic-games’ in order to maximize their recoveries or influence outcomes. Such tactics include claim inflation, where penalties or exaggerated amounts are added to their claims to secure higher payouts, manipulation of their status by misrepresenting unsecured claims as secured to gain priority in the resolution process. Delay in the submission of claim documents is another strategy often used to avoid thorough scrutiny and potential rejection of inflated claims. Additionally, creditors have been found lobbing with other members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to sway decisions in their favour, potentially compromising the fairness and transparency of the process.
• Forensic Auditors have been found to be influenced by erstwhile management of the CD to align their findings with management's desired outcomes. They have been found to provide selective reporting, where unfavourable information is intentionally concealed from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), thereby hindering informed decision-making and compromising the transparency and fairness of the process.
• Registered Valuers have been found to manipulate asset valuations, undervaluing or overvaluing assets to favour particular creditors or resolution applicants. In some cases, the valuation process has been intentionally delayed, stalling the progress of the resolution. Additionally, asset valuers might collude with certain stakeholder, providing appraisals that disproportionately benefit those those stakeholders, thereby compromising the impartiality and integrity of the valuation process.

Although several safeguards have been devised by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) over the past several years - such as regulatory oversight by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), transparency requirements, and a code of conduct for insolvency professionals and Committee of Creditors (CoC) members—these measures have their limitations. Despite these safeguards, stakeholders continue to exploit loopholes and game the system, employing tactics that delay or derail the insolvency resolution process.

These persistent challenges highlight the need for advanced solutions, and technologies like AI agents to address many of these inefficiencies. AI agents can enhance transparency, reduce biases, and improve the speed and accuracy of critical tasks such as data analysis, asset valuation, fraud detection, and workflow management. By leveraging these technologies, the insolvency resolution process can become more efficient, equitable, and resistant to manipulation, ensuring successful outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

• Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained substantial traction in legal fields, including insolvency, particularly in developed nations such as the United States and the European Union. AI-powered tools like Data 61, DataLex AI, and ROSS have demonstrated their effectiveness in advanced analytics, scenario modeling, and financial performance predictions, significantly aiding insolvency law enforcement. For instance, LDM Global’s AI tool “Accelerator” has enhanced efficiency in insolvency proceedings, showcasing the transformative potential of AI in this domain.
• Globally, countries are actively integrating AI into insolvency frameworks to improve accuracy and efficiency. Portugal’s Citius platform streamlines communication between parties and courts, while Finland’s KOSTI platform enhances case management. Colombia has taken significant strides by authorizing AI use in its insolvency portal (MI), automating decision-making and expediting processes through a government decree introduced in 2021. Similarly, the UK’s National AI Strategy supports AI adoption in law enforcement, including insolvency-related matters.
• These advancements highlight a global trend toward leveraging AI to enhance insolvency law enforcement. India must follow suit by mandating the integration of AI agents into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) framework. By adopting AI tools, India can address persistent challenges such as delayed resolutions, fraudulent activities, and the overwhelming volume of financial data that professionals must analyze. AI can streamline compliance processes, automate documentation, detect anomalies, and improve stakeholder communication. Additionally, predictive modeling can help forecast recovery outcomes and enhance asset valuation accuracy.
• AI’s integration would also empower insolvency professionals by automating routine tasks like document review and fraud detection while enabling them to focus on strategic decision-making. Generative AI platforms can analyze vast datasets to uncover hidden patterns or connections that might otherwise go unnoticed, increasing recoveries for creditors and improving transparency.
• However, ethical considerations must be addressed to ensure fairness and accountability in AI-driven processes. Regulatory bodies should establish robust guidelines for algorithmic transparency and data privacy to safeguard stakeholder interests.

In conclusion, mandating AI adoption within India’s IBC framework will align the country with global best practices while strengthening its insolvency ecosystem. This transformation will not only expedite resolutions but also foster greater transparency and reliability in outcomes—ultimately boosting investor confidence and contributing to economic stability. By embracing cutting-edge technologies, India can pave the way for a more efficient and equitable insolvency process that benefits all stakeholders involved.