Published Paper Details:

This comparative analysis delves into the resolution mechanisms for distressed companies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in India and corporate rescue procedures in the United Kingdom (UK). The study explores the legal frameworks, procedural intricacies, and practical implications of these mechanisms, while identifying key similarities and differences. The research focuses on the efficacy of resolution plans under the IBC and corporate rescue in the UK, scrutinizing their effectiveness in preserving value, promoting stakeholder interests, and facilitating economic revival. By examining case studies and empirical data, the analysis highlights the operational challenges, legal lacunae, and regulatory hurdles encountered in both jurisdictions. Key findings reveal disparities in the timelines, creditor rights, and judicial oversight between the IBC and UK corporate rescue regimes. While the IBC emphasizes creditor-led resolution through the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and mandates strict timelines for resolution, the UK framework prioritizes debtor-in-possession and provides greater flexibility in restructuring arrangements. Moreover, the research identifies legal ambiguities and procedural bottlenecks in the implementation of resolution plans under the IBC, including issues related to creditor hierarchy, valuation methodologies, and judicial interpretations. In contrast, the UK's well-established legal precedents and specialized courts offer more clarity and certainty to stakeholders, facilitating smoother restructuring processes. The analysis also underscores the significance of institutional infrastructure, regulatory support, and stakeholder engagement in enhancing the efficacy of corporate rescue mechanisms. It advocates for reforms in the IBC to address legal lacunae, streamline procedures, and bolster investor confidence in distressed asset resolution