Understanding Cross-Border Insolvency Rules for Indian Entrepreneurs

Understanding Cross-Border Insolvency Rules for Indian Entrepreneurs

Abstract

With Indian entrepreneurs now establishing businesses in multiple jurisdictions, including Singapore, UAE, USA and UK, to mention a few, the question now arises as to whether such businesses, in the event of insolvency, can be effectively restructured or wound up across multiple jurisdictions. Cross-border Insolvency concerns the legal framework which regulates the situation of a debtor whose assets, creditors or operations are located in more than one country. This paper discusses cross-border insolvency rules in detail with respect to Indian entrepreneurs; the UNCITRAL Model Law, the changing statutory background in India under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC), the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) doctrine, some of the significant bilateral and multilateral developments, and some specific strategies to structure businesses to address insolvency risks across borders.

Hence the paper takes a step forward to find out whether the current cross border insolvency regime in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is sufficient to cater the needs of Indian entrepreneurs having multinational business structure. Also, studying the question of introduction of the UNCITRAL Model Law in India and what changes ought to be made to safeguard the domestic interests. Finally, a review of the impact of the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) doctrine on Indian set up companies overseas.

1. Introduction

As a result of the growth of global commerce, the nature of business insolvency has changed. A start-up in Bengaluru could have a Cayman Islands fund that invests in its venture capital, an IP rights holding company in Singapore that keeps the IP rights, a technology infrastructure management subsidiary in Ireland that operates the systems, and customers all over the world. In the event of an economic crisis, the choice of which law of insolvency to choose from which country – and the manner in which the proceedings in the one jurisdiction are recognised in the other – is of critical importance.

Cross-border insolvency is not a problem for large, multinational companies only.[1] It is a fact of life for thousands of Indian entrepreneurs who work in other countries or have set up in other countries for regulatory, tax and/or investor reasons.

2. Conceptual Overview: What Is Cross-Border Insolvency?

2.1 Defining the Problem

Cross-border insolvency emerges as an insolvent debtor is bound by more than just one of its related legal jurisdictions. These relationships may be manifested in a variety of ways such as assets being outside of the country, creditors being foreign creditors, subsidiaries being foreign subsidiaries or the place of incorporation of a debtor may differ from the place of its operation.

2.2 The Two Principal Approaches

There are two theoretical conceptions of cross-border insolvency usually recognized in the traditional legal literature and used by practitioners:

Universalism: Insolvency proceedings are mainly held where the debtor is located, and other jurisdictions recognise and enforce the orders made in that location.

Territorialism: The respective jurisdiction deals with the assets and claims of the creditors in one jurisdiction, independent of what may happen in other jurisdictions.

The vast majority of modern insolvency regimes take a modified universalist approach, which means that a main administration is allowed in one jurisdiction but coordinated secondary administration is allowed in other jurisdictions.[2]

2.3 Why it matters for Indian Entrepreneurs

There is a growing tendency of incorporation of Indian entrepreneurs overseas. In the event such entities are going through the process of a winding up, any promoters, creditors and founders of these entities in India will find that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is not applicable to them, or at least not entirely and may not be as effective as it sounds.

In real world startups, the structure is modified and many startups in India are of the “flip structure” in which a foreign entity (usually in Singapore/ Delaware) holds the position of a holding company over the Indian operating company. This raises important questions on the issue of the insolvency jurisdiction as well as creditor protection and COMI determination.

3. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

3.1 Background and Structure

In 1997, the UNCITRAL adopted certain document called the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.[3] A number of major jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore have adopted the Model Law.

The Model Law is not a treaty.[4] Instead, it acts as a legislative model for states to implement, with appropriate changes, in their domestic insolvency laws. It is based on four principles:

• Access: Foreign insolvency representatives and creditors are given access to court of enacting state.
• Recognition: Foreign insolvency proceedings are recognised as ‘main’ (where opened in the jurisdiction of the debtor’s COMI) or ‘non-main’ proceedings.
• Relief: Parts of the recognized proceedings were to be provided with relief, such as moratoriums on enforcing the proceedings and orders for preservation of assets.
• Cooperation and Dialogue: There should be direct cooperation between courts and representatives of the bankruptcy procedures with foreign counterparts.

 

3.2 Recognition: Main vs. Non-Main Proceedings

At the heart of this in the Model Law scenario is the difference between ‘main’ and ‘non-main’ proceedings. A ‘foreign main proceeding’ is a proceeding commenced in a country where the debtor has their Centre of Main Interests (COMI).[5] When a main proceeding in another country is recognised, an automatic moratorium is imposed on the debtor’s assets that are located in that country. A ‘foreign non-main proceeding’ is commenced in a country where the debtor has an ‘establishment’ (place of non-transitory business) and only seeks discretionary relief.

3.3 India’s Non-Adoption: A Critical Gap

However, a notable missing link is India, which is one of the few countries that is yet to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law. India has not adopted the framework of the Model Law as two important provisions of the IBC refer to bilateral agreements and Letters of Request to foreign courts (section 234 and section 235).

In 2018, the Insolvency Law Committee made some suggestions for the adaptation and inclusion of the Model Law with some modifications.[6] The ongoing discussions and the IBC (Amendment) Bill have facilitated its continued existence, but the Model Law has yet to be incorporated into Indian law as of 2025.

The lack of acceptance of the UNCITRAL Model Law throws doubt on the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and enforcement of insolvency orders in India. This uncertainty could lead to increased transaction costs, impede multinational restructurings and reduce the predictability of international investors’ decisions. However, the policy makers in India are cautious and have opted for the same because of the problems of judicial sovereignty, public policy and safeguarding of domestic creditors.

4. India’s Cross-Border Insolvency Framework under the IBC

4.1 IBC’s Existing Provisions

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is the main law for the proceedings of insolvency in India.[7] The IBC has revolutionized the dealing with domestic insolvencies. However, provisions in relation to the cross-border aspects are underdeveloped.

The Central Government can make a contract with foreign state to enforce provisions of the IBC as per section 234 of the IBC.[8] Section 235, which allows the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to send a Letter of Request to a competent court in a foreign country asking for assistance in relation to insolvency proceedings started in India, says: “A NCLT [will issue] a Letter of Request to competent court in a foreign country in terms of insolvency proceedings in India” (ibid.). These provisions offer only limited help in cross-border insolvency cases. There are no formal bilateral agreements of this type which have been notified and made legally binding pursuant to Section 234. Section 235 is merely a procedural provision and does not guarantee cooperation, recognition or enforcement by foreign courts.

4.1.1 Limitations of Sections 234 and 235

Section 234/235 have some serious shortcomings, although they do contain a lawful structure for cooperation across borders. Section 234 is only applicable if the Central Government has entered into a reciprocal agreement with a foreign State. So far, no such comprehensive cooperation agreements in the field of insolvency have been notified. Similarly, Section 235 does not create any obligation on foreign court to recognise or enforce Indian proceedings as it merely authorises the NCLT to send a Letter of Request to the foreign court. Unlike the Model Law of UNCITRAL, there are no rules regarding recognition of foreign proceedings, access for foreign representatives, COMI and concurrent proceedings.[9] Thus, the existing mechanisms continue to rely on judicial discretion and international comity, and not on a predictable legislative mechanism.

4.2 The Proposed Cross-Border Insolvency Framework

One such effort was the initial draft of Part Z of the IBC, prepared by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in 2018 which was an attempt to incorporate a modified version of the UNCITRAL Model Law.[10] Some of the possible contents of the draft were: recognition of foreign main and non-main proceedings, cooperation between Indian and foreign courts and access for foreign insolvency representatives to Indian courts. That would include Indian changes, including carve-outs for the financial service providers and safeguarding Indian public interests.

4.3 Judicial Developments

Jet Airways and Cross-Border Insolvency[11]

The insolvency of Jet Airways represents India’s first significant judicial encounter with a cross-border insolvency dispute and highlights the limitations of the IBC in dealing with multinational insolvencies. There were parallel proceedings in India and the Netherlands, with the Dutch authorities having appointed a bankruptcy trustee over the airline’s assets abroad.

Dutch Trustee Recognition

In the initial order, the NCLT had stated that the IBC did not have any provisions for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, and thus refused to recognize the Dutch trustee. Later, however, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) permitted coordination between the Indian Resolution Professional and the Dutch trustee.[12]

Cross-Border Protocol and Court Cooperation

One of the biggest innovations of the case was the implementation of cross-border insolvency protocol between the Indian and Dutch insolvency representatives. The NCLAT allowed for using a cross-border insolvency protocol for sharing of information and coordinated decision making among the Indian and Dutch representatives.

Lessons from the Case

With the Jet Airways case, the lack of provisions for cross-border cooperation (under Section 234 and 235 of the IBC) became apparent. Judicial innovation and inherent powers proved to be significant and courts were left to exercise their powers in an uncertain and inconsistent fashion.

The case thus reinforced the need to include the provisions relating to Part Z in the IBC, as per the UNCITRAL Model Law. The proposed framework would ensure that there are clear rules in place for recognition of foreign proceedings, for cooperation between the courts and for co-ordination between the parallel proceedings to improve the certainty and efficiency of cross-border proceedings.

Application Analysis: How the Outcome Might Differ Under Part Z

In the case of Jet Airways, it is evident that the existing cross border insolvency regime has its own set of practical issues. Judicial innovation was not really necessary if Part Z of the IBC had already been in place, as the Dutch insolvency proceedings could have been recognised solely through a formal statutory process. The Dutch trustee could have been recognized by a prescribed procedure and thus delays and uncertainty could have been avoided.

Furthermore, cooperation between the Indian resolution professional and the Dutch trustee would have been governed by legislative provisions rather than an ad hoc protocol approved by the NCLAT. This would have helped creditors with their predictability and saved on procedure costs. The case thus provides a real-life example of a regime based on a Model Law and the benefits that it could offer to Indian-connect multinational businesses.

Judicial Principles Emerging from Jet Airways

The NCLAT’s decision in Jet Airways is important because it adopted the principle of international comity and noted the need for cooperation between the proceedings of the courts in different countries during the process of insolvency. While the IBC did not explicitly mention recognition of foreign proceedings, the tribunal used its inherent powers to enable the cooperation between the Indian Resolution Professional and the Dutch trustee. A cross-border insolvency protocol was approved, embodying the concept of modified universalism, which is courts working for co-ordinated administration of multinational insolvencies but with local interests protected.[13] In this decision, the courts in India have shown that they are ready to cooperate internationally even when there is no complete legislation in place.

5. Comparative Analysis of Major Jurisdictions

Feature	India	Singapore	UK	USA
Model Law	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
COMI Test	Limited	Yes	Yes	Yes
Foreign Representative Access	Limited	Extensive	Extensive	Extensive
Court Cooperation	Ad hoc	Formal	Formal	Formal

[14]

Singapore has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law through the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, 2018 and a structured, recognition of foreign proceedings and court cooperation mechanism is in place.[15] Similarly, the recognition of “foreign proceedings” under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is also COMI driven and provided to coordinate the proceedings of domestic and foreign courts.[16] The United Kingdom’s Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations, 2006, are also in keeping with the philosophy of modified universalism. In contrast, the use of Sections 234 and 235 of the IBC and judicial ingenuity, has resulted in greater creditor and multinational business uncertainty in India so far.

6. The Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Doctrine

6.1 What is COMI?

The Centre of Main Interests is the main concept in international insolvency. It provides clarity as to which jurisdiction has jurisdiction to open the main proceedings, which jurisdiction’s laws apply to the main proceedings, and which jurisdiction’s resolution is of primary importance in the context of other jurisdictions.

The Model Law provides that COMI is the ‘place where the debtor carries on the administration of its affairs on a regular basis and that is known to third parties.’[17] The acceptance of the presumption of COMI is that the registered office of the company is there, but this can be rebutted with evidence of the management of the company activities being conducted at another location.

6.2 COMI Determination for Indian-Founded Companies

Where the COMI is located is often a complex matter for the tech startups who have incorporated overseas, as Singapore or Cayman Islands Holding Companies are often set up over the Indian operating companies – a common setup in the tech startups industry. The courts take into account the location of the principal operations, the creditors’ perception of the location, management control and location of key business functions.[18]

An Indian company, which was founded by Indian and the management team is in India, the servers are in India, customers are in India and the functioning and decision-making is in India, can easily have the COMI determined in India, despite being registered in Singapore. This would imply that any insolvency proceedings commenced in Singapore would be a non-main proceeding and the main proceeding, if any, would be in India.

6.3 COMI Shopping and its Consequences

Some debtors have attempted COMI relocation (moving their centre of operations to another country that has more relaxed bankruptcy regulations immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy). Courts in key jurisdictions are, in principle, going to be very flexible on what is a vague COMI change and may not recognise such a change.

It must be noted by Indian entrepreneurs that, an action to shift COMI of corporate groups in a hasty manner in the lead-up period to their insolvency could also be interpreted as an avoidable transaction and/or could be considered bad faith action which could lead to liability of the directors and promoters.

7. Practical Implications and Strategic Recommendations

7.1 Use of Cross-Border Insolvency Rules for Common Forms of Entrepreneurial Structures

Scenario 1: Singapore Holding Company with Indian Operations

Let’s take an example of a tech start-up company of Indian promoters with a holding company in Singapore but carries out all its business operations through an Indian subsidiary, where the Indian subsidiary is raising VC funding. The founders, employees, intellectual property development teams and principal customers are based in India, while the investee agreements are based on Singapore law.

In the event of the enterprise’s insolvency, a major issue would be raised as to where the enterprise’s Centre of Main Interests (COMI) would be situated. The company is incorporated in Singapore but apparently management and business operations are carried out mainly in India. Courts of application of the UNCITRAL Model Law may therefore reach the conclusion of India being the COMI even though incorporated abroad.

The uncertainty can be the ability to recognise Singapore insolvency proceedings, under the current Indian framework. By contrast, with the adoption of the Model Law, there would be a clearer avenue for recognition of foreign proceedings and for coordination of restructuring by the Indian and Singaporean courts.

Scenario 2: Delaware Flip Structure

A Delaware holding company structure is used by many Indian startups that are looking to raise funds from American VC funds. Suppose an Indian software firm reorganises itself as a (Delaware) parent company with Indian subsidiaries to operate its assets and employ the staff.

In case the company is declared insolvent, creditors could initiate proceedings in the United States and simultaneous action could be taken by creditors before the Indian forum. In the absence of a thorough cross-border insolvency system, parallel proceedings can also arise, resulting in superfluous orders, overlapping costs and ambiguity about asset allocation.

The case highlights the ill effects of absence of formal recognition regime within the IBC for the entrepreneurs and creditors. A Model Law based framework would enable coordinated administration of the insolvency proceedings and minimise the jurisdictional conflict.

The examples illustrate that the insolvency consequences are often determined not just by where the company is incorporated, but by the way the company is run, where the company’s assets are located, creditor expectations and the determination of COMI. Thus, it is important for the entrepreneur to consider the implications of insolvency while structuring the company, and not when it is already in financial distress.

7.2 Duties of Directors in Cross-Border Distress

The company’s directors will be increasingly required to take into account the interests of creditors as opposed to shareholders when a company is nearing insolvency. For a cross-border structure, if creditors are treated differently in different jurisdictions, this can result in directors’ liability. It is vital, therefore, to receive early legal advice.

8. Entrepreneurial Risk Assessment and Compliance Strategy

The cross-border insolvency aspects should be taken into account when planning a business, already at the time of its formation. Often entrepreneurs are preoccupied with taxes, funding and regulatory compliance and ignore potential pitfalls that could be in the picture years later – insolvency.

Prior to taking the plunge with offshore holding companies, founders should consider the most probable place of COMI, as well as the governing law of financing arrangements, and the jurisdictions in which assets are likely to be located, and the countries in which major creditors are likely to be based. These considerations can ultimately impact the jurisdiction with primary control in the insolvency proceedings.

In times of financial difficulty, directors should not attempt to artificially move COMI just in order to receive preferred treatment in the event of an insolvency. Courts in major jurisdictions are increasingly more inclined to look unfavourably on this type of conduct and opportunistic attempts of restructuring may be disregarded. Directors should also keep creditors well informed and be careful to obtain consistent legal counsel throughout all relevant jurisdictions.

The lessons from the experience of multinational enterprises are that the cross-border restructurings that have been successful have been usually driven by plans and coordinated creditor approach and legal intervention in advance, rather than by post-insolvency reactive litigation.

8.1 Insolvency Law Committee Recommendations and Part Z

As per the recommendations of the Insolvency Law Committee (2018) the idea of introducing Part Z to the IBC was to allow for a modified version of the UNCITRAL Model Law.[19] The Committee recommended the recognition of foreign main and non-main proceedings, direct access of foreign representatives to Indian courts, cooperation between the Indian and foreign court and coordination procedures in the event of concurrent proceedings. Meanwhile it has outlined measures to protect domestic interests, like a public policy exception and reciprocity. These recommendations would greatly enhance the certainty and efficiency in cross-border insolvency cases, but there are some concerns over protection being afforded to Indian operational creditors and the impact foreign proceedings may have on domestic insolvency outcomes. Hence, in the event of any adoption of Part Z, care must be taken to ensure that there is sufficient international co-operation with appropriate protection of local interests.

The Committee specifically opposed wholesale adoption of the Model Law and instead suggested a twaked framework that will be helpful to India’s economic and regulatory priorities.[20]

9. Policy Recommendations

From the previous analysis below, the following are policy suggestions for the Government of India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and the judiciary for consideration:

• Enactment of Part Z of the IBC: India must swiftly enact cross-border insolvency provisions in line with the draft Part Z with appropriate modifications of the UNCITRAL Model Law tailored for India-specific provisions. Such reciprocity with Singapore, the UK, the US and other jurisdictions under the Model Law would have a huge positive impact on the effectiveness of Indian insolvency in cross-border scenarios in our jurisdiction.
• Bargaining Bilateral Agreements: The Central Government must make bilateral insolvency cooperation agreements a priority under Section 234 of the IBC with the major partner countries like Singapore, UAE, UK and USA. Such accords might have already formed, even before the adoption of Model Law, frameworks for mutual recognition and cooperative arrangements.
• Create Judicial Protocols for JIN Compliance: The NCLT should adopt guidelines in line with the JIN Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation among Courts of the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) to mediate cross-border communication in a structured, transparent way.[21]
• Develop Business Entrepreneurial Training: Government institutions, sector associations and law schools would need to make materials available to Indian entrepreneurs to help them understand cross-border insolvency risks as they are structuring the business, and not when they hit financial distress.

10. Conclusion

The Indian businessmen can no longer ignore the topic of cross-border insolvency. Insolvency proceedings of Indian linked entities are regularly governed by several sets of law due to the globalisation of Indian business, multiple offshore holding companies and the internationalisation of Indian debt and equity markets. The UNCITRAL Model Law is the most coherent framework in the area of cross-border insolvency and India’s non-adoption of such framework is important. In the interim, Indian entrepreneurs will have to rely on a network of bilateral comity, ad hoc judicial cooperation and judicious contractual safeguards.

The analysis shows that insolvency preparedness needs to be a part of cross-border business planning. Issues like incorporation, financing and creditor and asset location can be deal killers in the future restructuring process.

The hypothetical scenarios referenced in this paper illustrate that the effectiveness of insolvency proceedings is often decided long before a company enters into financial distress by way of the corporate structure, asset location and financing arrangements.

As India continues to transform itself into a world class business destination, and as the IBC develops as a more complete legal process, the establishment of a comprehensive cross-border insolvency system will soon be a no-brainer and an urgent necessity. When it does, it will not only serve to better protect Indian creditors and business people from international insolvencies — it will also send a clear signal from investors and trading partners around the world that India is indeed following the requirements of international commercial law with determination.

References

1. PRIMARY SOURCES

1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, India Code (2016).
2. Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018) (Sing.).
3. Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030 (U.K.).
4. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1532 (2024).
5. In re Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 707 of 2019 (NCLAT Nov. 26, 2019).

1. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (1997).
2. U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law (UNCITRAL), UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation (2014).
3. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).
4. Judicial Insolvency Network, Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (2016).

1. BOOKS, ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES

1. Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Universal Priorities, 33 Tex. Int’l L.J. 27 (1998).
2. INSOL Int’l, Cross-Border Insolvency: A Guide to Recognition and Enforcement (3d ed. 2022).
3. Look Chan Ho, Cross-Border Insolvency: Principles and Practice (2d ed. 2021).
4. Ian F. Fletcher & Bob Wessels, Harmonisation of Insolvency Law in Europe (2017).
5. Bob Wessels, International Insolvency Law: Part I: Global Perspectives on Cross-Border Insolvency Law (5th ed. 2019).

 

[1] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation (2014).

[2] Jay Lawrence Westbrook, Universal Priorities, 33 Tex. Int’l L.J. 27, 28–34 (1998).

[3] U.N. Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/442 (1997).

[4] UNCITRAL, Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment and Interpretation (2014).

[5] UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency art. 2(b), 1997.

[6] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).

[7] Innoventive Indus. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 S.C.C. 407, 421–24 (India).

[8] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, No. 31 of 2016, §§ 234–235 (India).

[9] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).

[10] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).

[11] In re Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 707 of 2019 (NCLAT Nov. 26, 2019).

[12] In re Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 707 of 2019 (NCLAT Nov. 26, 2019).

[13] Judicial Insolvency Network, Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (2016).

[14] Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018) (Sing.); Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030 (U.K.); 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1532 (2024).

[15] Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (Act 40 of 2018) (Sing.).

[16] 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1532 (2024).

[17] UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency art. 16(3), 1997.

[18] Look Chan Ho, Cross-Border Insolvency: Principles and Practice 145–60 (2d ed. 2021).

[19] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).

[20] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gov’t of India, Report of the Insolvency Law Committee on Cross-Border Insolvency (2018).

[21] Judicial Insolvency Network, Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (2016).