IBBI CIRP Regulation Updates (Feb 2026): CoC Minutes, CIRP Costs, and Delayed Claims Simplified

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed targeted amendments to the CIRP Regulations aimed at improving transparency, reducing procedural disputes, and clarifying grey areas in insolvency practice. The changes primarily address CoC decision-making records, CIRP cost approvals, delayed claims, and Operational Creditor-only CoCs.

Key Takeaways

• The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed targeted amendments to the CIRP Regulations aimed at improving transparency, reducing procedural disputes, and clarifying grey areas in insolvency practice.
• The changes primarily address CoC decision-making records, CIRP cost approvals, delayed claims, and Operational Creditor-only CoCs.
• To address this gap, IBBI proposes that CoC minutes must explicitly record critical aspects of decision-making.
• Delayed Claims: Shifting the Gatekeeping Role Delayed claim admission has frequently triggered controversy, largely due to informal CoC filtering practices.
• IBBI proposes removing this friction by mandating that Resolution Professionals file all delayed claims directly before the NCLT.

The Vakilkaro Brief: IBBI’s February 2026 CIRP Proposals — Focused Fixes, Real Consequences

• The Update: IBBI proposes amendments affecting Regulation 39, CIRP cost approvals, delayed claims, and OC-only CoC rules
• The Impact: Stronger documentation standards, clearer authority for IRPs/RPs, but possible rise in tribunal filings
• The Action: Insolvency professionals and creditors must recalibrate minutes, cost controls, and claims strategy

Proposal Matrix

The IBBI Discussion Paper outlines four key proposals designed to correct recurring procedural and governance issues observed in CIRPs.

Proposal Regulation Core Issue Proposed Solution

CoC Minutes Reg 39(3)(b) Lack of reasoning in approvals/rejections Mandatory disclosure of decision factors

CIRP Costs New framework Approval uncertainty in Day 1–30 phase Three-tier approval structure

Delayed Claims Reg 13(1C) Claims blocked without CoC backing Direct RP filing before NCLT

OC-Only CoC Reg 16(2) Related OCs influencing decisions Limit CoC to unrelated OCs

CoC Minutes: From Formality to Evidence

One of the most consequential proposals concerns the manner in which Committees of Creditors document their decisions under Regulation 39.

In many CIRPs, CoC minutes merely record outcomes such as “plan found feasible and viable” without explaining the analytical basis for the conclusion. While CoC commercial wisdom continues to receive judicial deference, tribunals increasingly review whether decisions were taken after proper evaluation. Sparse minutes weaken this defence and often lead to avoidable litigation.

To address this gap, IBBI proposes that CoC minutes must explicitly record critical aspects of decision-making. These include the assessment of feasibility and viability, comparison of recovery under the resolution plan against fair value and liquidation value, disclosure on whether a challenge mechanism was utilised, and evaluation of the Resolution Applicant’s financial and operational capability.

This shift transforms CoC minutes from procedural records into substantive evidence. For Resolution Professionals, this means investing greater care in capturing discussions, ensuring creditors articulate reasoning, and structuring minutes that reflect analytical consideration rather than conclusions alone.

CIRP Costs: Clarifying Early-Stage Authority

Approval and classification of CIRP costs, particularly during the first 30 days, has been another persistent area of confusion.

The Interim Resolution Professional is immediately tasked with preserving assets, maintaining essential services, and ensuring statutory compliance. However, practical delays in CoC constitution often mean that approval for expenses is unavailable at a stage when urgent action is necessary. This creates tension between operational necessity and retrospective scrutiny.

IBBI’s proposal introduces a three-tier cost approval framework. During the first 30 days, the IRP is granted autonomy to incur necessary expenses relating to asset preservation, compliance obligations, and essential services. These costs may later be placed before the CoC for ratification. At the first CoC meeting, a more structured evaluation occurs through presentation of a Going Concern Report outlining liquidity needs and operational viability. Thereafter, significant expenses require prior CoC approval.

This framework seeks to balance efficiency with oversight. It protects IRPs acting in good faith while preserving creditor control over substantial financial decisions. Importantly, it also creates clearer audit trails and reduces disputes around unauthorised expenditure.

Delayed Claims: Shifting the Gatekeeping Role

Delayed claim admission has frequently triggered controversy, largely due to informal CoC filtering practices.

Although the Regulations allow consideration of late claims, RPs often depend on CoC recommendations before approaching the NCLT. In practice, absence of creditor support can effectively extinguish claims even where legal merit exists. This blurs the boundary between commercial decision-making and judicial determination.

IBBI proposes removing this friction by mandating that Resolution Professionals file all delayed claims directly before the NCLT. The CoC’s view may be attached but will not determine admissibility. Claims may be submitted through consolidated periodic applications to reduce repetitive filings.

This proposal reinforces the principle that claim adjudication is a judicial function. It reduces the possibility of CoC gatekeeping blocking legitimate creditors. However, it may also increase tribunal workload and lengthen timelines if filings are not managed efficiently. Consolidation and disciplined scheduling will therefore become essential tools for RPs.

OC-Only CoCs: The Unrelated Creditor Question

The composition of Operational Creditor-only CoCs under Regulation 16(2) has also been flagged for reform.

IBBI proposes restricting participation to unrelated Operational Creditors. The rationale is straightforward: related parties may influence decisions in ways inconsistent with insolvency objectives. However, unlike Financial Creditors, the IBC does not explicitly exclude related OCs under Section 21. Introducing such exclusion solely through regulations may trigger legal challenges on grounds of legislative inconsistency.

An additional complexity arises where most or all Operational Creditors are related parties. Excluding them could distort voting structures or produce CoCs dominated by workers or small claimants. This proposal may therefore require statutory amendment for long-term sustainability.

Practical Implications for Insolvency Professionals

If implemented, the amendments will alter everyday CIRP practices.

Resolution Professionals must adopt more detailed CoC minute formats, incorporating valuation comparisons and recording creditor reasoning. Cost governance systems will need refinement, particularly around classification of early-stage expenses. Claims management strategies must shift from CoC-led filtering to tribunal-oriented consolidation. Documentation, already central to CIRP success, becomes even more critical.

Creditors will also experience change. Participation in CoC discussions must become more structured, as reasoning recorded today may determine litigation outcomes tomorrow. Financial evaluation of Resolution Applicants may face deeper scrutiny.

Implementation Risks and Legal Concerns

Despite clear objectives, certain implementation risks remain.

Tribunal capacity constraints could delay claim adjudications. Increased documentation standards may extend RP workloads and procedural timelines. Legal challenges may arise where regulatory amendments appear to exceed statutory language, especially concerning related Operational Creditors.

Careful drafting, transitional guidance, and possible legislative alignment may be required to ensure reforms strengthen rather than complicate insolvency resolution.

Pro Checklist – CIRP Compliance Readiness

For Resolution Professionals

□ Update CoC minute templates

□ Maintain valuation comparison sheets

□ Implement CIRP cost tier classification

□ Consolidate delayed claim filings

For Creditors

□ Record rationale during CoC voting

□ Scrutinise RA capability and funding

□ Track CIRP cost approvals

For Corporate Debtors

□ Preserve operational and financial records

□ Support verification of claims and expenses

Conclusion

IBBI’s February 2026 proposals signal a regulatory preference for clarity, transparency, and procedural discipline. The amendments do not alter the foundations of CIRP but refine mechanisms that repeatedly generate disputes.

For insolvency professionals and creditors, the direction is unmistakable: decisions must be better documented, expenses more clearly justified, and claims handled with greater procedural rigour. In the evolving insolvency landscape, governance quality and documentation strength will increasingly define successful outcomes.

ABOUT VAKILKARO

Vakilkaro is a trusted legal and compliance advisory platform that helps businesses and professionals stay ahead of evolving regulatory requirements in India. With a strong focus on corporate law like private limited company registration, limited liability company registration, etc. MCA compliance, and director obligations, Vakilkaro simplifies complex legal updates into clear, actionable guidance.

Stay tuned for more such updates.

Official External Resources

Use these primary/official sources to verify rules, forms, fees, timelines and regulatory updates before publication.

• Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)
• National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)