Sober Ltd. (the Company) is engaged in the business of running hotel chains in India as well as outside India. Due to less demand faced during the pandemic, the Company was unable to meet its financial obligations. Finan

Sober Ltd. (the Company) is engaged in the business of running hotel chains in India as well as outside India. Due to less demand faced during the pandemic, the Company was unable to meet its financial obligations. Financial creditors of the Company decided to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). On 1 st January, 2022, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the Company started and Shyam was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional. The Company was subjected to parallel insolvency proceedings in India as well as Netherlands (where it had registered office). In the Netherlands, the Company was declared bankrupt and the Dutch trustee had been appointed to manage the estate of the Company. During the 1 st meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), Shyam was confirmed to act as Resolution Professional (RP). Considering the future potential in the Company, many strategic and financial investors expressed their interest in buying the Company including one of the members of the CoC who also submitted Expression of Interest to the RP. Shyam after due verification, published the final list of the prospective resolution applicants. One of the investors, Simba Ltd. wrote an email to Shyam stating that they also want to participate in the process and submitted all the required documents to Shyam for their name to get included in the final list of the prospective resolution applicants. Shyam refused to include their name in the final list stating that no provision exist under the IBC to include name of any party, once the final list of the prospective resolution applicants is published by the RP. During the CIRP process, Shyam had appointed two valuers to carry out valuation. The fair value given by Valuer 1 was ₹1,750 crore and Valuer 2 was ₹550 crore and liquidation value was ₹1,000 crore and ₹200 crore respectively. During the discussions with the valuers to understand the methodology adopted by them to carry out the valuation, Shyam realized that both the valuers have carried out valuation based on the internationally accepted valuation methods and have made certain assumptions while arriving at the final numbers. Lawyer of Shyam had suggested that since the valuation given by Valuer 1 is advantageous for the stakeholders, he can put the valuation report issued by Valuer 1 before the CoC. Shyam agreed and moved ahead accordingly. During one of the meetings of the CoC, the financial creditors were deliberating on how to maximize the value of the Company and fetch a best possible resolution plan. In response, one of the members of the CoC requested the entire CoC to explore possibility of 'Swiss Challenge' to improve value of the resolution plans. However, none of the other members agreed stating that there is no provision under the IBC for exercising a 'Swiss Challenge'. When the final resolution plans had come, the RP after due verification and completing required formalities, had put-up all the plans on voting. The outcome of voting was as under: S. No. Particulars Voting result 1 Resolution Plan 1 56% 2 Resolution Plan 2 67% 3 Resolution Plan 3 67% 4 Resolution Plan 4 75% One of the members of the CoC suggested to carry out the voting again since the voting percentage of Resolution Plan 2 and 3 is same. The RP denied stating that once the voting is done, re-voting on the plans cannot be done again in the present scenario. Accordingly, Resolution Plan 4 was filed with the adjudicating authority for approval. The resolution applicant had mentioned in the Resolution Plan 4 to put ₹80 crore in the form of working capital as well as capital expenditure, once the company's handover formalities are completed. Even after 1 year of handover, the resolution applicant did not infuse the aforesaid amount. In fact, the resolution applicant requested the financial creditors to waive off the condition to infuse money for working capital and capital expenditure. Shyam being part of the monitoring committee, overseeing implementation of the resolution plan, expressed his concern on the request made by the resolution applicant citing violation of the provisions under the IBC. Consider the above case and relevant provisions of the IBC, its rules and regulations made thereunder, answer the following questions: Whether the contention of Shyam is correct that once the final list of prospective resolution applicants is published, name of any other party cannot be included in the list of prospective resolution applicants? Suggest the plausible option if the name of any party has to be included after publication of the final list of the prospective resolution applicants.