Neeraj is a practicing company secretary and is acting as a resolution professional in Bom Ltd. Before practising as a company secretary, he was working as a DGM in Bank of Surat. Bank of Surat contacted him to act as an

The IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, govern the examination, registration, and conduct of Insolvency Professionals (IPs), including a prescribed Code of Conduct. The First Schedule to these regulations outlines the Code of Conduct for IPs. Regulation 7(2)(h) states that an IP's registration is subject to their adherence to this Code of Conduct. Let's analyze Neeraj's conduct based on the Code of Conduct: 1. Disclosure of Employment Details: Regulation 8A of the First Schedule: An IP must disclose whether they were an employee of or have been on the panel of any financial creditor of the corporate debtor to the Committee of Creditors (CoC), their Insolvency Professional Agency (IPA), and the IPA must publish such disclosure on its website. Analysis: Neeraj was employed by Bank of Surat, which is a financial creditor. His contention that he is not obligated to disclose this employment because it was 7 years ago is incorrect. The regulation requires disclosure of past employment with financial creditors to the CoC to enable them to make an informed decision about his continuation as RP. Therefore, Neeraj's conduct in refusing to disclose this information is not proper . 2. Influence and Undue Gains for Related Parties: Regulation 9 of the First Schedule: An IP shall not influence the decision or work of the CoC, debtor, or other stakeholders to make undue or unlawful gains for themselves or their related parties, or cause undue preference for any other persons for undue or unlawful gains. They must not adopt illegal or improper means to achieve mala fide objectives. Analysis: Neeraj presented his son, Suraj, as a candidate for technical consultant, made a detailed presentation on his achievements, and highlighted that Suraj would work at a nominal cost due to his relationship with Neeraj. This action of soliciting work for his son (a related party) and influencing the CoC's decision for his son's appointment, even if at a nominal fee, can be construed as making undue gains for a related party or creating a conflict of interest. This is a violation of the spirit of Regulation 9, which aims to ensure impartiality and prevent IPs from leveraging their position for personal or related-party benefit. Therefore, Neeraj's conduct in soliciting work for Suraj is not proper . Conclusion: Neeraj's conduct as a Resolution Professional is not proper on both counts: his failure to disclose past employment with a financial creditor and his attempt to influence the CoC to appoint his son as a technical consultant.