Taking note of the apprehension of homebuyers regarding the completion of the stalled projects, which are still in limbo and are being handled by the debt-ridden firm unlike 16 other projects that were earlier handed over to state-run NBCC (India), a bench led by chief justice Surya Kant asked the tribunal to ascertain whether the panel should be there for all the projects or only those 16 projects which have been taken up by the public sector undertaking. The tribunal will hear the case on Friday.

On February 5, the top court had upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order asking NBCC to complete 16 housing projects of Supertech.

The post SC asks NCLT to expedite call on Supertech oversight panel first appeared on M&A Critique.

The all-cash deal, valued at about ₹1,200 crore, involves a transfer of stressed debt between asset reconstruction platforms and investors. It was closed in March. The exposure dates back to 2018, when Edelweiss ARC, in partnership with Oaktree and other investors, had acquired nearly 90% of GTL Infra’s loans, then valued at around ₹4,000 crore.

The telecom tower company had defaulted on debt exceeding ₹11,000 crore, triggering multiple restructuring efforts over the years.

People familiar with the latest transaction said Edelweiss had put the exposure on the block as its fund lifecycle neared maturity, prompting a takeout by Omkara.

“This is a 100% cash deal between ARCs. Edelweiss exited and we acquired the exposure,” an executive at one of the firms said on condition of anonymity.

Investors are betting on improved recovery prospects this time. “The underlying business is more or less stable now. The towers are operational, and that improves the chances of recovery,” the person said.

Omkara is understood to be targeting an exit over the next two years, either through asset sales or a negotiated settlement. “The idea is to close the account in about two years-through sale of assets or other recovery mechanisms,” the person added.

Omkara and Edelweiss ARC spokespersons did not respond to requests for comment until press time Sunday.

In 2018, after a steep revenue and Ebitda decline following the exit of key clients including Aircel, RCom and Tata Teleservices, GTL Infrastructure sought to deleverage, with lenders assigning 79.34% of its ₹3,226-crore debt to Edelweiss ARC. The firm submitted multiple restructuring proposals from April 2018 onward, expecting a swift resolution, but lenders did not act on these plans and some retained their exposure.

In November 2022, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected a plea by Canara Bank to initiate insolvency proceedings, ruling that the company remained a viable going concern and did not meet the threshold for admission under the bankruptcy code.

The post Omkara, Oaktree pay Rs 1,200 crore to buy GTL debt from Edelweiss first appeared on M&A Critique.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CoC before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), said, “Vedanta was lagging in the first and fifth parameter, but somehow they came to know it. And it is our case that there was some leakage which should not have happened, because that compromises the sanctity and integrity of the process.”

The principal bench of the NCLAT, led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, was hearing Vedanta’s plea challenging Adani Enterprises as the highest bidder in the JAL insolvency case.

Mehta added that after the alleged leak, Vedanta submitted a revised offer, increasing values in parameters one and five—net present value (NPV) and equity infusion—where it had earlier lagged. The CoC rejected the revised bid as it was submitted after the deadline.

National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), one of the largest voting members in the CoC, argued that accepting the revised offer would require restarting the process and delay resolution.

Advocate Niranjan Reddy, also representing the CoC, said, “After the bidding concluded, they understood that they were not going to succeed, and they came up with it.”

The next hearing is scheduled for 21 April.

Lawyers said the development could strengthen Vedanta’s case in the proceedings.

“It’s a process integrity issue, and Vedanta can argue that there was no level playing field in this case,” said Arka Majumdar, partner at Argus Partners.

On Friday Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing a resolution professional, said, “One of the biggest methods of drawing attention to some kind of big sensational issues is to suggest that we (resolution professionals) declared Mr (Abhijeet) Sinha’s client (Vedanta) to be the best, the highest, or the most appropriate and then we suddenly changed it. The very premise of this submission… as if I have declared you as the highest and then shifted it. That would be unfair if it would have happened, and completely without foundational facts.”

Vedanta’s counsel Abhijeet Sinha rejected the allegations as “baseless” and said the company had “not suppressed any documents and presented everything in court”.

Vedanta has also accused the CoC of ignoring its bid despite it being the highest after five rounds of the challenge process. “In the process of scoring there should be some transparency, but there was nothing,” Sinha said on 16 April.

JAL entered insolvency proceedings in 2024, with more than ₹50,000 crore owed to creditors.

The contest for JAL’s assets includes nearly 4,000 acres of land across Noida, Greater Noida and the Yamuna Expressway, along with hotels, commercial assets, cement capacity and a Formula 1 racing track.

Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan was approved by the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 17 March, after which Vedanta approached the NCLAT and the Supreme Court seeking a stay.

On 6 April, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with orders of the NCLT and NCLAT that cleared the plan’s rollout. However, it directed the committee overseeing the resolution to seek prior NCLAT approval before taking any major steps.

The post JAL insolvency case: Lenders flag ‘leak’ that may have aided Vedanta bid first appeared on M&A Critique.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Resolution Professional (RP) said an e-mail dated September 5 circulated to all bidders only conveyed the highest financial value discovered during the challenge process, and did not constitute an official declaration of a successful bidder.

He alleged that Vedanta’s claim of being the highest bidder amounted to “suppression of material facts,” arguing that its petition lacked a legal and factual basis. Singhvi further told the tribunal that the case presented by the mining group was “completely without foundational facts.”

“It is a perfectly simple, valid e-mail pointing out what will happen in future. When you do this, then we will evaluate. It’s very simple and straightforward,” he said during the proceedings of the appellate tribunal.

Singhvi said the e-mail does not say that Vedanta is the highest bidder.

A two-member NCLAT bench observed that the e-mail “only communicates that the highest value as per the identifying criteria is Rs 12,505 crore on NAV basis…”

Replying to it, Singhvi said this is only a disclosure that the highest NAV (Net Asset Value ) was shown as Rs 12,505.850 crore.

“I cannot prevent what you think. But you cannot start thinking that this is a declaration of the best. It is a disclosure that you have a Rs 12,000 crore NAV. Now, if you start imagining things in your favour, then it is not my problem,” he said questioning, “why nobody else misunderstood it”?

Vedanta has submitted that its bid was above NAV.

Singhvi further said the Committee of Creditors evaluated plans on a combined quantitative and qualitative matrix, not just on the highest NPV or headline bid amount.

Vedanta, in its two petitions challenging the lenders’ decision to accept Adani’s takeover offer, had contended that its addendum bid is about Rs 3,400 crore higher in gross value terms and roughly Rs 500 crore more in net present value (NPV) compared with the Adani Group’s offer.

Singhvi said it was decided based on a total score of 100, in which the quantitative score was 80 and rest 20 was of qualitative score.

This parameter was not made for Adani or Vedanta, but this evaluation matrix has been followed in several cases. This is known as a holistic evaluation, not a unifocal evaluation on a single parameter and it is always better to have this, he said.

Over Vedanta claims for not giving any chance to match Adani bid, Singhvi while reading the terms and conditions before NCLAT, said the challenge process barred any post-closure revision.

He further said Vedanta’s November 8 addendum was an impermissible unilateral revision. After being informed on November 7 that voting would proceed, the appellant tribunal submitted a revised addendum on November 8, which was contrary to the agreed rules.

“Allowing such a revision would violate fairness and level playing field. If one applicant were allowed to revise after closure, all applicants would have to be given the same chance, defeating finality of the process.

He also stressed that the commercial wisdom of COC is not open to re-evaluation.

After the conclusion of RP’s arguments, the bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member (Technical) Barun Mitra has posted the matter for the next hearing on Monday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing for banks, will start his arguments from Monday.

Vedanta has filed two petitions, challenging the March 17 order by the Allahabad bench of NCLT, which approved Adani Enterprises’ Rs 14,535-crore bid to acquire JAL through the insolvency process.

On March 24, NCLAT declined any interim stay on the order passed by the NCLT approving the Adani Group’s bid for acquiring JAL.

However, it said the plan would be subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the Anil Agarwal-led Vedanta Group.

This interim order by NCLAT was challenged before the Supreme Court, which also declined to grant a stay. However, the apex court had directed that if the monitoring committee planned to take any major policy decision, it should first obtain the tribunal’s sanction.

The post Vedanta was never declared highest bidder for Jaiprakash Associates: RP to NCLAT first appeared on M&A Critique.

The Group also plans to expand capacity across its facilities and actively pursue further acquisition opportunities in key global markets like Western Europe, Japan, and China.

Founded in 1977 and initially representing global manufacturers in India, the company gradually expanded into manufacturing, beginning with flat thread rolling dies in 1987. Over the years, Kadimi diversified further, entering the production of cold heading wire in 2013.

In 2024, the company ventured into fastener manufacturing, and the acquisition of Rol-flo Engineering – its first outside India – will complement Kadimi’s existing product portfolio, according to Managing Director Sahil Nath.

Rol-flo Engineering is a pioneer in form rolling dies and provides Kadimi with a US manufacturing base, and greater access to the fast-growing aerospace market.

The post Kadimi Group expands global footprint first appeared on M&A Critique.

The post DIPAM approves merger of NBCC and HSCC (India) first appeared on M&A Critique.

The cross-border framework, approved last month as part of amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), will be based on a model UN law with modifications to suit the Indian context.

It seeks to enable easier access for creditors to overseas assets of stressed companies and allow India to seek cooperation from foreign courts to bring such assets under insolvency proceedings.

The need for such a framework emerged during bankruptcy proceedings involving Amtek Auto, Videocon Industries, Essar Steel and Jet Airways, where issues such as asset location and complex cross-border procedures delayed resolution.

The corporate affairs ministry will begin framing cross-border insolvency rules soon. To ensure parliamentary oversight, a draft of every rule will have to be laid before each House of Parliament, as per the amended IBC.

Rules to enable easier access for creditors to global assets of stressed cos and allow cooperation from foreign courts

“The special bench is necessary for time-bound insolvency proceedings,” one of the people told ET.

“We can’t have a situation where a foreign adjudicating authority hearing the insolvency case is moving fast and we are lagging,” he said. Advanced jurisdictions, including Singapore, are known for time-bound resolutions.

The proposed NCLT bench will have members trained in cross-border insolvency resolution, the person said.

Model UN framework

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) for cross-border insolvency resolution has been adopted by more than 50 jurisdictions.

It is based on principles such as access to foreign and domestic courts by resolution professionals, recognition of foreign proceedings, cooperation between courts, and coordination of multiple concurrent insolvency proceedings. Ratifying countries are allowed to firm up rules, depending on their peculiar context, on the basis of this model law.

“A special bench will result in faster resolution of cross-border insolvency cases. This will brighten the chances of recovery for creditors as well,” said Yogendra Aldak, executive partner at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan attorneys.

Earlier, the IBC provided for cross-border insolvency through bilateral agreements and letters of request issued by the NCLT to foreign courts under Section 234. However, this mechanism was ad hoc and prone to delays and uncertainty.

The post India plans special NCLT bench for cross-border insolvency cases to speed up resolutions first appeared on M&A Critique.

Most deals are expected to be mid-sized, as companies in emerging segments have yet to achieve meaningful scale. The possibility of a large deal cannot be entirely ruled out, though it remains less likely, they said.

The last large transaction in the sector came in 2024, when Star India and Viacom18 merged to form an $8.5 billion media behemoth. Another potential industry-shaping deal, between Sony Pictures Networks India and Zee Entertainment, was called off due to regulatory pressures and disagreements over leadership.

“Deal volume in 2026 will be driven by factors such as scale/ market share, efficiency and IP value. AI assets with global use cases will be prominent targets. Traditional businesses desirous of expanding their offerings to sustain their relevance will also drive acquisitions and/or partnerships,” said EY India leader media and entertainment practice Ashish Pherwani.

According to EY’s M&E report, deal volumes rose 8% to 105 transactions in 2025 from 97 in 2024. However, total deal value declined 76% to Rs 20,700 crore from Rs 86,700 crore, largely due to the absence of large-ticket deals such as the Star-Viacom18 merger.

Excluding that transaction, the EY report noted that 2025 deal value reflected a 27% increase over the adjusted 2024 base, indicating underlying momentum.

Mid-sized transactions in the Rs 100–500 crore range more than doubled year-on-year, signalling a build-up of scalable assets, as per EY. Large deals above Rs 500 crore were limited to six but accounted for 73% of the total value, underscoring continued concentration.

“Most deals are likely to be in the Rs 500–1,000 crore range, while larger transactions, if they materialise, are unlikely to exceed $500 million to $1 billion. This is because much of the consolidation in traditional media has already taken place, and in digital space there is no scale as it is dominated by tech giants,” said Elara Capital executive vice-president Karan Taurani. “That said, there is a long tail in segments like linear TV, OTT and cinema exhibition which will start seeing consolidation.”

EY data show deal volumes were dominated by new media, while deal value remained concentrated in traditional segments. Digital media and sports accounted for 60% of the deal volume, while gaming, sports, VFX and AI contributed nearly three-fourths of the value.

The report said the next phase of value creation will be driven by content, IP and platform consolidation, followed by gaming and sports, particularly in premium franchise ecosystems, as well as AI-first companies. The digital advertising ecosystem is also expected to see increased M&A activity.

The post Mega deals less likely, but media M&A show to stay strong in 2026 first appeared on M&A Critique.

The deal values Arinna at an enterprise value of Rs 200 crore on a cash and debt-free basis, with the purchase consideration for the stake pegged at around Rs 175.92 crore. The transaction will be executed entirely in cash and is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals.

Incorporated in 2013, Arinna operates a portfolio of over 60 brands across chronic therapies, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, antipsychotics and thymoleptics. The company has an established distribution network covering more than 4,000 prescribers across India through stockists, distributors and retail pharmacies.

Arinna reported turnover of Rs 71.5 crore in FY25, Rs 65.14 crore in FY24, and Rs 60.06 crore in FY23, indicating steady growth in its domestic formulations business.

Rubicon said the acquisition strengthens its strategy of expanding in chronic therapies, particularly the CNS segment, where it sees long-term growth potential. The company added that Arinnas distribution reach and product portfolio, along with its pipeline of specialty products and drug-device combinations, will support deeper access to patients and prescribers in India.

The acquisition is expected to be completed within one month of signing definitive agreements, or within mutually agreed timelines.

Commenting on the acquisition, Parag Sancheti, Rubicons Chief Executive Officer said The past decade has demonstrated the effectiveness of Rubicons playbook of R&D innovation, execution rigor and impeccable compliance standards which enabled us to scale our US revenues by over 32 x from FY15 to FY25 while delivering best-in-class return ratios.

Arinna now provides us a launchpad for deploying this playbook in the Indian domestic formulations market. Strategic M&A has always been integral to Rubicons strategy and our confidence stems from having successfully integrated and scaled acquisitions to foray into new segments such as US branded specialty in 2024 and nasal products development in 2020. I am pleased to welcome Vivek and the Arinna team to the Rubicon family.

Rubicon Research is a pharmaceutical formulations company focused on innovation-led research and development, with a growing portfolio of specialty products and drug-device combination offerings aimed at regulated markets.

The companys consolidated net profit climbed 91.2% to Rs 72.79 crore on 51.73% increase in revenue from operations to Rs 475.52 crore in Q3 FY26 over Q3 FY25.

The post Rubicon Research gains as acquire 85% stake in Arinna Lifesciences for Rs 176 crore first appeared on M&A Critique.

This acquisition furthers Rubicon’s strategy of leveraging its IP and chronic products portfolio to unlock growth in key markets, particularly in the CNS therapeutic category which has always been a core focus area for Rubicon.

Arinna’s sales and distribution network provides Rubicon access to patients and prescribers in India for its differentiated offerings, including a strong pipeline of specialty products and drug-device combinations.

The transaction values Arinna at an enterprise value of Rs 200 crore on a cash and debt free basis. After accounting for net cash and other necessary adjustments to the enterprise value of Arinna, the purchase consideration has been determined to be approximately Rs 175.92 crore for secondary acquisition of 85% equity shareholding at a price of Rs 158.53 per share. The final consideration remains subject to adjustments on the closing date, if any. For the 9 months ended 31 December 2025, Arinna’s provisional revenue and EBITDA were Rs 56.7 crore and Rs 9.5 crore respectively.

The post Rubicon Research acquires 85% stake in Arinna Lifesciences first appeared on M&A Critique.