Lenders Law

Contribution Agreements are often presented as standard form documents with limited scope for negotiation. In practice, however, they operate as core risk allocation instruments — and careful drafting can materially influence investor rights, governance, and downside protection. While commercial terms may be largely set, the legal framework around them is far from rigid. From transfer restrictions and co-investment structures to removal rights and drawdown conditions, there is meaningful scope to recalibrate how risk is shared between the Investment Manager and contributors. This post highlights key areas where targeted negotiation and precise drafting can significantly enhance investor protections — without disrupting the underlying commercial understanding. 1. Transfer of Units – Limiting Manager Discretion: A frequent issue arises in provisions that subject transfers to conditions “as the Investment Manager may determine in its discretion.” Such language is inherently broad an...

Bitcoin lending has evolved from informal peer-to-peer arrangements into structured credit products , often routed through offshore special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and regulated intermediaries. At its core, bitcoin lending allows a borrower to access liquidity either in fiat or stablecoins , against a promise to repay with interest—sometimes with bitcoin involved as collateral, sometimes as the loan asset itself. For Indian lenders, fintechs, and compliance teams, the key question is no longer whether bitcoin lending exists, but how the risk is structured , where the enforceability sits , and whether it resembles credit or custody under Indian law. Two Distinct Models: A.  Bitcoin-Backed Loans (Collateralised Model): In a bitcoin-backed loan: The borrower pledges bitcoin as collateral; The lender disburses fiat currency or stablecoins; Bitcoin is typically custodied, escrowed, or controlled via smart contracts; Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios, margin calls, and liquid...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s ruling in  EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd.   (2025) clarifies that preference shares—however structured—remains part of a company's share capital, and cannot be regarded as "debt". Even if classified as “financial liability” under Ind AS 32, legal character under the Companies Act still governs enforceability. A cautionary tale for investors and creditors relying on redeemable or “put option” structures to secure repayment.  The Case in Brief In EPC Constructions (supra), the appellant had over ₹400 crores in receivables for project work. The appellant/ former operational creditor agreed to convert its dues into 8% Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS)—redeemable in three years. When the respondent/ debtor failed to redeem, the appellant (then in liquidation), through its liquidator, filed a Section 7 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), claiming default on redemption. Both ...