2 hrs ago
India’s Insolvency Framework Faces New Questions From AI Transactions
India’s insolvency rules may need to change as businesses increasingly use AI agents.
An AI agent can make decisions and complete transactions for a company.
Sometimes, a transaction could look normal when an AI performs it.
The same transaction might look suspicious if a human had done it.
The situation becomes more complicated when two AI agents conduct business with each other.
At first, that deal might appear to be an ordinary business transaction.
But AI systems can potentially be trained unfairly or manipulated.
This creates difficult questions about whether the transaction should be allowed or investigated under insolvency law.
AI agents may execute transactions on behalf of corporate debtors, raising questions about how insolvency rules should apply.
A transaction carried out by an AI agent could be considered part of the debtor’s normal business activities.
The same transaction might otherwise be treated as a probable avoidance transaction if undertaken by a human.
Transactions between two AI agents may initially appear to be in the normal course of business.
Questions remain about whether unfairly manipulated AI model weights could affect the legal treatment of such transactions.
- Who
- Corporate debtors, human decision-makers, AI agents, and counterparties involved in transactions.
- What
- The article examines how India’s insolvency framework should treat transactions executed by AI agents, including transactions between two AI agents.
- Where
- India.
- When
- As businesses use AI agents to execute transactions; no specific date is stated.
- Why
- AI-driven transactions may blur the distinction between ordinary business activity and transactions that could be considered probable avoidance, especially if AI models were unfairly manipulated.
Key facts
- Core issue
- Whether India’s insolvency framework can adequately address transactions executed by AI agents.
- Normal-course question
- An AI-executed transaction may be considered part of a corporate debtor’s normal business.
- Human comparison
- The same transaction carried out by a human might be categorized as probable avoidance.
- AI-to-AI transactions
- Deals between two AI agents could prima facie appear to be in the normal course of business.
- Model manipulation
- Unfair manipulation of AI model weights could complicate the assessment of a transaction.
- Legal uncertainty
- The article identifies potential grey areas rather than providing definitive legal answers.





