Moratorium
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 deals with moratorium. Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:-- (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debt The Act was enacted on 28 May 2016.
(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:--
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
1[Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;]
(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.
1[(2A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified;]
2[(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to--
3[(a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority;]
(b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.].
(4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process:
Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be.
Section 14, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Act 31 of 2016).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 7
- s. 13 Declaration of moratorium and public announcement
- s. 31 Approval of resolution plan
- s. 54E Declaration of moratorium and public announcement during pre-packaged insolvency resolution process
- s. 54J Vesting management of corporate debtor with resolution professional
- s. 54P Application of provisions of Chapters II, III, VI and VII to this Chapter
- s. 74 Punishment for contravention of moratorium or the resolution plan
- s. 240 Power to make regulations
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement order-22.pdf 2021-03-01. Nariman J. reportable (digitally signed 2021.03.01). DATE-CHECK false positive on supply/dishonour dates 2015–17 in the facts; body is the 2021 IBC-14/NI-138 judgment. Isolates IBC 14: a 138 proceeding against the corporate debtor is covered by the s.14 moratorium and stays during CIRP; the stay does not automatically extend to directors/persons in charge under 141. Existing combined rows already map this CNR to ni-act 138/141; this pass adds the IBC 14 row. Map insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016 14 cited. Do not pad NI 138/141 (already filled). Not a new CNR.
On this section: IBC s.14 moratorium stays NI 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor, not automatically against directors (P. Mohanraj). Existing combined rows already map this CNR to ni-act 138/141.
-
Vishnoo Mittal v. Shakti Trading Company
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement order-11.pdf 2025-03-17 DATE VERIFIED. 2025 INSC 346. Sudhanshu Dhulia / K. Vinod Chandran. Cache 12 files / 11 orders; order-10.pdf is the same judgment under an ROP filename (DATE-CHECK false positive) — attach order-11.pdf (labelled Judgement). Isolates IBC 14 moratorium + s.17 IRP takeover vis-à-vis NI 138: cause of action arises only after 15 days from the demand notice. If that date is after moratorium/IRP, the director has no capacity to pay; P. Mohanraj distinguished (there the cause of action arose before moratorium; 14 bars the CD not natural persons). 138 quashed. Map insolvency-bankruptcy-code-2016 14 cited only. Do not pad NI 138/141 (already filled by Mohanraj). Skip thin IBC 17 pad.
On this section: IBC 14 moratorium plus IRP takeover means a director cannot be prosecuted under NI 138 if the 15-day cause of action arises after CIRP; P. Mohanraj distinguished where cause of action predated the moratorium (Vishnoo Mittal).
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Core provision defining the scope of moratorium on institution and continuation of proceedings against corporate debtor during insolvency resolution process
-
Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Sood Resins and Polymers
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings are 'proceedings' within the meaning of that section. The moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors and officers) who can continue to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The rules of statutory construction (noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis) cannot be applied to restrict the meaning of 'proceedings' in Section 14(1)(a) when the expression is designedly wide and the object of the statute is clear - which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process.
On this section: Core provision interpreted to determine scope of moratorium; held that Section 14(1)(a) covers Section 138/141 proceedings against corporate debtors
-
Landmark Apartments Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, which deems allottees of real estate projects as financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) and provides for their representation on Committee of Creditors through authorized representatives under Sections 21(6A) and 25A, is constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The amendment does not violate Article 14 as allottees, who finance their own apartment projects and provide consideration for time value of money through installment-based advance payments, constitute a rationally distinct class of financial creditors similar to debenture holders and fixed deposit holders, with intelligible differentia bearing nexus to the Code's object of maximizing creditor recovery and protecting stakeholders in corporate rehabilitation. The amendment does not infringe Article 19(1)(g) as it is a reasonable restriction in public interest for protecting millions of home buyers with substantial invested amounts. The amendment does not deprive developers of property without constitutional authority as it operates through valid legal process respecting due process and defenses. The explanation to Section 5(8)(f) merely clarifies that allottees already fell within the definition's ambit and is not substantively enlarging the scope. The classification does not offend the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide as allottees are recognized as financial creditors based on genuine financing characteristics. The Code and RERA can harmoniously coexist as parallel remedies serving different purposes, with Code taking primacy due to its later non-obstante clause. Parliament's legislative judgment in treating allottees as financial creditors is entitled to judicial deference as an economic experiment within free play in joints doctrine.
On this section: Moratorium imposed to preserve assets of corporate debtor during resolution process
-
Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once moratorium is imposed under Sections 14 or 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Customs authority has only limited jurisdiction to assess and determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The Customs authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale or confiscation as provided under the Customs Act. After such assessment, the Customs authority must submit its claims in accordance with the procedure laid down in the IBC and in strict compliance with prescribed time periods before the adjudicating authority. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the Customs Act to this extent, and the Liquidator can immediately secure goods from the Customs authority to be dealt with appropriately under the IBC. Additionally, the Liquidator has discretion in choosing the mode of sale of corporate assets (auction or private contract), and no vested right accrues to any bidder merely by participation in a bidding process; the Liquidator's commercial decisions regarding asset sales are not subject to judicial review.
On this section: Moratorium prohibits institution or continuation of proceedings against Corporate Debtor; demand notices issued by Customs during moratorium violate this provision
-
Raman Prakash Mangla vs Anuj Jain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority has limited jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan, circumscribed by Sections 30(2) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot interfere with the commercial aspects of the decision taken by the Committee of Creditors. If the Adjudicating Authority finds shortcomings in the resolution plan vis-à-vis the specified parameters of keeping the corporate debtor as a going concern, maximizing the value of its assets, and taking care of interests of all stakeholders, it must send the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration, not modify the plan itself. Payment to dissenting financial creditors must be in monetary terms, not in kind or through transfer of equity or land. Once homebuyers as a class vote in favor of a resolution plan through their authorized representative, individual homebuyers cannot challenge the plan as dissenting creditors or aggrieved persons. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company pursuant to Supreme Court orders in Chitra Sharma is the property of the holding company, not the corporate debtor, and cannot be appropriated by the corporate debtor or the resolution applicant.
On this section: Moratorium order
-
Action Ispat and Power Pvt. LTD vs Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even post-admission of a winding up petition and after appointment of a Company Liquidator to take over assets of a company sought to be wound up, discretion is vested in the Company Court to transfer such petition to the NCLT. Such discretion should be exercised based on whether irreversible steps have been taken in the winding up proceedings. If no actual sales of immovable or movable properties have taken place and the proceedings have not reached a stage making it impossible to set the clock back, the Company Court should transfer the proceedings to NCLT to be dealt with as an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, in accordance with the legislative intent to prioritize corporate revival over liquidation.
On this section: Moratorium imposed during insolvency resolution process to protect corporate debtor's assets
-
Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. LTD vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Real estate allottees are 'financial creditors' within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as they advance money against consideration for the time value of money to finance real estate construction projects. The Explanation to Section 5(8)(f) inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, is constitutionally valid as it is clarificatory of the original provision's language and does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 300-A of the Constitution. Allottees are entitled to trigger insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Code against real estate developers, and their inclusion as financial creditors does not violate principles of reasonable classification or legislative objects. The Code and RERA operate harmoniously in different spheres providing concurrent remedies to home buyers.
On this section: Once insolvency process is admitted, a moratorium is imposed to protect the corporate debtor's assets. The Court notes this operates in the debtor's own interest.
-
Rajesh Gupta vs Nbcc (india) LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction in approving a resolution plan is limited to verifying compliance with the mandatory requirements specified in Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Authority cannot modify the commercial terms of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors by the requisite majority (66% or more of voting share). If the Authority finds that the resolution plan does not meet the specified parameters (keeping corporate debtor as going concern, maximizing asset value, protecting stakeholder interests), it must remit the plan back to the Committee of Creditors for reconsideration rather than modifying it itself. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is non-justiciable and cannot be interfered with by the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority on equitable or quantitative grounds. Dissenting financial creditors must receive payment in monetary terms (cash) equivalent to their liquidation value, not in kind through equity or land transfers. The INR 750 crores deposited by the holding company JAL pursuant to Supreme Court orders in the Chitra Sharma case remains the property of JAL and cannot be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor JIL for purposes of the resolution plan. Homebuyers as a class are bound by the decision of their authorized representative in the Committee of Creditors under Section 25A(3A), and individual homebuyers cannot maintain separate challenges to the resolution plan. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevails over the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in case of conflict, though both statutes must be interpreted harmoniously. Concession Agreements with statutory authorities are not statutory contracts and their material terms cannot be modified without the consent of the other contracting party. Security interests not avoided under Section 43 of the Code cannot be unilaterally extinguished through a resolution plan.
On this section: Moratorium order upon admission of insolvency application
-
Vodafone Idea LTD vs Union of India Department of Telecommunications through Its Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The primary ratio decidendi are: (1) Spectrum constitutes a natural resource held by the government in sovereign trust and cannot be treated as property owned by corporate debtors subject to insolvency proceedings merely due to right to use granted under license; the question requires NCLT examination within two months as it is a substantial jurisdictional issue affecting the validity of insolvency proceedings initiated by telecom companies; (2) In spectrum sharing arrangements, the sharing operator has no liability for the original licensee's predecessor AGR dues as the sharing operator merely obtains right to use additional spectrum alongside its own spectrum - each operator remains liable only for AGR dues arising from spectrum it holds; (3) In spectrum trading arrangements, the buyer's liability for seller's predecessor AGR dues is determined by the Trading Guidelines - if entire spectrum is traded, buyer assumes seller's known past dues; if only partial spectrum is traded, buyer has no predecessor dues liability; any dues discovered after trade date are recoverable from buyer or seller jointly or severally at government discretion; (4) AGR dues determined by the Supreme Court judgment dated October 24, 2019 are final, binding and not subject to reassessment or fresh disputes; telecom operators must pay the determined amount through installment schedule without room for contesting the calculation; (5) The government as licensor retains sovereign privilege over spectrum allocation under Telegraph Act Section 4 and can enforce contractual conditions precedent (particularly payment of dues) before permitting license transfers or spectrum trading, notwithstanding IBC moratorium provisions, as these are conditions precedent to the right itself rather than post-right enforcement.
On this section: Prohibits revocation of licenses and certain legal proceedings during moratorium period; affects government's ability to enforce spectrum license terms
-
Tata Teleservices LTD vs Union of India through Its Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The core ratio decidendi is: (1) Spectrum is a natural resource held by Government under exclusive privilege per Section 4 of Telegraph Act, granted to licensees subject to contractual conditions including payment of AGR dues. While the question of whether spectrum can be subjected to IBC proceedings involves significant jurisdictional issues to be examined by NCLT, it is clear that AGR dues accumulated over nearly 20 years must be paid in full by all telecom service providers without dispute or reassessment. (2) Payment of these dues aggregating Rs. 1,43,271.74 crores (as calculated by Court) shall be made in 10 equal yearly installments commencing from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2031, with 10% due by March 31, 2021. This represents modification of Government's proposal for 20-year timeline as inappropriate given the sovereign nature of spectrum rights. (3) For telecom service providers sharing spectrum under 2015 Guidelines, each operator remains liable for AGR dues proportionate to spectrum held; sharing operator bears no liability for past dues of original licensee. (4) For spectrum trading, seller must clear all pre-trading dues; buyer liable for post-trading dues except those discovered later and unknown at trading date, recoverable jointly or severally at Government's discretion. (5) All telecom service providers must pay dues without any reduction, waiver, or relief other than the approved 10-year installment schedule with NPV protection. No dispute, reassessment, or recalculation is permitted. Default in payment results in automatic interest, penalty and interest on penalty, and constitutes contempt of court. (6) The question of whether spectrum can be subjected to insolvency proceedings is a jurisdictional matter for NCLT to decide within two months, examining whether such proceedings constitute bona fide attempts at revival or subterfuge to avoid AGR payment.
On this section: Moratorium provision protecting corporate debtor from enforcement of claims; Government argued spectrum cannot be revoked during moratorium as it is not asset of corporate debtor
-
Bharti Airtel LTD vs Union of India through Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Spectrum, being a scarce recognized natural resource held in public trust by the Central Government under its exclusive privilege granted by Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, cannot be treated as property owned by a corporate debtor and therefore cannot be subjected to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. A telecom licensee possesses only contractual usage rights over spectrum granted under the license agreement, not ownership rights. These contractual rights, being under agreement with a third party (the Government) retaining interest, fall outside the definition of 'assets' under Section 18 of the IBC as per the Explanation to that section. Accordingly, spectrum cannot be transferred in resolution plans or subject to resolution proceedings, and statutory Guidelines for Spectrum Sharing and Trading issued by the Department of Telecommunications must be adhered to. However, the jurisdictional question of whether spectrum can be subjected to insolvency proceedings and whether AGR dues are operational dues under the IBC requires consideration by the National Company Law Tribunal before any further determination.
On this section: Creates bar on continuation of any legal proceedings against the corporate debtor and prohibits dispossession. NCLT previously applied this to prevent license revocation, but court clarified this does not prevent discussion of spectrum as IBC subject matter.
-
Vinay Kumar Mittal vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporation LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The claims made by depositors in a corporate insolvency resolution process of a financial service provider shall be considered by the Committee of Creditors and the Administrator independently and without being influenced by interim orders passed by courts in related proceedings, and depositors have the right to raise all contentions before the Committee of Creditors, the Administrator, and the NCLT to ensure their interests are protected in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
On this section: Moratorium provision prohibiting institution of suits, continuation of proceedings, and execution of decrees against the financial service provider; applied to restrain actions against DHFL from 2019-11-29
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… properties of the Judgment Debtor and Garnishees attached under the MPID Act would be available to the said Committee for execution of decrees against the Judgment Debtor in terms of the Order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Supreme Court, in W.P. (C) No. 995 of 2019, in view of the commencement of Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, for short) , on account of the initiation of Insolvency Proceedings against the Judgment Debtors." A similar issue also arose with regard to the commencement of the interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC in respect of the Garnishees in their capacity as personal …
Made under this section, and citing it
16 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- IBBI (Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2021Regulation 2021
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020Statute 2020
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 dated 15.11.2019Rule 2019
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018Statute 2018
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Advisory Committee) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Engagement of Research Associates and Consultants) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Fast Track Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Information Utilities) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Procedure for Governing Board Meetings) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017Regulation 2017
- IBBI (Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016Regulation 2016
- IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016Regulation 2016
- IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016Regulation 2016
- IBBI (Model Bye- Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016Regulation 2016
- IBBI(Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016Regulation 2016
Questions about Section 14
What have the courts held on Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (01 Mar 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IBC s.14 moratorium stays NI 138 proceedings against the corporate debtor, not automatically against directors (P. Mohanraj). Existing combined rows already map this CNR to ni-act 138/141. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2019 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 14, section 14 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (01 Mar 2021).
What should I read with Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 31 (Approval of resolution plan), section 33 (Initiation of liquidation), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 16 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently IBBI (Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations, 2021 (2021), then The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020 (2020).
When was Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code enacted?
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cited as Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 14, was enacted on 28 May 2016 as Act 31 of 2016. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 240. Power to make regulations2349 words
- 5. Definitions2326 words
- 3. Definitions1381 words
- 29A. Person not eligible to be resolution applicant1152 words
- 239. Power to make rules963 words
- 196. Powers and functions of Board942 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.