IC note
Your committee template, filled with sourced facts.
We draft the factual sections of your investment committee (IC) note in your template, from verified diligence. Every figure carries its source. The conclusion is left blank for your team.
Funds and family offices
Diligence is done. The deal team has a week of findings in six files and three days to produce the committee pack. The associate would rather write the recommendation than copy figures.
Private credit lenders
A credit committee paper needs the borrower's charges, cases and verified inflows, each with a source, because the credit head will ask where a number came from on page two.
Accountants and law firms
You prepare committee papers for a client and need each figure traceable to a filing or a bank row when their committee pushes back.
Company profile, financials, ownership, charges, cases, findings and open questions, in your format. Each figure is tagged to its filing, return or bank record. Conclusion and decision stay blank. The committee sees the facts, the gaps and what is only management's claim before it reads your recommendation.
Deck states 'no external debt'. The charge register shows two open charges totalling ₹1.8 cr, registered 2022 and 2024. Both appear in the note beside the deck's line.
Illustrative finding. Not a real company.
What lands on your desk
Draft IC note
Your template, facts filled, conclusion and decision left blank.
Source table
Every figure with its filing, return or bank reference. When the committee asks 'says who', the answer is already there.
Verification status
Source-pulled, company-supplied or not checked, for each figure.
Open questions
Items for management or counsel, each tied to its finding.
How the work runs
Take your template
We map each section to the diligence that can fill it, and mark the sections that stay yours. Sections we cannot source are left empty and not padded.
Collect verified inputs
Filed accounts, tax-return data where available, consented bank data, charges and security registrations, and court and insolvency records, from a Kubr Verified Snapshot (public records) or Financial diligence (bank and tax data).
Draft the facts
AI tools draft each factual section and cross-check every number against its record. Where the deck and the record disagree, the note carries both figures side by side.
Tag sources, gaps
Each figure is labelled source-pulled (taken directly from the registry, return or bank) or company-supplied. Unverified claims are listed separately, so the committee can see what was never checked.
Analyst hands over
A named analyst reads the draft against the evidence file. You receive it in Word, with your own headings.
Your template
Filled in your format, section by section. Sections we cannot source stay empty.
Sourced lines
Every claim in the note carries its source. Unsourced items are marked.
Findings from our work
Flags from the Snapshot, the financial diligence and other packs, ranked.
Open items
What is still unverified, who holds the answer, and by when.
Exceptions
Where the deal departs from your stated criteria.
Appendices
Extracts from the underlying packs, on request.
Version log
Who changed what, and when.
Send the template and deal facts, and pay.
Findings on file are mapped to the sections.
A named analyst drafts each section and checks each source.
A second reviewer reads the note against the packs.
Draft note delivered. Edits come back inside the same window.
Usually (our estimate)
Usually 3 to 4 days for an associate to draft, and a day to check the figures back to source.
Kubr
2 to 5 Business Days from a complete data set.
Typical times are targets we are still testing in the pilot. The 2 to 5 day window is the commitment. Terms in Disclosures.
What the cases taught us
Governance failures are in many of the 483 cases and forged or altered documents in many of them. Notes that carry sources let the committee test the claim and not trust the author.
Direct pulls from the source, instead of documents sent by the company, matter in many cases.
We do not write the recommendation. The decision stays with your committee.
Counts come from our first review of the public cases in the casebook on this site. We mapped each case, on hindsight, to the checks that could have surfaced it. It is our reading, not a finding about any company. Many cases describe allegations that are contested. See the cases
ChecksWhat we check, in plain words
| Check | What it means | An illustration (invented) | It can mislead when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document authenticity / direct pull | We get statements, returns and certificates from the issuer, not from a PDF the company sends. | A bank statement sent by the company shows a balance the bank does not hold. | The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet. |
| Regulatory & litigation records | We search courts, tribunals, regulators and insolvency records for cases and orders against the company, its owners and its past firms. | A promoter's earlier company was barred by a regulator two years ago. | Court records lag and name spellings vary. A clean record can mean the problem has not reached court yet. |
| Governance signals | We read the warning signs around the company: auditor changes, qualified opinions, executives leaving, pledged shares and late filings. | The auditor resigned mid-year and the company filed its accounts late. | Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone. |
What it will not tell you
- We do not write the conclusion or a view on investing. Those sections stay blank for your team.
- We add no value or return view of our own. Model figures appear labelled as yours.
- We give no legal conclusions. Legal findings appear as issues for your counsel.
- We cannot verify what your team heard in management meetings. Those points are labelled as from your team.
Not in this service: recommend a decision.
What it can do
- Fill profile, ownership and financial sections from MCA21, tax data where available and consented bank data.
- Set out charges, cases and governance events such as auditor exits and director changes, with dates.
- State where the deck and the verified record disagree, with both figures.
- Match your headings, units and house style.
Why it differs from the usual way
Usually
The note is written from the data room and the deck.Kubr
We draft from source-pulled records and cross-check each figure before review.Usually
Sources sit in footnotes, if anyone kept them.Kubr
Every figure carries its source tag inside the note.Usually
Unresolved points fold into the narrative and read as settled.Kubr
Unverified claims are listed apart, so the committee sees what was not checked.Records we examine
| Record | What we take from it |
|---|---|
| Kubr Verified Snapshot or Financial diligence | |
| Company registry filings (MCA21) | |
| Tax-return data, where available (with consent) | |
| Bank data (with consent) | |
| Court and insolvency records (eCourts, NCLT and NGT) | |
| Your IC template and your team's inputs |
Some records need the company's consent. The report says which were pulled from source and which the company supplied.
In India
- What we pull here
- A summary of findings for an investment committee, credit committee or board pack, with each flag tied to its source and gaps stated.
- What is thinner here
- It contains no recommendation. A named adviser or your own team decides.
What it costs
Pick the size of the deal or exposure. The fee is fixed before work starts.
₹50,000
Above the top band the fee is quoted individually. Indicative base, in local currency, before tax. All services and what moves the fee
Shape the scope
Time horizon
Entities
Speed
The fee shown for your deal size is an indicative base. A longer look-back, more entities or a faster turn moves it. The quote fixes the number before work starts.
Questions
Will the draft say whether we should invest?
No. The conclusion and decision sections stay blank. We draft the facts and their sources. The decision is your committee's.
Can you use our existing template?
Yes. If you have none, we use a plain factual layout with the conclusion left open.
Our team met management. Where does that go?
In the note, labelled as your team's. We do not verify what was said in a room, and mixing impressions with sourced figures is how unattributed claims reach committee.
Who owns the final note?
Your team. A named Kubr analyst reviews the factual draft. Your team edits, concludes and approves it.
Often paired with
Start with one company.
We reply within one business day with scope, price and a date. Indicative prices in INR, before GST at 18%. Scope and price are fixed in the engagement letter.