SC gives purposive interpretation to section 238A of IBC:

/0 Comments/in /by

Time lost in SARAFESI proceedings can be excluded from limitation period for IBC initiation

-By Sikha Bansal and Urmil Shah [resolution@vinodkothari.com]

The recent ruling of Supreme Court (SC) in Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 9198 of 2019 (Ruling) partially addresses the persistent debate on the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).

The central issue involved in the case was – the financial creditor had initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the corporate debtor years back when the default occurred.  Later, while the SARFAESI proceedings were still pending before the High Court (which prima facie viewed that the financial creditor, being a co-operative bank, could not invoke the provisions of SARFAESI), the financial creditor filed for insolvency proceedings under section 7 of IBC against the corporate debtor. Such application was filed after a lapse of 3 years from the default. Hence, the corporate debtor objected the initiation of insolvency on grounds of the application being barred by limitation.

SC, however, read the expression “as far as maybe” as used in section 238A of IBC as a conscious choice of words by the legislature. As such, the words are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject matter and object to the legislation. These words permit a wider, more liberal, contextual, and purposive interpretation by necessary modification.  Therefore, section 5, 14, and even section 18 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings under IBC.

The article below notes the important observations of SC, along with the authors’ insights.

Read more →

MCA introduces a cartload of additional disclosures in the Financial Statements

/5 Comments/in , /by

-The amendments to be applicable from FY 2021-2022 onwards!

Shreya Masalia and Harsh Juneja | Executives

With the ever-increasing stringency in the regulatory framework and disclosure requirements under various provisions of law, MCA, vide notification dated March 24, 2021[1] has further prescribed a list of numerous additional disclosure required in the financial statements by amending schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013. The amendments have been brought to bring more transparency by providing for various disclosures including dealing with struck off companies, details of benami property, undisclosed income etc. which shall be applicable from FY 2021-22.

Since the amendments have been brought in Division I, II and III of Schedule III, accordingly, the same will be applicable to the companies which need to comply with the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 as well as the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015 including NBFCs.

This Article is an attempt to cover all the major new inclusions that the companies will have to disclose henceforth.

Disclosures to be made to the notes of the Balance sheet under various Divisions of Schedule III

  1. Statement on changes in equity

Prior to the amendment, the companies including NBFCs required to prepare financial statements as per IND AS were required to disclose only balance at the beginning and end of the reporting period along with changes during the current year. Post the amendments in Sch. III, disclosure shall be made regarding the changes in equity due to prior period errors and restated balance at the beginning of the reporting year and similarly disclose the same for the previous reporting period. Additionally, the details of other equity shall also be given for prior reporting period.

  1. Disclosure of shareholding of all promoters

Currently, only the shareholding of the shareholders holding more than 5% of the shares is required to be disclosed in the Balance Sheet. After the amendments, a company shall now be required to disclose the shareholding of all promoters. The details shall include change in shareholding taken place during the year. The meaning of the promoter has to be taken from the definition provided in the Act which is different from the definition provided in the SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009. This change has been made to all companies covered under all three Divisions of schedule III.

  1. Loans and advances to promoters, directors, key managerial persons (KMP) & related parties

Where the company makes any loan and advances to the promoters, directors, KMPs and other related parties either jointly or severally and such loan/ advances so given are either in the nature of a loan/ advance repayable on demand or without any specific terms or period of repayment, the details of such loans shall be disclosed separately in the financial statements along with the amount of loan and % to total loans and advances. The related parties are those parties as defined under sec. 2(76) of the Act.

It is pertinent to note here that while related party disclosures are already required under applicable accounting standards, this may, to some extent, tantamount to be an overlapping of disclosures.

  1. Ageing Schedule of trade payables and trade receivables

Companies that failed to make payment to companies under MSME Act, 2006 or which had made any delayed payments to MSME were required to disclose the principal and interest due at the end of the FY, amount of interest paid for delay in payment in the current year, interest accrued and unpaid during the year and amount of interest further remaining to be paid in succeeding years in their balance sheet.

Companies covered under all 3 divisions will henceforth be required to provide ageing schedule for trade payables due for the periodicity of 1 year, 1-2 year, 2-3 year & more than 3 years. These include trade payables to MSMEs, disputed dues to MSMEs, and other dues and disputed dues. Similarly, disclosures shall also be made where no due date of payment is specified. Information for unbilled dues is also required to be disclosed separately.

Similarly, companies will also be required to disclose the ageing schedule of its trade receivables i.e. including undisputed and disputed trade receivables considered good and doubtful with ageing classified as less than 6 months, 6 months to 1 year, 1-2 years, 2-3 years and 3 years or more along with disclosures separate disclosure for information of unbilled dues. These undisputed and disputed trade receivables which are further categorized into good and doubtful.

  1. Disclosure related to funds borrowed from banks and financial institutions

Where the company has borrowings from banks or financial institutions on the basis of security of current assets, it shall disclose whether the quarterly returns or statements of current assets filed by it with the banks or financial institutions are in agreement with the books of accounts. Further, where there is any material mismatch/ discrepancies between the two, then a summary of reconciliation and reasons of material discrepancies needs to be adequately disclosed. This amendment shall be applicable to all the companies covered under the scope of three Divisions of Schedule III. It clearly states that an auditor must find the differences between these statements filed by the company with the books of accounts and if there is any difference, then a reconciliation statement needs to be prepared.

In addition to the above, where funds borrowed by a company from a bank or a financial institution for a specific purpose has not used for the same purpose, a disclosure providing details of utilisation of funds shall also be required to be provided.

  1. Revaluation of property

The reconciliation of gross and net carrying amount of both intangible and tangible assets at the beginning and end of the reporting period, along with other separate disclosures related to additions, disposals, acquisitions, depreciation, impairment, etc shall also disclose separately details related to the amount of change due to revaluation, where there is a change of more than 10% in aggregate of the net carrying amount of the asset.

The company is also required to disclose whether the plant, property or equipment has been revalued by a registered valuer as defined under rule 2 of Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017.

  1. Disclosure of Ratios

The amendment requires the companies covered under division I and II of schedule III to disclose the following ratios:

(a) Current Ratio,

(b) Debt-Equity Ratio,

(c) Debt Service Coverage Ratio,

(d) Return on Equity Ratio,

(e) Inventory turnover ratio,

(f) Trade Receivables turnover ratio,

(g) Trade payables turnover ratio,

(h) Net capital turnover ratio,

(i) Net profit ratio,

(j) Return on Capital employed,

(k) Return on investment.

The company shall explain the items included in the numerator and denominator for computing the above ratios and an explanation shall be provided for any change in the ratio by more than 25% as compared to the preceding year. To note, amongst these, various ratios such as current ratio, debt-equity ratio, net profits ratio, etc. were required to be disclosed by equity listed entities in their Board’s report under Management Discussion and Analysis Report as per regulation 34(3) r.w. Schedule V to SEBI( Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements), 2015.

In addition to the above, NBFCs that need to comply with Ind AS covered under division III of schedule III are required to disclose the following ratios:

(a)Capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR)

(b) Tier I CRAR

(c) Tier II CRAR

(d) Liquidity Coverage Ratio

However, as per annex XVI of Master Direction – NBFC-ND-SI and NBFC-DI Directions, 20163 , all deposit taking NBFCs and NBFC – non-deposit taking having asset size of INR 500 crore are already required to disclose their CRAR, tier I CRAR and tier II CRAR  as a part of their balance sheet. Similarly, NBFCs as covered under para 15B read with annex III of Master Direction – NBFC-ND-SI and NBFC-DI Directions, 2016 are already required to provide disclosures related to LCR in the prescribed format.

Though these amendments are aimed at increasing disclosure requirements, this addition seems more repetitive in nature rather than being informational.

Disclosures required in an attempt to curb money laundering

  1. Details of Benami Property held

Where any proceedings have been initiated or pending against the company for holding any benami property, the company shall disclose various details of the property including the reasons of not disclosing the same in the books of accounts, details of the proceedings against the company including its nature, status and the views of the company on the same. This amendment covers the companies under the scope of all three divisions of schedule III.

  1. Relationship with Struck off Companies

Where the company has any transaction with companies struck off under section 248 of the Act, or under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, it shall disclose the name of struck off company, the nature of transactions with this company, balance outstanding and relationship with the struck off the company. The transaction can be in the nature of investment in securities, receivables, payables, shareholding of the struck-off company in the company and any other outstanding balances.

  1. Disclosures related to conduit lending and borrowing

The amendments in the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014 dated March 24, 2021[2] requires the management of the company to give a representation that, except as otherwise disclosed in the notes to accounts, the company has neither employed nor is itself acting as a “conduit entity” for any financial transaction. To align schedule III with the same, additional disclosures are required to be made by the company w.r.t. disbursement of funds by way of advance, loan, investment, guarantee or security by the company to any person/ entity being an ultimate beneficiary through any intermediary. Similarly, disclosure shall also be made about any receipt of funds in the aforesaid manners by the company as an intermediary for further disposal of the same to any person/ entity being ultimate beneficiary. The details shall include the date, amount, details of the intermediary and the ultimate beneficiary including a declaration to the effect that it is in compliance with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and Companies Act, 2013 and does not violate the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in respect to the aforesaid transactions.

For an in-depth understanding of the concept and the amendment, refer our separate article[3] covering various aspects of the same.

  1. Wilful Defaulter

A company categorized as a wilful defaulter by any bank or financial institution will be required to disclose details regarding the date of declaration as a wilful defaulter and the amount and nature of defaults.

  1. Title deeds of property not held in the company’s own name

If any the title deed of any immovable property (other than in case of lease where the agreement is duly in favour of lessee) is not held in the name of the company, the details related the same is required to be disclosed in the financial statements. This disclosure shall not be required for properties held on lease where the lease agreements are duly executed. In case of joint holding of such property, the disclosure shall be made to the extent of the company’s share thereon.

The details of the disclosure includes the gross carrying value, name of the person in whose name property is held, whether such person is a promoter/ director or relative of promoter/director or an employee of the company, since when the property is held by the person and details for the same. If such property is under dispute the same shall also be disclosed.

Other miscellaneous disclosures:

  1. Depending upon the Total income of the company the financial statements are to be mandatorily rounded off to the nearest unit as mentioned in the schedule. Prior to the amendment, the same was to be adopted on a voluntary basis for companies preparing their financials as per Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 and the nearest unit was based on the turnover of the company. The amendment aligns all the divisions of schedule III making it mandatory for all companies to round off their financial statements based on their total income.
  2. In case of revaluation of any plant, property & equipment, the disclosure w.r.t the fact that the valuation has been done by a registered valuer as defined under the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017.
  3. Disclosures related to ageing of capital work in progress (CWIP) and any other CWIP which has exceeded its originally planned cost or completion schedule. Details of projects where activity has been suspended shall be disclosed separately.
  4. Disclosures related to ageing of intangible assets and along with any other intangible asset which has exceeded its originally planned cost or completion schedule. Details of projects where activity has been suspended shall be disclosed separately.
  5. Details and reasons of pending registration of creation/ or satisfaction of charge with the Registrar of Companies beyond statutory time period.
  6. A company in non-compliance with the number of layers prescribed under clause (87) of section 2 of the Act read with Companies (Restriction on Number of Layers) Rules, 2017 shall disclose the same.
  7. A disclosure to effect that the books of accounts of the company are in accordance with the approved scheme of arrangement and accounting standards in case the competent authority has approved the same.

Disclosures to be given in the Profit and Loss statements:

  1. Disclosures related to CSR

Where the company is covered under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), the disclosures shall be made similar to the disclosures in the Board’s Report as required under then Act. In addition to that, a disclosure regarding the details of related party transactions such as, contribution to a trust controlled by the company in relation to CSR expenditure as per relevant Accounting Standards shall also be made.. Where a provision is made with respect to a liability incurred by entering into a contractual obligation, the movements in the provision during the year should be shown separately. The term “provision” shall be construed as a liability. The provision shall be estimated on the basis of past CSR events already conducted by the company.

  1. Details of Crypto Currency or Virtual Currency

Where the company has traded or invested in Crypto Currency or Virtual Currency during the financial year, the following needs to be disclosed:

(a) profit or loss on transactions involving Crypto currency or Virtual Currency

(b) amount of currency held as at the reporting date,

(c) deposits or advances from any person for the purpose of trading or investing in Crypto Currency/ virtual currency.

The Amendment has now mandated the companies to prepare a separate set of accounts for all their transaction involving Crypto Currency or Virtual Currency.

  1. Undisclosed Income

Details of any transactions not recorded in the books of accounts that has been surrendered or disclosed as income during the year in the tax assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall be disclosed unless there is immunity for disclosure under any scheme. Further, the company shall also state whether the previously unrecorded income and related assets have been properly recorded in the books of account during the year.

Conclusion

As discussed above, the intent of law seems to bring more transparency in reporting by corporates. Though certain disclosures may lead to repetition of information in various places, to avoid the same cross referencing may be done. Surely, the amendments will curb the problem of inadequacy of information in the books of accounts of the company.

 

[1] http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/ScheduleIIIAmendmentNotification_24032021.pdf

[2] http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/AuditAuditorsAmendmentRules_24032021.pdf

[3] http://vinodkothari.com/2021/03/changes-in-auditors-report-and-financial-statements-to-reveal-camouflaged-financial-transactions/

Downstream Investment Not to Result in Indirect Foreign Investment

/0 Comments/in , /by

For entities owned and controlled NRIs investing on non-repatriation basis

Updated as on August 10, 2021

Shreya Masalia | Executive

Foreign investments in equity instruments by a person resident outside India (PROI) is governed by Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (NDI Rules)[1] and the Consolidated FDI Policy[2] as amended from time to time. Foreign investments can be made on a repatriation basis or non-repatriation basis.

Repatriation and Non-Repatriation Basis

When the proceeds on investments made in India by a PROI can be transferred abroad after the exclusion of all applicable taxes refers to investments made on a repatriable basis and are regarded as foreign direct investment (FDI) or foreign portfolio investment based on the thresholds and other conditions laid down under NDI Rules.

In case of Investments on a non-repatriable basis, the same is not eligible to be remitted outside India (rule 2(ad) of NDI Rules r.w. para 2.1.31. of the FDI Policy, 2020). Subject to the provisions of schedule IV to the NDI Rules, investments made by a Non-Resident Indian(NRI) on a non-repatriation basis are deemed to be domestic investments and are considered on par with investments made by residents.

Downstream Investments by NRIs

Downstream Investment’ means investments made by an Indian entity or an Investment Vehicle in the capital instruments or the capital, as the case may be, of another Indian entity that has received investment from abroad. It includes entities in which a foreign entity which owns or controls more than 50% of the voting power by virtue of its investments, shareholding, or has power to appoint management of the company. Such a foreign entity is referred to as a foreign-owned and controlled company (FOCC) (explanation to rule 23 of NDI Rules r.w. Annexure 4 of the FDI Policy).

Where the investment received from an Indian company from a foreign entity is utilized to invest in the capital instrument of any other Indian company, it will be regarded as indirect foreign investment and the investor company will have to report the same in Form DI with the Reserve Bank of India within a period of 30 days from date of allotment of the equity instruments[3] (para 12 of FEMA (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019).

Need for a clarification

Though the investment made by an NRI on a non-repatriation basis was considered as on par with resident investments and were treated like domestic investments, the investment made by Indian entities owned and controlled by NRIs had no specific carve-out for the same. No clarity existed as to whether such an investment would attract the reporting and other compliance requirements of downstream investments.

Regulatory Changes

To address the ambiguity mentioned above, DIPP had released a press release dated March 19, 2021[4] amending the FDI Policy to provide that any investment in Indian entities by Indian entities which are owned and controlled by NRIs shall not form part of the calculation for indirect foreign investment.

On the same lines, the Ministry of Finance, vide notification dated August 06, 2021[5] amended the NDI Rules with immediate effect and inserted a new explaination to section 23(7)(i)(A) which provides that an investment made by an Indian entity which is owned and controlled by NRI’s on non-repartriation basis shall not be considered for calculation of indirect foreign investment.

Accordingly, the investment in Indian entities by Indian entities owned and controlled by NRIs will be considered at par with resident investments.  Prior to the amendment, there was no clarity on whether what could be done directly under law was allowed indirectly too. The same has now been addressed.

[1] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_FemaNotifications.aspx?Id=11723

[2] https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/FDI-PolicyCircular-2020-29October2020_1.pdf

[3] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_FemaNotifications.aspx?Id=11723

[4] https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/pn1-2021.PDF

[5] 228847.pdf (egazette.nic.in)

Changes in Auditors’ Report and Financial Statements to reveal camouflaged financial transactions

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Team Corplaw, Vinod Kothari & Company [corplaw@vinodkothari.com]

[This version: 25th March, 2021]

Accountants and auditors will have to grapple with a ton of new details and disclosures while preparing financial statements and audit reports, come financial year 2021-22. MCA brought, vide separate notifications dated 24th March, 2021 amendments in the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules,2014 (“Audit Rules”), the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014 (“Accounts Rules”) and Schedule III of the Companies Act.

While Schedule III changes will require wide ranging disclosures [to be covered by a separate write up], the amendments in Audit Report Rules  and Accounts Rules require the following new disclosures: 

  • Camouflaged lending or investment, that is, where out-bound or inbound loans, advances and investments are intended to be routed through a conduit entity, masking the identity of the ultimate beneficiary
  • Compliance with respect to payment of dividend
  • The need for accounting software to maintain an audit trail, that is, edit log, of the primary entries, possibly with a view to enable the detection of any changes in primary entries
  • Gaps in valuations of securities, so as to reflect the valuations at the time of borrowing money, and at the time of OTS

We briefly discuss these.

Applicability – scope and date

  • The changes as will be discussed below will be applicable on the Auditor’s Report and Board’s Report from the financial year 2021-22 and onwards. 
  • Since statutory audit is a mandatory requirement for all the companies, the changes in the Auditor’s Report shall be applicable on all companies.
  • From the language of the amendments, it is apparent that the changes are applicable only for the annual financial statements; neither are they applicable to interim financial statements, nor to special purpose financial statements.
  • An important question will remain whether the required management representation and the auditors’ check will pertain to transactions done during the financial year 2021-22 and thereafter, or does it pertain to opening balances of transactions as on 1st April, 2021. In absence of any suggestion as to retroactivity, it should be logical to assume that the required management representation and the auditors’ checking should pertain to the transactions done during the financial year.
  • The changes in relation to Board Report shall be applicable on all the companies, since the Board Report is a mandatory requirement for all.
  • The requirements of audit trail and edit log are applicable on companies maintaining their accounts in the electronic form. However, practically, all companies maintain accounts in electronic format, so the same can be said to be applicable on all companies.

Camouflaged lending and investment:

What is the offence?

The issue under consideration is “camouflaged investments”. By using the term camouflage investments, we mean those transactions which are undertaken by a company for some identified beneficiary. However, the transaction does not take place between the company and the ultimate beneficiary directly, but is masked by the inclusion of an intermediary acting as a conduit entity (an entity acting on the instructions of the company for channelizing the funds to any other entity identified by the company).

These transactions mask the identity of the real beneficiary. In a world where financial transactions are regularly used for carrying illicit transactions, money-laundering transactions or other suspicious activities, it is important that the trail of financial transactions is transparent. Hence, if the identification of the end beneficiary is consciously being masqueraded, there is a concern. The proposed amendments are a means to address this issue.

What is the MCA intending to do?

The MCA, vide the amendment notification, is aiming to unveil the ultimate beneficiary behind the camouflage financing. Though investment through “conduit entities” is not barred by law, the same needs to be adequately disclosed in the notes of accounts of the company. Therefore, MCA, vide its amendment notification, requires the management of the company to give a representation that, except as otherwise disclosed in the notes to accounts, the company has neither employed, nor is itself acting as a “conduit entity” for any financial transaction.

Is it illegal to have investments via conduits?

Several laws refer to indirect lending or investment –

  • Sec 185 of the Act prohibits both direct and indirect loans, investments, guarantees or security to the directors and other specified entities.
  • Under the FEMA Regulations, the definition of “foreign equity holder” includes those equity holders having minimum 51% of indirect equity holding
  • Sec 186 (1) also refers to investment “through” one or more layers of subsidiaries, which is again a case of indirect investments.
  • In many commercial transactions, it is understood that the recipient is acting as a conduit – for example, lending through a fintech platform
  • Special purpose vehicles, which are well allowed to operate under various laws, are intended to be conduits only
  • Use of conduits is commonplace practice in many commercial transactions

Hence, while it is not illegal on the face of it, the use of a masquerading entity camouflages the real nature of the financial transaction. It acts as a subterfuge and hence, creates opacity. In the context of PMLA, these transactions may also be hiding the real identity of the real beneficiary.

Hence, it is important to ensure that the identity of the real beneficiary, if so targeted by the lender or investor, is disclosed.

What sort of transactions will be covered?

There are several elements in the camouflage rule that need to be understood:

There are 3 legs of the transaction: a source transaction, a conduit or intermediary transaction, and an ultimate beneficiary transaction.

The source transaction may be

  • Investments,  
  • Advances, or
  • Loans

At the source stage, the money has come as a result of any borrowing, issue of shares or share premium or any other source or kind of funds. Since these expressions are wide enough, it does not matter what the source of the funds at the source level is.

The intermediary transaction may be by way of

  • Loan or advance
  • Investment
  • Provision of any guarantee or security

The ultimate beneficiary is the end beneficiary of the source transaction.

The following points may be noted about the scope of the Camouflage rule:

  1. Commercial transactions are not covered: Notably, the transactions covered by the rule are financial transactions, in the nature of loans, advances or investments. Real sector transactions such as sales, purchases, services, including payment and collection services, etc., are not covered by the rule. 
  2. Non-discretionary transactions as regards the intermediary: In order to attract the offence of the camouflage rule,the source must have identified the ultimate beneficiary. This is clear from the words: “identified in any manner whatsoever by or on behalf of the company”. Thus, if the intermediary had the discretion in identifying the beneficiary, this rule is not attracted. Hence, the identification of the beneficiary is done by the source, and without any discretion on the part of the intermediary.
  3. Pre-contemplated transfer to the ultimate beneficiary: Next important element is the existence of an understanding with the intermediary that the funds passing through the intermediary are intended by the ultimate beneficiary. This is clear from the words “with the understanding, whether recorded in writing or otherwise”. The form of the understanding or the formal nature of the understanding also doesn’t matter, but the understanding must have been there.
  4. Direct nexus: This suggests that the flow of funds from the source of the intermediary, and from intermediary to the ultimate beneficiary must be part of the same transaction, showing a clear nexus.
  5. The intent of camouflaging the chain financial transaction is present: It is only when the real nature of the transaction is sought to be garbed, and the transaction purports to be a financial transaction with the intermediary, whereas the real intent is to provide funding to the ultimate beneficiary. For example, if a special purpose vehicle collects money from the investors, it is evident on the face of the transaction that the money is intended to go to another beneficiary. There is no garbing of the identity of the end beneficiary. These transactions are explicit and transparent transactions. The whole intent of the camouflage rule is to eliminate opacity. If the transaction was itself transparent, the rule has no relevance at all.

There are several interconnected financial transactions that abound in the world of finance. Hence, it will remain a matter of intrigue as to what all transactions may be regarded as falling under the offence of the camouflage rule. There are several questions that arise in this respect:

 

  • Does a time gap matter?

 

For instance, the transaction by the source to the intermediary happens on 1st of 1st month, and the transaction by the intermediary to the beneficiary happens on 1st of 4th month. There may be a suggestion as to the existence of an understanding between the parties, but the very fact that there is a gap of time between the two legs of the transactions helps to create some opacity. It may be noted that the whole purpose of the camouflage disclosures is to pierce  through the opacity and create transparency. Hence, if the gap in timing is merely a device to create opacity, it should not matter.

 

  • Does a change in nature of the instrument at the intermediary level matter?

 

For example, the transaction from the source to the intermediary may be by way of loans. The transaction from the intermediary to the ultimate beneficiary may be by way of investment in shares. The terms of the two investments obviously differ. The first may have a limited tenure. The second one may be perennial. The entire approach has to be driven by substance over form – if the substantive view of the transaction suggests the two inter-connected transactions being part of the same chain, it will be wise to disclose the same.

 

  • Does the infusion of some extent of funds by the intermediary matter?

 

For example, the source may have contributed Rs 1000. The intermediary may add another Rs 100 of its own, and transfer Rs 1100. To the extent of Rs 1000, there may still be a chain financial transaction requiring disclosure, while the remaining Rs 100 may be an independent transaction by the intermediary.

 

  • Does the existence of a trust or fiduciary or agency relationship matter?

 

There are numerous transactions where a servicing agent, collecting agent, paying agent, etc acts merely as a conduit. This is the explicit nature of the transaction itself. Same goes with fiduciary transactions where the trustee or fiduciary discloses on the face of it that the trustee is merely a stop-over. However, trusts with undisclosed principals, while doing financial transactions, may be hit by the rule.

Duty of the auditor

The provisions are not just casting a responsibility on the directors, but the auditors are also required to substantiate the statement of the directors by applying their audit procedures. While the auditors can have ways and means to identify the instances of “outward” surrogate lending well, how the auditors can assure there are no instances of “inward” surrogate lending will require some new auditing methods.

Reasons of such reporting requirement

The amendments can be looked upon as a way to ensure that the companies do not use masquerades for the purpose of distinguishing the identity of the ultimate beneficiary of the funds.  These might be to also check the instances of money laundering and terrorism financing.

Impact of the change

Though no specific punishments have been specified, on a conjoint reading of Sections 447 and 448 of the Act, it seems that the directors may be liable for fraud in cases of active concealment of material information or making mis-statements deliberately. 

Since the Auditors are required to substantiate that there are no material mis-statements made by the directors as aforesaid, where the auditor fails to prove his innocence, he might also be penalised in cases of material misstatement.

Other additional disclosures required to be made in the Auditor’s Report

Compliance of Section 123 of the Act with respect to declaration/payment of dividend

The amended Audit Rules require the auditor to report on compliance with Section 123 of the Act by the company where it has declared/paid dividend. This has been done to ensure that the companies pay dividend on the basis of their profits and satisfies all the necessary conditions, and not when the companies may be suffering losses and it is practically impossible to pay dividend to its members.

Proper maintenance of audit trail at all times during the financial year

The auditors are also required to report on the maintenance of the audit trails and edit logs by the companies who opt to maintain their books of accounts in electronic mode. A discussion of the same is given in the later part of the write-up.

Accounting in electronic form – maintenance of audit trail

With effect from 1st April, 2021 the companies that maintain their accounts electronically by means of accounting software shall be required to ensure that the software is capable of maintaining audit trail and edit logs, and the same is not disabled at any point of time. The auditors are also required to report on the proper maintenance of such systems as discussed earlier.

Impact of the change

The compulsory maintenance of audit trail is a way to ensure the fabrication of books and any subsequent overwriting in the books of accounts. Through the audit trails, any person scrutinising the books of accounts can very easily track what changes have been made to the accounts and can require the company to explain the reasons thereof.

Additional disclosures in the Board’s Report

Applications/proceedings under IBC

Vide the amendments, the directors will be required to report the applications initiated or proceedings pending under IBC. Though the language of the law is not very clear on this, the understanding is that the directors will be required to report on the applications initiated or the proceedings pending against the company. Where such an application or proceedings are pending, the Board’s Report is also required to contain the status of the same as at the end of the year.

Impact of the change

The aforesaid amendment may be said to be an additional reporting requirement to keep the members, the real owners of the company as well as other stakeholders of the company updated about the current status of the company. The “insolvency” is a serious matter and shall not come as a shock to the stakeholders of a company, when the same is announced publicly at a later point of time.

Diabolical valuations of assets 

Another very interesting insertion in the Board’s report is the details including the reason for the differences between the valuations of the company done at the time of one-time settlement and that at the time of taking loans from banks or other financial institutions. This is with a motive to ensure why there is a difference in valuation of the assets of the company at the time of one-time settlements v/s at the time of borrowing funds from the banks and financial institutions.  

Reason of the change

The change is to ensure that the company has not inflated the value of their books at the time of seeking loans from the banks and financial institutions, nor has it deflated the same at the time of proposing one-time settlement.

We understand that there may be various reasons for the differential valuation, like difference in time period and resultant depreciation, amortization etc, or due to varying market forces. Whatever be the reasons, the same needs to be adequately captured in the Board’s Report for the company. 

 

[The version above is a work in progress and we will continue to develop it further. Please do come back to this page. Please feel free to post your comments/questions in the space below.]

 

Increased reporting and disclosures in the new FY

/0 Comments/in /by

MCA brings a thread of amendments just before the current year ends !

The Companies (Accounts) Amendment Rules,2021


The Companies (Audit and Auditors) Amendment Rules, 2021

An Odd Scheme: Case for exclusion of schemes of arrangement from scheme of liquidation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sikha Bansal, Partner

[resolution@vinodkothari.com]

The Article below has also been published on the IndiaCorplaw Blog, see here 

The concerns around section 230 schemes in the background of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) have been partly addressed with the ruling of Supreme Court (SC) in Arun Kumar Jagatramka v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. The SC has held that the prohibition contained in section 29A should also attach itself to a scheme of compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, when the company is undergoing liquidation under the auspices of IBC. Reason being: proposing a scheme of compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, while the company is undergoing liquidation under the provisions of the IBC, lies in a similar continuum.

Earlier, there were several rulings of NCLAT which allowed schemes of arrangement during liquidation – for instance, see S.C. Sekaran, Y. Shivram Prasad, etc. After such rulings, the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations were amended to include Regulation 2B, which also state that “a person, who is not eligible under the Code to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor, shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.” Read more →

Remunerating in a lean year: Statutory amendments for minimum remuneration to independent directors now effective

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Payal Agarwal | Executive (payal@vinodkothari.com)

 

Highlights

 

Introduction

Independent directors (IDs) are a crucial part of corporate governance structure; however, their remuneration is currently solely by way of sitting fees and a “profit-linked” commission[1]. Profit is something which is completely dependent on business models, a whole matrix of internal and external factors, and something like a Covid-crisis will evidently leave a whole lot of companies in India and elsewhere into the red. In these circumstances, how do companies remunerate independent directors, to reward them for the time they spend and the responsibilities they shoulder.

To resolve this difficulty, amendments were made vide the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020.While most of the sections of the Amendment Act were made effective on 28th September 2020, the sections relating to remuneration of NEDs and IDs were not been made applicable since the same was required to be adequately supplemented by corresponding amendments in Schedule V of the Act as well. However, just before the Covid-ravished FY 2021 was to end, MCA has put into effect the amended sections 149(9) and Section 197(3) and simultaneously brought amendments in Schedule V of the Act.

Effects of the amendments

These amendments will enable companies to adequately remunerate their NEDs and IDs for their efforts. Contrary to the rigidity in the erstwhile provisions, which had a complete bar on payment of remuneration to NEDs and IDs in absence of profits, these amendments enable companies to pay minimum remuneration to NEDs and IDs even at times of losses/ inadequate profits. Note that there always was a provision for minimum remuneration in case of EDs.

Applicability

  • Private companies are not covered by the ceilings of managerial remuneration. Hence, private companies are completely outside the purview of the restriction.
  • Public companies, both listed and unlisted, will be covered by the amendment.
  • The amendment is of enabling nature. It does not mandate companies to remunerate their NEDs and IDs. So, companies may, if they so desire, remunerate their IDs and NEDs in the year of inadequate profits, or losses.
  • The amendment applies to all NEDs and IDs.
  • The amendment pertains to the “profit-linked” commission. That does not mean the commission as originally proposed had to be profit-linked. Even if the commission was a fixed amount, it will still be covered by the ceiling given in second proviso to sec. 197 (1). Hence, any commission is necessarily profit-linked.
  • The amendment is effective immediately. That means companies may make use of the amended provisions for FY 2020-21.
  • The amendment does not lead to an automatic variation in the remuneration policy or shareholders’ resolution. In essence, the amendments are of enabling nature: within the ambit of the amended provisions, companies may take corporate action to remunerate their NEDs and IDs. The actions have to be taken by the companies in question, which may include remuneration policy, appropriate shareholder resolutions, etc.

Amendments to Schedule V – maximum limits on remuneration of “other directors” specified

Part II of Schedule V of the Act deals with the remuneration of “managerial personnel”. In this connection, please note that “managerial personnel” refers to managing director, manager and whole-time director of the company. Now, with the present amendment to the Schedule, part II has become applicable on the “other directors” as well. The term “other directors” has been clarified in the amendment notification itself by way of an explanation which states,

“For the purposes of Section I, II and III (relevant parts that have been amended) the term “or other director” shall mean a non-executive director or an independent director.”

Section II of Part II of the Schedule specifies maximum remuneration that can be paid to a director, be it a managerial personnel or otherwise. For directors other than the managerial personnel, the remuneration has been specified at an amount almost 1/5th of that permissible to the managerial personnel.

The result of bringing IDs within the scope of Schedule V is that whereas the IDs would have been receiving very low remuneration in comparison to their roles and responsibilities in an organisation due to inadequacy of profits, the IDs will have a chance of getting a fair remuneration.

Questions relevant to the amendments

Various questions arise out of the amendments, such as –

  1. Will the amendments require modification in existing remuneration policy?
  2. Can the NEDs and IDs be paid remuneration in excess of those specified in Schedule V?
  3. Whether a single approval can suffice for the remuneration of all NEDs and IDs or such resolutions will have to be approved separately for the individual directors?
  4. Whether NRC will be eligible to recommend remuneration payable to IDs?
  5. Whether a prior approval of shareholders will be required or whether post facto approval may be obtained?

Answers to these and other relevant questions revolving around the aforesaid amendments has been dealt with in our detailed FAQs and can be accessed here.

Conclusion

The role of non-executive and IDs is very crucial to a company. The professional expertise of NEDs in their specific fields brings requisite value to a company. Considering the role played by IDs in effectively balancing the conflicting interest of the company and its stakeholders and bringing independent judgement to the Board’s decisions, it would be unfair if they are not paid adequately for the efforts put by them in the effective conduct of business.

Further, in the present scenario, amidst the economic breakdown worldwide, many companies may not be able to earn the profits as expected, or might be facing losses as well. In such circumstances, the aforesaid amendments were a necessity.

However, the erstwhile provisions had no scope of payment of remuneration to them in case of loss. With the aforesaid amendments coming into force, the companies will be able to compensate their non-executive and IDs well, even in case of no/inadequate profits.

Our other articles on the related topics can be read here –

[1] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Defaulter-companies-to-seek-lenders-nod-to-pay-managerial-remuneration-1-1.pdf

[2] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Appointment-and-Remuneration-of-Managerial-Personnel.pdf

[3] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Managerial-Remuneration-five-decades-control-cedes.pdf

[4] http://vinodkothari.com/2020/03/remunerating-neds-ids-in-low-profit-yrs/

[5] http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Manangerial-Remuneration_IMTB-_26.08.pdf

[1]  SEBI has recently in its consultation paper on review of regulatory framework applicable to IDs suggested that profit-linked commissions should be barred and shall be substituted by higher sitting fees or issue of stock options. Please refer to our article for broader understanding of the same.