Posts

CERSAI beyond SARFAESI – The multi-faceted effects of security interest registration

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

– Sikha Bansal and Anirudh Grover | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The rights of secured creditors are spread across various laws: common law, Companies Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the SARFAESI Act. In equal measure, the preconditions which are requisite to assert these rights are also spread over those very laws. 

It is lamentable that the security interest registration regime in India is fragmented, without any obvious sense of purpose or direction. This was discussed in our previous article Fragmented Framework for Perfection of Security Interest[1].

Read more →

The sale of season: Holding period requirements for assignments and securitisation

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

– Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Any sale or assignment or transfer, including securitisation, of loans is subject to a minimum seasoning with the originator. Under the extant regulatory provisions, such requirement is referred to as ‘Minimum Holding Period’ (MHP), which means the minimum period for which the originator should have held the loan exposures before the same is transferred to the transferee or Special Purpose Entity (SPE), as the case may be. This serves several purposes: that the loan was not originated for sale, the originator has had some equity in the loans, and that there is a benefit of hindsight of performance.

MHP requirements have always been a part of the regulations in India. However, on December 5, 2022, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made certain amendments to the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Transfer of Loan Exposures) Directions, 2021[1] (‘TLE Directions’) as well as the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Securitisation of Standard Assets) Directions, 2021[2] (‘SSA Directions’). Among the other changes, there was a change in the MHP provisions; this change may have a significant impact on future transactions. 

This write-up intends to clarify the position with respect to the computation of MHP for different types of loans under TLE Directions as well as SSA Directions.

Read more →

Tax dues subservient to dues of secured creditors under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Neha Sinha, Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are specific laws for recovery of debts.  Both these laws provide that  the secured creditors can claim priority for the realisation of dues. On the other hand, State and Central tax authorities can also enforce the payment of tax dues under tax statutes, which often create a statutory first charge in favour of the authorities. This may give rise to situations wherein the secured creditors are competing with the tax authorities in respect of payment of dues. Such competing claims have to be resolved in case of insolvency/deficiency.

A similar situation arose in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari v. Joint Commissioner of Sales.[1] The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided on the issue of the conflict between  SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act, and State tax statutes, in respect of priority of claims. The primary that arose in this case was whether State tax authorities can claim priority, by virtue of first charge created under State tax statutes, over a secured creditor for liquidation of their respective dues.

Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI deals with registration of charges by secured creditors and. Pursuant to section 26D therein,  a secured creditor who has not registered the charge loses his right to enforce the security under SARFAESI. Section 26E, which has a non-obstante clause, accords priority to the secured creditor who has registered the charge in the CERSAI, over “all other debts and all revenue, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.” Similarly, section 31B of the RDDB Act gives states that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law….rights of secured creditors shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority.” Pertinently, the aforesaid provisions in both Acts have a non-obstante clause, having the effect of overriding any other law inconsistent with it.

In the instant case, by virtue of relevant State tax statutes, a first charge was created in favour of State tax authorities. This brings forth the conflict as to who shall have priority in terms of payment-  that State tax authorities with first charge or the secured creditors with the registration of charge in CERSAI?

Read more →

Fragmented framework for perfection of security interest

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Introduction An interesting question of law came up for consideration by way of appeal before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Volkswagen Finance Private Limited v. Shree Balaji Printopack Pvt. Ltd.[1]  The brief facts of the case involved a car financing company, which extended a car loan to the corporate debtor. The car financier […]

Read more →

CKYCR becomes fully operational: The long-awaited format for legal entities’ information finally introduced

/3 Comments/in , /by

-Kanakprabha Jethani (kanak@vinodkothari.com)

Background

The Central KYC Registry (CKYCR) is a registry that serves as a central record for KYC information of all the customers of financial institutions. In India, the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) has been authorised to carry out the functions of CKYCR. It was operationalised in 2016 beginning with collecting information on ‘individual’ accounts. Until now, the CKYCR did not have a feature to collect KYC information of legal entities.

The CERSAI has, in consultation with the RBI, prepared a template for submission of KYC information of legal entities (the same is yet to be published by CERSAI). The RBI has, through a notification dated December 18, 2020[1] (‘Notification’) directed financial institutions to begin submitting KYC information of legal entities w.e.f April1, 2021 (‘Notified Date’). The Master Direction – Know Your Customer (KYC) Direction, 2016 (‘KYC Directions’) have been updated in line with the said notification.

In this note we have discussed the implications for NBFCs, having customer interface, specifically.

Actionables for financial entities

In compliance with the existing KYC provisions on CKYCR and the Notification, NBFCs shall be required to take the following steps:

For customer who are legal entities, other than individuals and FPIs

  • Ensure uploading KYC data of legal entities whose loan account has been opened after the Notified Date; within 10 days of commencement of an account-based relationship with the customer. It is to be noted that the existing time limit for uploading the documents of individual accounts was 3 days.
  • Ensure uploading KYC records of legal entities on CKYCR, whose accounts are opened before the Notified Date, while undertaking periodic updation[2] or otherwise on receipt of updated KYC information from the customers. (When KYC information is uploaded during periodic updation or otherwise, it must be ensured that the same is in accordance with the CDD process as prevailing at such time.) Such uploading may not be required for loan accounts that are closed before undertaking the first periodic updation after the Notified Date.
  • Communicate the KYC identifier generated after uploading of KYC information to the customer.

 For individuals

  • Ensure that the existing KYC records of individual customers pertaining to loan accounts opened prior to April 01, 2017, should be incrementally uploaded on CKYCR at the time of periodic updation or earlier when the updated KYC information is obtained/received from the customers. (When KYC information is uploaded during periodic updation or otherwise, it must be ensured that the same is in accordance with the CDD process as prevailing at such time.) Such uploading may not be required for loan accounts that are closed before undertaking the first periodic updation after the Notified Date.
  • Ensure uploading KYC data of individual loan account opened after the Notified Date; within 10 days of commencement of an account-based relationship with the customer.
  • Communicate the KYC identifier generated after uploading of KYC information to the customer.

Clarification with respect to identity verification through CKYCR

There has been a confusion regarding validity of identity verification done by fetching KYC details from the CKYCR. While the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and rules thereunder as well as the operating guidelines clearly state that if the customer submits KYC identifier for identity and address verification, no other documents need to be obtained.

The KYC Directions have remained silent on the same for long. The Notification also clarified that-

“Where a customer, for the purpose of establishing an account based relationship, submits a KYC Identifier to a RE, with an explicit consent to download records from CKYCR, then such RE shall retrieve the KYC records online from CKYCR using the KYC Identifier and the customer shall not be required to submit the same KYC records or information or any other additional identification documents or details, unless –

  • there is a change in the information of the customer as existing in the records of CKYCR;
  • the current address of the customer is required to be verified;
  • the RE considers it necessary in order to verify the identity or address of the customer, or to perform enhanced due diligence or to build an appropriate risk profile of the client.”

Hence, for the purpose of verification, what is necessary is the KYC Identifier and an explicit consent from the customer to download his/her KYC information from the CKYCR.

Conclusion

The template for uploading KYC information of legal entities on the CKYCR portal has been formulated and shall be live on CERSAI Platform shortly. Financial institutions shall be required to ensure uploading of KYC information of legal entities w.e.f. the Notified Date. Further, additional obligations have been placed on financial institutions in terms of uploading KYC documents for existing customers and intimation of KYC identifier to all customers. Clarification regarding the validity of KYC verification using data from CKYCR is a welcome move.

 

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12008&Mode=0

[2] As per para 38 of the KYC Directions- Periodic updation shall be carried out at least once in every two years for high risk customers, once in every eight years for medium risk customers and once in every ten years for low risk customers as per the prescribed procedure.