Posts

RBI amends TLE Directions

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

– Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) made certain amendments to the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Transfer of Loan Exposures) Directions, 2021 (‘TLE Directions’) on December 05, 2022. The long-awaited welcome move of allowing ARCs to acquire loans falling in 1-60 DPD as well is being well appreciated. Some of the changes seem to be creating a confusion; say not allowing foreign branches of Indian banks to acquire defaulted loans; while others, seem to be providing more clarity; such as clarifying that registration of security interest for the purpose of computing MHP shall mean registration of security interest with CERSAI only.

Read more →

Supreme Court ruling revives the quandary, holds tax authorities to be secured creditors

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Sikha Bansal, Partner, Vinod Kothari & Company

Neha Sinha, Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

Lawmakers might have put the best of efforts to frame the law in the clearest possible way, however, there may still be possibilities of diverse readings (and thus, diverse interpretations). Such a scenario is often addressed by the judiciary which, as and when circumstances arise, determines the questions arising out of law. However, there is also a possibility where the judiciary itself would render diverse interpretations on the same subject matter. This would, of course, lead to confusion and chaos.

A similar situation arose in the recent case of State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited,[1] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court (‘SC’) dealt with the question as to whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), specially section 53, overrides section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘GVAT’). Section 48 of GVAT is a non-obstante clause and creates a statutory first charge on the property of the dealer in favour of tax authorities against any amount payable by the dealer on account of tax, interest or penalty for which he is liable to pay to the Government.

SC held that if the resolution plan excludes statutory dues payable to government or a government authority, it cannot be said to be in conformity to the provisions of IBC, and as such, not binding on the government. As such, the same must be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, section 48 of GVAT is not inconsistent with IBC and hence, it was held that IBC does not override GVAT. The SC went on to rule that by virtue of the ‘security interest’ created in favour of the Government under GVAT, the State is a ‘secured creditor’ as per the definition in  IBC. Hence, as workmen’s dues are treated pari passu with secured creditors’ dues, so should the debts owed to the State be put at the same pedestal  as the debts owed to workmen under the scheme of section 53(1)(b)(ii).

In the most humble view of the authors, the conclusions as above may not in consonance with the well-settled jurisprudence around the subject matter of conflict between IBC and tax statutes and the question of priorities between these, and may also not fit well with the construct of the IBC, the intent of the lawmakers and the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee (‘BLRC’), as well as several judicial precedents set by SC itself, as discussed below. A plethora of rulings, including by SC itself, go on to hold that crown debts would be subordinate to the dues of secured creditors, and none of these rulings ever equated tax dues to secured dues. The authors thus, analyse the SC ruling in light of the construct of the IBC, intent of the lawmakers and policymakers, and various past precedents and offer their views as to how this ruling has actually reopened a can of worms and how it may impact success of ongoing and future resolution processes.

Read more →

Debentureholders’ rights in Intercreditor agreements

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Supreme Court lays principles in case of debenture defaults

– Sikha Bansal, Partner, Vinod Kothari & Company | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

A well-developed corporate bond market not only provides cost-effective funds to the issuer, but also enables lenders like banks and other financial institutions to streamline their asset-liability mismatches. As such, there have been a lot of efforts to facilitate the development of the corporate bond market in India. While the market is growing steadily, the size of the market remains small as compared to other emerging markets in Asia[1]. Therefore, India may still have a long way to go.

An important element in ensuring smooth functioning of the bond market is to ensure that there is sufficient clarity on the options, remedies, and rights which the debentureholders have or may have in a given scenario. One such aspect has been dealt with by the Supreme Court (SC) in the recent ruling Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal and Others[2] (‘SC ruling’). The SC was dealing with the interplay between the RBI’s ‘Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets’ issued in June, 2019 (‘RBI Resolution Framework’) and SEBI’s Circular on ‘Standardisation of procedure to be followed by Debenture Trustees in case of ‘Default’ by Issuers of listed debt securities’ (‘SEBI Circular’) and consequent impact of the same on the rights of the debentureholders.

As we see below, the SC ruling is crucial – that it clears the air around the force which SEBI Circular carries and protects dissenting investors from non-statutory compromises. However, most importantly, this SC ruling can be seen as highlighting the problems and gaps which may arise because of segregated rule-making where two regulators were bound by their respective regulatory ambit, thereby leading to a not-so-comprehensive resolution framework.

The author, in this article, has not gone into the facts of the particular case (which, inter alia, necessitated the SC to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution). Instead, the author has deliberated on the key takeaways from the SC ruling.

Read more →

Resolution Plans – A Non returning visa to the resolution land

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Anushka Vohra | Deputy Manager (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

On September 13, 2021, in the matter of Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited[1], the Apex Court ruled that a Resolution Plan, once submitted with the Adjudicating Authority (“AA”) for approval, cannot be subsequently withdrawn at the behest of the Resolution Applicant. While this question of withdrawal of resolution plans has been around for quite some time, especially due to the COVID disruption, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now given the final word of law.

Read more →

Minority shareholders under IBC

/0 Comments/in , /by

-Sikha Bansal

[resolution@vinodkothari.com]

Below we provide a quick snapshot of the extant provisions of the insolvency framework in India vis-a-vis Minority Shareholders, in light of related laws and judicial developments so as to assess their rights and standing in the current insolvency ecosystem –

Read more →

Retrospective Operation of S. 29A & OTS under IBC – Analysing Prospects

/1 Comment/in /by

– Megha Mittal

[resolution@vinodkothari.com]

The Hon’ble NCLAT vide its order Martin SK Golla v. Wig Associates, 2019[1] has set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority which had accepted a one-time settlement-cum-resolution plan submitted by a connected person of Corporate Debtor, who later on, after the implementation of section 29A became ineligible to submit a plan. Hence, the question before the Hon’ble Tribunal was whether sec 29A of IBC will be applicable with retrospective effect in section 10 proceedings which were initiated prior to sec 29A came into force?

The Hon’ble NCLAT held that the reason that once CIRP is commenced, provisions as existing on the day of the petition would continue to apply even in the face of amendment brought about by way of 29A- cannot be maintained, and as such the one time settlement-cum-resolution plan, offered by the connected person of the Corporate Debtor cannot be considered good under law.

In this article, along with the issue of retrospective applicability of section 29A and its likely impact on the stakeholders, the Author also delves into the question whether a one-time settlement scheme could tantamount to a resolution plan under the Code.

Read more →

ARCs and Insolvency Resolution Plans – The Enigma of Equity vs Debt

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– By Sikha Bansal (resolution@vinodkothari.com)

This article has also been published in IndiaCorpLaw Blog, the same can be viewed here

A regulatory framework for asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) was introduced in India through the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). This intended to put in place a system for clearing up non-performing assets (NPAs) from the books of banks and financial institutions. Over a decade later, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) was introduced with the objective of reorganisation and resolution of insolvent entities.

Although the common goal of both these legislation seems to be the cleaning or reconstruction of bad loan portfolios, it is important to understand the difference between the basic premises of these two laws: while the SARFAESI Act deals with ‘recovery’ and is more of a ‘class’ remedy, the IBC is about ‘resolution’ and intended to constitute a collective process. Given a common set of stakeholders involved under both these laws, there remains an obvious possibility of overlaps or inconsistencies. Read more →

Bringing pre-packs to India: a discussion on the way forward

/0 Comments/in /by

“Pre-packs”, though yet to be born, have raised the expectations high. Reasons are obvious – the package is supposed to offer a lucrative combination of all the benefits of a ‘reorganisation/resolution plan’ as otherwise available only under formal insolvency proceedings with the added benefit of ‘speed’.

Pre-pack framework, as studies show, is not always contained in the statutory machinery. One of the close examples is UK. There the pre-pack arrangement is guided by insolvency practice statement, rather than a legislative framework.

In the Indian context, with some unique features, our insolvency regime stands differently from other jurisdictions – say, section 29A, and more importantly, section 32A.

Also, we already have certain debt restructuring tools in vogue – schemes of arrangement, and the apex bank’s framework for resolution of stressed framework. So, how do we welcome pre-packs, such that it serves the intended purpose? Surely enough, the pre-pack framework has to imbibe all the ‘good things’ which a formal insolvency framework has, and also offer something ‘over and above’ the existing options of debt restructuring.

The article sees these aspects and proposes what can be the optimal way of adopting pre-packs in India.

 

RESOLUTION VALUE MAY BE LOWER THAN LIQUIDATION VALUE?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

-Richa Saraf

(richa@vinodkothari.com)

The Apex Court, vide its order dated 22.01.2020, in the matter of Maharasthra Seamless Limited vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors.[1] held that there is no requirement that the resolution plan should match the maximized asset value of the corporate debtors. Reiterating the principle laid down in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once a resolution plan is approved by the committee of creditors (CoC), the Adjudicating Authority has limited power of judicial review.

The judgment of the Supreme Court boldly brings out the object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), i.e. “resolution before liquidation”. However, it will be pertinent to understand whether this ruling should be considered as a benchmark? Further, what will be the situation in case of liquidation? Whether sale under liquidation can be done for a value lower than the reserve price?

Below we analyse the ruling, seeking to answer the aforementioned questions.

Read more →