In this post, we’ll look at how to register a business in Kolkata. Company registration is a procedure through which all businesses are registered on the MCA’s website (Ministry of Corporate Affairs). The Company Registration in Kolkata is a simple procedure, but it requires numerous procedures to complete.

A Private Limited Company offers its stockholders legal protection and limited liability. A privaely held limited firm must have at least positions two working directors. A person can be both a director and a shareholder in a Private Limited Company. After receiving a Certificate of Incorporation, a Private Limited Company (PLC) can begin operations. Within 15 days following its application, a PLC can be implemented.

As a result, we will concentrate on the advantages and procedures of forming a Private Limited Company registrationin Kolkata in this post.

Advantages of forming a private firm company registration in Kolkata

1. A private limited company might have anything from two to fifty directors.
2. It is a legal autonomous body.
3. Directors have limited liability and are not directly responsible for the company’s operations.
4. Directors are only partially liable to creditors.
5. In the event of a default, the bank or creditors will sell the company’s assets rather than personal property.
6. The directors are eligible for tax benefits.
7. Suing or being sued in the name of a registered corporation is possible.
8. Companies that are registered have a higher chance of borrowing money.

Company Registration in Kolkata: Private Company Incorporation Checklist

• Directors: For private company registration in Kolkata, a minimum of two directors is required, with one of them being a resident director.
• The investment must be made in accordance with the business type, and there is no minimum capital investment necessary for a firm.
• Inventive business name: The name of the firm must not be identical or confusingly similar to that of another company.
• Registered address: Every business should have one.

Steps for Incorporation of the Company

The following are the stages of forming a business using the RUN form:

1. After that, create a login account and log in.
2. Enter the name you want to use and cross-reference it with the MCA database.
3. If an established business wants to reverse its name, a CIN will be requested through the RUN e- form.
4. The applicant must specify the name that he or she wishes to keep on file in case the firm’s name is changed or a new company is formed.
5. Then he or she must submit the prospective company’s objects as well as any additional documents in support of the suggested name.

Limited Name Validity

• For a new corporation, an authorised name is valid for 20 days from the date of approval.
• 60 days after the date of authorization for changing the name of an established corporation.

Steps for Private Company Registration in Kolkata

Step 1: Obtain DSC

Because the process is online, a digital signature is required for the incorporation of a private limited company. Members and executives must have a legitimate Class II or Class III DSC.

Step 2: Fill out an application for a DIN number.

A directors must have a DIN and must apply for one on MCA if he does not already have one. A DIN number can be used to become a director in many businesses.

Step 3: Submit an application for name approval

At the time of establishment, the company’s name, as well as SPICe (INC-32) must be submitted for approval. If the name is rejected, it can be resubmitted.

Step 4: e-MoA (INC-33) and e-AoA are the fourth and final steps (INC-34)

Previously, MoA and AoA had to be filed physically, but now they must be filed online on the MCA website. These papers must be digitally signed by the subscribers.

Step 5: PAN and TAN applications

After all of the paperwork have been completed, the applicant should consider applying for a PAN and TAN.

Step 6: Certificate of Incorporation 

MCA & RoC will analyse all of the documentation and issue a Certificate of Incorporation if they are pleased. The Certificate of Incorporation is a legal document that grants the firm legal standing.

7th Step: Open bank Accounts

The firm must create a bank account for any transactions in its name after receiving the certificate of incorporation.

In order to register a company in Kolkata, you’ll need the following documents

Documents required for company registration  in Kolkata:

1. For DSC 
2. DIN (Director Identification Number)
3. Incorporation of a Business

In the case of DSC,

1. Along with the DSC application form, the following papers must be forwarded:
2. The claimant’s photograph (to be stamped across with a blue pen)
3. The director’s address proof (s)
4. Id Proof (Pan Card) of the applicant Passport Aadhar card Driving licence Voter Id card Email Id and contact number (for each director)

DIN

Fill out the e-form DIR -3, which is available on the MCA website. Alongside Form DIR -3, attach the supporting information:

1. Id proof photo of the applicant (attested)
2. Proof of address (attested)
3. Make the payment as directed. The only way to pay is on the internet.
4. There will be a preliminary DIN created.
5. A preliminary DIN becomes an authorised DIN after verification.

• For a Firm’s Registration
• The Firm’s Title
• The firm’s assets
• Investors’ list
• The director’s Id proof is the company’s purpose (s)

1. Aadhar card and passport
2. Id cards for voters and driver’s licence
3. Director’s proof of residence (s)
4. Bank statement Telephone bill
5. The cost of electricity
6. Mobile phone bill (not old than two months)
7. INC-9 Director(s) Consent (form DIR-2) (Affidavit)

• Proof of the registered office’s address

1. Bills of Gas, 
2. Phone, and
3. Electricity

If the office is included in the lease, the lease agreement and a letter of authorization from the owner are required.

Holders of DINs declare themselves

A Private Limited Company Registration in Kolkata is an online operation that should be completed with caution, and once completed, the directors are entitled to all of the privileges of a Private Limited Company.

The post Private Limited Company Registration in Kolkata Via Online Method appeared first on MUDS.

Releases from the RBI Monetary Policy 2022 Meeting: The six-member Monetary Policy 2022 Committee (MPC), led by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Shaktikanta Das, maintained the repo rate at 4% and the reverse repo rate at 3.35 % intact. Here’s what the governor of India’s central bank said.

RBI Monetary Policy 2022: The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Monetary Policy 2022 Committee (MPC) retained the repo rate at 4% for the 11th straight approach achieves a ‘affiliative posture,’ according to RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das on Friday.

The MPC decided unanimously to continue the accommodating approach, according to the central bank governor, and the reverse repo rate was also remained steady at 3.35 percent.

The Marginal Standing Facility (MSF) rates and the lending rate were likewise held steady at 4.25 percent.

On May 22, 2020, the RBI reduced its policy repo rate, or short-term lending rate, in an off-policy cycle to boost demand by decreasing interest rates to a historic low.

In a press conference following the Monetary Policy 2022 meeting, Das stated that the RBI will return the liquidity adjustment facility (LAF) corridor to 50 basis points (bps), as it was pre-Covid. The MSF rate and the bank rate remain at 4.25 percent.

“It also agreed to remain accommodating while concentrating on withdrawal of accommodation to ensure that inflation remains within the goal moving ahead, while encouraging expansion,” 

-he added on the central bank’s attitude.

” It will continue to be part of the RBI’s toolbox, and its use will be at the discretion of the RBI for objectives that are indicated from time to time. The FRRR, in conjunction with the SDF, will increase the flexibility of the RBI’s liquidity management framework.”

The RBI reduced its growth prediction for the current fiscal year to 7.2 percent from 7.8 percent previously, while increasing its inflation forecast to 5.7 percent from 4.5 percent.

He went on to say that, given the inordinate volatility in international oil prices as of early February, as well as the extreme uncertainty surrounding the evolving geopolitical tensions, any projection of growth and inflation is fraught with risk, and is largely dependent on future oil and commodity price developments.

Das addressed liquidity and financial market circumstances in his speech, stating that the RBI will continue to take a sophisticated and agile approach to liquidity risk management while preserving appropriate liquidity in the system.

“At the moment, liquidity management is distinguished by two procedures: variable rate reverse repo (VRRR) bids of varied maturities to swallow liquidity, and variable rate repo (VRR) auctions to fill temporary liquidity problems and offset anomalies.” “We will keep taking this strategy,” he stated.

ATM cash withdrawal without a card that is interoperable

In an effort to combat fraud, the Reserve Bank of India agreed on Friday to allow all banks to use card-less cash withdrawal through ATMs. Currently, card-less cash withdrawal via ATMs is a permissible form of transaction allowed by a few banks in the nation on an as-needed basis (for their customers at their own ATMs).

Economic experts and market analysts reacted as follows:

• The severe reduction in GDP forecasts for FY23 and significant increase in inflation expectations for FY23 might suggest some tightening measures in the future, which would be supported by the shift in posture to focus on withdrawal of accommodation. Current geopolitical developments, supply chain concerns, and commodity price increases are tying the RBI’s hands and pushing it to progressively turn hawkish, despite its desire to maintain its pro-growth perspective. The 10-year Gsec yield has increased to 7%, showing the street’s worry over the massive borrowing programme in the face of rising interest rates.”
• “Retaining the repo rate at 4% and the reverse repo rate at 3.35 percent, continuing with the accommodating posture on expected lines,” said V K Vijayakumar, Chief Investment Strategist at Geojit Financial Services. Recognizing the new reality of increased petroleum prices caused by the war, the RBI cut the FY23 GDP growth rate prediction to 7.2 percent from 7.8 percent before and upped the FY23 CPI inflation projection to 5.7 percent from 4.5 percent previously. This is predicated on the premise that crude will be $100 per barrel. This suggests that if crude falls considerably, which is likely if the conflict ends soon, GDP and inflation will improve.The opposite might be true if the battle escalates and petroleum prices rise well beyond $100. The Governor correctly underscored India’s macroeconomic fundamentals, noting to an improvement in the external position aided by record exports, large foreign reserves of $608 billion, and banking sector development. The SDF (Standing Deposit Facility) is a new mechanism established by the central bank to absorb liquidity. 

“The recent RBI Monetary Policy 2022 did not include any surprises,” stated Nish Bhatt, Founder & CEO of Millwood Kane International, “it held rates constant for the 11th straight policy.” However, it has clearly outlined the road to policy unwinding. The emphasis will now be on withdrawing the accommodating policy stance in order to keep inflation under control. The RBI’s statement today plainly suggests the end of loose Monetary Policy 2022, which is reflected in the 10-year benchmark yield, which has reached a multi-year high. The unwinding of liquidity will cause some instability, and it is expected that the RBI would drop the growth rate prediction for FY23 to 7.2 percent, with the inflation target raised to 5.7 percent from 4.5 percent previously. The explicit goal of central banks throughout the world is to manage inflation, unwind lose money, and concentrate on gradual and steady development.“

The post New Monetary Policy 2022: Repo Rate Remained Unchanged appeared first on MUDS.

Sexual harassment law: The word “workplace” confers to the Sexual harassment at workplace of Women at Workplace (Regulation, Prevention, and Redressal) Posh Act of 2013, and specifically includes:

The post POSH Act: ALL ABOUT THE SEXUAL HARASSMNET LAW IN INDIA appeared first on MUDS.

The law of insolvency and bankruptcy is critical to the functioning of any economy. These laws aid in the restructuring of a company’s various assets as well as the dissolution of these assets. The law’s primary goal is to reorganise and remedy the insolvency of corporate persons.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is comprehensive legislation that incorporates both the subsequent elements of a debtor’s economic collapse – rehabilitation and liquidation – within its multiplicity.

The primary goal of the legislation is to restructure and resolve the insolvency of corporate people, partnership companies, and individuals as soon as possible in order to leverage the maximum value of such persons’ assets. While doing so, it is also important to boost entrepreneurship and credit availability.

What precisely do we understand by insolvency?

Insolvency refers to a situation in which a corporation is unable to obtain sufficient cash to pay off its obligations and payments in a timely manner.

Bankruptcy occurs when the court identifies and recognises insolvency while ignoring instructions for its resolution. When the court is confident that the business is insolvent, it issues an order dividing the proceeds among the creditors for the payment of the company’s debts.

One of the main barriers to bankruptcy is that the average time taken to resolve bankruptcy cases in India is 4.3 years, which is significantly longer than the time taken in nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The IBC was proposed by the Bankruptcy Legislative Reforms Committee, led by TK Viswanathan. The IBC’s goal was to consolidate and reform laws governing the reorganisation and economic resolution of businesses and persons in a timely way in order to maximise the value of assets.

In the year 2016, the insolvency legislation was passed and announced in the official gazette of India with the goal of resolving insolvency matters in a timely manner, which is done by insolvency experts. Its major goal was to correct the faults made by previous legislation by separating commercial and judicial issues

The adjudicating bodies, according to the IBC, are the NCLT. Given that the IBC is the umbrella legislation that encompasses other insolvency laws, it has diminished the need for prior legislation by addressing insolvency, bankruptcy, and sick company reorganisation.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2016 as a major legislative change in the Indian economy. It was enacted because India lacked legislation that aided in the resolution of distressed assets and debt-laden companies. As a result, the court consolidated all insolvency rules into a single legislation, the IBC 2016.

This legislation intended to increase the flexibility of India’s insolvency rules. One aspect of this code is that it allows creditors to evaluate the feasibility of a business, decide the inspiration of the firm, and then request the liquidation or winding down of the business. The code’s goal was to create a new institutional framework that included a regulator, financial condition experts, data utilities, and assessment mechanisms to improve the formal financial condition resolution procedure and liquidation.

Institutional Framework of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

The Institutional Framework of IBC, 2016, has 4 pillars.

• Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of Republic of India
• National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
• Insolvency Professional
• Information Utilities

The board’s deployment and functioning are overseen by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of the Republic of India. The IBC creates it as a restricted yet superior body. This board is in charge of IBC concerns and controls not just the profession but also the processes. The board is critical in implementing the code that modifies the regulations governing the conversion of bankrupt enterprises.

The NCLT, which is the adjudicating authority, hears cases involving this code under insolvency law. This authority serves as a venue for the settlement of insolvency proceedings. An appeal under the NCLT can be dismissed, or a stay of execution can be requested against the order. NCLAT is the site where NCLT appeals may be filed. The ruling of the NCLAT can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of authority.

The IBC establishes a body of experts known as insolvency professionals, who are responsible for overseeing different parts of bankruptcy resolution. To govern the activity of the Insolvency Professionals, an extra corporate organisation called the Insolvency Professional Agencies is formed. Individual practitioners must be enrolled with the IPAs’ sceptre in order to control and enhance the function of insolvency professionals.

The information utilities under the IBC, 2016, make it feasible to acquire and transfer information from creditors to corporations. Currently, creditors’ financial information may only be acquired through the income tax department.

The purpose of the information utilities under the IBC, 2016, is to bridge the gap in obtaining and transmitting information from creditors to corporations. Only the Republic of India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board has the ability to license Information Utilities, as well as the capacity to regulate them and give access to information.

Evolution of IBC Law Over the years…….

There have been several modifications to the code since the IBC 2016 was enacted. The code has been modified five times in five years, and several important cases, such as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act 2020, have deciphered it.

The code’s regulations have been modified from time to time. The Indian courts have witnessed historic cases deciphering this code, raising the question of its legality in light of its murky regions. The implementation of the IBC has been difficult due to several revisions made to the IBC’s regulatory structure. The changes were done to make the code more user-friendly.

SIGNIFICANT TRANSITIONS TO BE NOTED

The IBC provides a time-bound resolution mechanism with the goal of increasing the value of a troubled firm. This will help not just the creditor and debtor firms, but also the economy as a whole because money and productive resources will be redeployed rather rapidly.

1. To hear the cases, a strong and effective adjudicating authority is required.
2. Insolvency professionals (IPs) are regulated specialists that manage insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings.
3. A regulated competitive information utilities (IUs) sector to eliminate information asymmetries in the insolvency resolution process.
4. A regulator – the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) – to exercise legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial duties with regard to IPs and IUs, as well as create laws for IBC resolution procedures.

The establishment of this institutional framework is now in the works. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has been designated as the adjudicating body in corporate insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The IBBI has been established and is working to increase capacity.

Challenges in implementation

The NCLT will encounter the most difficult challenges in transferring current cases to the IBC. The NCLT now comprises 11 benches, each with 16 judicial and seven technical members. Its scope includes considering matters formerly handled by the Company Law Board (CLB) under the Companies Act 2013, as well as cases handled under the IBC. 

First Challenge

• There were around 4,200 pending CLB cases as of March 2015. These will all be moved to the NCLT. Furthermore, the CLB gets around 4,000 new cases each year. The NCLT will now have to deal with these.
• With IBC rules on CIRP already in effect and the regulations on dissolution due to be notified soon, all 4,500 curving cases pending in the high courts as of March 2015 are likely to be moved to the NCLT. 
• According to our findings, corporate recovery cases at debt recovery tribunals (DRTs) and rehabilitation cases at the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) are both eligible to be launched as new IBC cases.
• With this low permeability capacity, how will the NCLT deal with new IBC cases, as well as matters from the CLB, high courts, the BIFR, and perhaps the DRT? The NCLT will fail to hear and dispose of matters in a timely way from the outset unless its adjudication capacity is increased. 
• For the IBC cases, this might imply that the NCLT will be unable to comply with the CIRP’s 180-day deadline.

The second challenge

• Concerns about the NCLT revolve around the case law that emerges under the IBC. Given that it is new legislation, the processes and common practices governing it must evolve independently of the case rules governing the pre-IBC system. 
• Because the first cases to come before the IBC are likely to be existing ones, the initial case law that emerges under the IBC will reflect the circumstances of previous cases.
• Creditors, debtors, auditors, lawyers, valuers, and liquidators all act in accordance with the old case laws enshrined in the Companies Act 1956, the Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985 (SICA), the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and similar legislation.
• This will change only when the IBC is finalised as legislation and its institutional architecture achieves its potential, allowing the NCLT to focus on enforcing the IBC’s overarching priors. To do this, the IPs, IUs, NCLT, and IBBI must all be correctly established and functioning in accordance with the IBC.
• To guarantee that IPs fulfil their duties honestly, well-defined entrance barriers to the profession must be created, and IPs must be strictly controlled by the IBBI. 
• To get registered as IPs, a qualifying examination has been recommended. This is modelled after the best practices of other nations with a well-functioning IP industry, such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

Third Challenge

• The absence of IU infrastructure. A CIRP can only be triggered under the IBC if the debtor firm has gone into default. 
• The IU in the IBC architecture allows for faster case start by providing access to incontrovertible and visible proof of the default. Currently, winding up petitions under the Companies Act of 1956 and SICA proceedings take one to two years to be heard.
• The position is slightly better at the DRTs, at which Bankers Books Evidence Act permits bank books to be used as primary evidence in court. Even so, there are delays in proving the scope of debt and default.
• In the absence of IUs, the IBBI must define the default evidence that can be used to initiate an IBC case. This can result in lengthy delays, especially if the NCLT is engaged in determining whether a default has occurred. 
• As a result, in the absence of IUs, commencing a lawsuit and creating the creditors’ committee is likely to take considerably longer than anticipated in the IBC design. This will make meeting the 180-day deadline for completing the CIRP problematic, giving rise to two probable outcomes:

1. the delays in creating the creditors’ committee will shorten the time available to reach an agreement on a resolution plan. If the committee is unable to reach an agreement on a resolution plan within the time frame given, the NCLT will order the company’s liquidation.
2. the NCLT may use its judicial discretion to prolong the CIRP beyond the time limit set by statute. Both of these results are undesirable. The former induces a liquidation bias in CIRP, whereas the latter jeopardises the IBC’s core architecture of time-bound resolution.

The current implementation of the IBC appears to be more concerned with rapidly operationalizing the law than with properly executing it. If these concerns are not handled appropriately, the goal of implementing new insolvency legislation to enhance the recovery rate in order to encourage the growth of credit markets and entrepreneurship would be defeated.

Will it become a successful approach?

• The IBC is a significant reform for India, and its successful implementation is contingent on careful transition planning. The existing corporate insolvency cases are expected to be the first to be heard by the IBC. 
• Four measures are required to guarantee that they do not have a negative influence on the design and effectiveness of the IBC.
• The NCLT’s capabilities must be built with careful project planning.
• This might imply establishing a separate bench dedicated just to IBC cases, scaled to the projected IBC caseload, and educated in dealing with commercial concerns, including the intricacies of current cases.

The NCLT must guarantee that the IBC requirements be enforced without exception in each matter that comes before it, regardless of its priors. If the NCLT is structured like a traditional Indian tribunal, it will quickly create a multi-year backlog.

Conclusion

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was the driving force behind the creation of insolvency and bankruptcy law in India. There are certain complications associated with this legislation; thus, you should review modifications and court declarations to better understand the law.

Adequate institutional capacity is required to guarantee that the IBC does not meet the same fate as previous reform initiatives such as the DRTs. Doing all of these things takes time and careful planning.

Rush thru the introduction of the proposed legislation may enhance India’s position in the World Bank’s “Doing Business” report, but it may not result in a de facto improvement of the bankruptcy resolution system, undermining the IBC’s fundamental objective.

The post Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws in India: Evolution and Challenges appeared first on MUDS.

The post Recovery of Bad Debt and Lost Money through Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 appeared first on MUDS.

IBC 2016

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is one of the most well-intentioned and ambitious pieces of economic legislation passed by the government.

The objective of the Code can be said to be:

“An Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time-bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Diverse industries are it cement, infrastructure financing, steel, housing, or jewelry are facing hardships, and about Rs 10 lakh crore stuck in debt in them created a lot of financial stress to their creditors.

“IBC has been framed keeping in mind two stated objectives; one is faster resolutions and the second is value maximization, and all this in a time-bound way. It bestows the creditors the much-needed right to initiate an insolvency process against any defaulting entity.”

– Kritika Chabbra (Market Analyst, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

Background of the Case

In 2018, ICICI Bank initiated insolvency proceedings with the Ahmedabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against Jaiprakash Power Ventures as the company’s total debt stood at Rs 20,143 crore at the end of March 2018.

The bank filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) which bestows on the financial creditor the right to start a corporate insolvency resolution against a defaulting corporate.

Section 7 of the IBC states, “A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor, (as may be notified by the Central Government) may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.”

Jaiprakash Power in a notice to the Exchanges stated, “This is to inform you that as per the notice received by the Company, ICICI Bank has filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the company with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad.”

Withdrawal of the Case

Recently, ICICI Bank has moved an application before the Ahmedabad bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the withdrawal of their application that had been given for the starting of bankruptcy proceedings against Jaiprakash Power Ventures.

Initiated by the ICICI Bank, the Jaiprakash Power Ventures lenders consortium took this step of restructuring the debt of the company by converting much of it into equity or convertible instruments.

There were no legal hurdles attached to this withdrawal as the earlier petition against Jaiprakash Power Ventures was yet to be admitted, and in such cases, IBC has provision for such withdrawal.

Source: The Economic Times

IBC 2016 & Withdrawal of Insolvency Application

Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 provided that the Adjudicating Authority may permit withdrawal of the Application on a request made by the Applicant before its admission.

Thereafter, vide The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 12A was inserted to the Code, and Regulation 30A was added to the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016.

Section 12A of the Code provides that the Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety percent voting share of the committee of creditors. This however has to be read with Regulation 30A which provides for an additional stipulation that an application for withdrawal under section 12A shall be submitted to the interim resolution professional or the insolvency resolution professional, as the case may be, in Form FA of the Schedule before the issue of invitation for expression of interest under Regulation 36A.

Details of Restructuring

Initially a Jaiprakash Power Ventures spokesperson confirmed that the debt restructuring had been approved by the lenders yet, he refused to divulge the details. In the same manner, the ICICI Bank representative didn’t disclose much about the deal.

A senior banker who was involved in the process revealed, “The consortium of lenders has agreed to a restructuring whereby they reduced outstanding loan of Rs 11,282 crore to Rs 5,800 crore; the balance was converted into equity or compulsorily convertible preference shares.”

The finer points of the restructuring trickled in later.

After the debt recast, the outstanding debt of the company which is part of Jaiprakash Associates group, has come down to less than Rs 6,000 crore, from what was more than Rs 11,000 crore.

One of the terms worked out was an interest write back of about Rs 2,000 crore which would come to the aid of the company in a way that it would enhance its net worth and the entity is likely to report a net profit this fiscal itself.

A senior company official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, disclosed, “After the restructuring, the company’s annual interest cost burden will decline from nearly Rs 1,500 crore to less than Rs 600 crore, leading to a gain of nearly Rs 1,000 crore annually in interest cost alone.”

According to the statement, the company’s annual interest burden which was about 1,580 crore will reduce substantially, amounting to? 570 crore only.

A senior banker, who was part of the entire process divulged in the details of restructuring and stated that as many as 22 banks and financial institutions have agreed to convert Rs 3,840 crore of the debt into compulsorily convertible preference shares, with a maturity period of 29 years and coupon rate of 0.01%, The banker added that an understanding has been reached and the leftover debt of Rs 5,800 crore on the company’s book will carry an interest rate of 9.50%.

Furthering this, under the scheme of the arrangement, the defaulting company, Jaiprakash Power Ventures has gone ahead and converted $110 million of foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCBs) into equity at Rs 12 a share, much higher than the current market price of less than Rs 2 per share. This conversion of $110 million FCCBs, based on the exchange rate when the restructuring process started, was equivalent to Rs 663 crore.

JSW Energy Agreement

The Sajjan Jindal-led company, JSW Energy has entered into an agreement with Jaiprakash Power Ventures Limited to restructure the debt of 752 crore.

As part of this agreement, of the financially-troubled Jaiprakash Power Ventures has converted? 351.77 crore of corporate loan from JSW Group into equity shares at par value of? 10 each. This was disclosed by JSW Energy in a filing to the exchanges.

The filing elaborated that it has been worked out between the two entities that of the balance outstanding debt of? 400 crore,? 280 crore will be written off, whereas, the remaining? 120 crores will be the debt that Jaiprakash Power Ventures will have to repay to JSW Energy. This repayment will be done on a quarterly and priority basis after Jaiprakash Power Ventures has paid 10 percent of the restructured debt to its secured lenders.

In the March 2018 quarter JSW Energy had already made a provision of 574.19 crore to Jaiprakash Power Ventures for restructuring its debt. Giving details of the agreement between the two companies, the filing said, “Further, Jaiprakash Power Ventures and JSW Energy have agreed to waive their respective rights to receive any payments from each other and unconditionally release each other from all liabilities in relation to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated November 16, 2014, for transfer of Karcham and Baspa hydro assets from JPVL to the company.”

This move has resulted in the reversal of liabilities of 177.48 crore payable to Jaiprakash Power Ventures in the books of JSW Energy.

Impact of Restructuring

After this restructuring, Jaiprakash Power Ventures has become a professionally run power company. The breakup of its shareholding stands as:

• Original promoter JP group’s shareholding has declined to 24%.
• Banks and financial institutions have supremacy now as they hold 42.643% shares of the company.
• FCCB holders have got 8.36% shares.
• JSW Group has a little over 5.1% of shares in Jaiprakash Power Ventures now.
• Whereas about 19% shares are held by public shareholders.

Conclusion

In so much as the key aim of formulating and enacting this Code was to empower the creditors who can get back their dues from defaulting companies through CIRP or by liquidating the defaulting entity, the Jaiprakash Power Ventures insolvency case has come to a positive end. The financial creditors along with all other stakeholders have got a fair deal by restructuring the defaulting company.

“The withdrawal of Jaiprakash Power Ventures insolvency application is a positive outcome which should be applauded as standing up to the established purpose of IBC. Even more, it shall be beneficial for all stakeholders in the long run.”

-Shweta Gupta, Founder, and CEO, MUDS

The post Jaiprakash Power Ventures to exit Insolvency Process appeared first on MUDS.

“The intent of the Code cannot be questioned and the hurdles arising can be said to be teething problems as it is in its infancy.”

– Kritika Chabbra (Market Analyst, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is a Codification of Sections of various previous Acts to deal with corporate insolvency and bankruptcy. Hailed as a comprehensive economic reform, IBC was hailed as the fastest and most effective tool to recover bad debt.

In its initial years itself, things turned out to be otherwise as diverse cases were caught in the ambiguity or lack of clarity in the Code. One such issue that popped up in many cases was that the Code had no provision of withdrawal of an application after it has been admitted or after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been passed.

The silence of Section 12 on Withdrawal

The Code permits withdrawal of a case only before the admission of the petition but not afterward. Section 12 was completely silent on this and the rationale behind this being that a collective mechanism commences once the resolution process is triggered, and this naturally places all creditors at par.

Thus, to permit the applicant or a bunch of applicants to settle the dispute post-admission would adversely impact the interests of other creditors, whereas, the resolution process would have protected the rights and interests of all creditors.

NCLAT’s Refusal to Intervene

The first case that raised the issue of withdrawal after admittance was of Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited Vs Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP.

An application was filed by the financial creditor, Nisus Finance and Investment under section 7 of the Code and was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench.

Appealing against the order passed by the NCLT, the appellant approached National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) praying to set aside the order of NCLT. It further stated that the parties had settled the dispute between themselves and the part amount had already been paid.

NCLAT refused to oblige and observed that “before admission of an application under Section 7, it is open to the Financial Creditor to withdraw the application but once it is admitted, it cannot be withdrawn and is required to follow the procedures laid down under Sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of I&B Code, 2016. Even the Financial Creditor cannot be allowed to withdraw the application once admitted, and matter cannot be closed till claim of all the creditors is satisfied by the corporate debtor.”

Apex Court: Decoding the Code!

In the very first year, cases pertaining to this matter, reached the Supreme Court and the burden of judicial uprightness lay on its shoulders. It was up to the Apex Court to decode the intricacies and at the same time balance the judgement in a way as to keep the essence and spirit of the Code intact.

After the plea of Nisus Finance and Investment was turned down by the NCLAT, the aggrieved approached the Supreme Court. In the absence of any provision under the Code, the Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and allowed settlement.

Article 142 of the Constitution gives the power to the Supreme Court to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”

After this judgement the Apex Court delivered a similar decision in at least two more cases:

1) Sysco Industries  

2) Uttara Foods and Feeds

Insertion of 12A: IBC’s Unique Withdrawal Policy

On the recommendation of the Apex Court, Section 12A along with Regulation 30A and 36A was inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 with retrospective effect from 06.06.2018.

This step was taken on the recommendation of the Insolvency Law Committee Report that was submitted in March 2018 and which laid down provisions to withdraw application made under section 7, 9 or 10 on a settlement, even if CIRP has been initiated.

Different Stages of Withdrawal Applicability

After the implementation of 12A an application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10 can be withdrawn at four stages and the matter can be settled between the parties.

The four stages are:

1. Before admission of application under Sections 7 or 9 or 10

2. After admission but before the constitution of a committee of creditors (CoC)

iii. After constitution of CoC but before issue of invitation for expression of interest

1. After issue of invitation for expression of interest

#Withdrawal application before admission of application u/s 7, 9 or 10:

Rule 8. Withdrawal of application: The Adjudicating Authority may permit withdrawal of the application made under rules 4, 6 or 7, as the case may be, on a request made by the applicant before its admission.

In the matter of Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited Vs. Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP the Apex Court made it quite clear that that in view of Rule 8 of the Code (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, NCLAT could not utilise the inherent power recognised by Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 to allow a compromise after the matter has been admitted.

#Allow withdrawal of application/CIRP after admission of application u/s 7,9 or 10:

Chapter II: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

Section 12A was inserted by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (w.e.f. 06.06.2018).

Section 12A: The Adjudicating Authority may allow the withdrawal of application admitted under section 7 or section 9 or section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the approval of ninety per cent. Voting share of the committee of creditors, in such manner, as may be prescribed.

Regulation 30A of CIRP Regulation 2016, which was amended on 25.07.2019, lays down the guidelines of the process of making an application under section 12A.

Following steps are to be considered for withdrawal of an application:

Case Laws

Withdrawal of CIRP after the issue of invitation for Expression of Interest [Regulation 30A (1)]: In the case of Brilliant Alloys Private Limited Vs Mr S. Rajagopal & Ors. the Supreme Court sanctioned withdrawal of CIRP even after the issue of invitation for expression of interest. Furthermore, it set aside the order of NCLT that opined that regulation 30A has to be read along with the main provision section 12A, which contains no such stipulation.

Withdrawal of CIRP when a Committee of Creditors (CoC) is not yet constituted: The Supreme Court in the matter of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. specified that at any stage where the CoC is not yet constituted, a party can approach the NCLT directly.

Withdrawal of CIRP if Corporate Debtor is an MSME: In the case of Saravana Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors NCLAT held that the company being MSME, it is not essential for the CoC to follow all the procedures under the CIRP.

“Since the insertion of Section 12A to the Code, the latest data shows that the number of cases withdrawn under it has gone up tremendously.”

–Shweta Gupta, Founder and CEO, MUDS

The post Can a Settlement Come in Record if Nclt Bench Have Passed CIRP Order? appeared first on MUDS.

In the previous article, we had discussed in detail the group insolvency.  You may have a glance at what group insolvency framework is via Click Here.

In this article we will dive into the details of the framework aligned for tackling group insolvency.

The Working Group has considered the following elements to address all issues arising in the insolvency of companies in a group:

• Procedural Coordination Mechanisms: Coordinating the procedures of insolvency while keeping the assets of each group company detached and unrelated.
• Substantive Consolidation Mechanisms: Consolidating the assets and liabilities of different groups are targeted so that they are treated as part of a single insolvency estate with the motive of reorganization or distribution in liquidation.
• Rules dealing with perverse behavior of companies in corporate groups: The creation of Mechanisms will be enabled to recapture assets subject to prejudicial transactions between group members and impose liability in group companies for each other’s debt. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK

The recommendations have been made by the working group that the framework for the group insolvency should be introduced in a phased manner and their phasing should be done in two bases:

• Jurisdictional scope: It was noted by the working group that the insolvency law committee formed by the ministry of corporate affairs recommended changes to the provisions of the code dealing with the cross-border insolvency of debtors with assets in different jurisdictions. The implementation of the provisions pertaining to cross-border insolvency of debtors with assets in different jurisdictions is not complete.  The framework for insolvency of cross-border corporate groups that aligns perfectly with the regime for insolvency of cross-border companies may not be possible in these circumstances.
• The Working Group recommended that the framework for the group insolvency may cover only domestic entities in its first phase.
• Elements of the Framework: It was noted by the Working Group that comprehensiveness framework for group insolvency could include procedural coordination, substantive consolidation, rules against perverse behavior, and other rules.
• The recommendation was made by the working Group that the framework may not include substantive consolidation in its first phase.  The further recommendations were made by the Working group in which they recommended that to implement the elements of the framework on group insolvency in the first phase, extensive capacity-building of insolvency professionals, creditors and other stakeholders under the code should be undertaken by IBBBI and the Central Government, and necessary infrastructure, especially to facilitate communication and coordination amongst Adjudication Authorities, should be put in place to ensure that the recommendations of the Working group can be implemented seamlessly.

Here we also need to understand what group means.

DEFINITIONS OF THE CORPORATE GROUP

• The Working group is of the view that the framework should define ‘Corporate group’ which is not defined under insolvency and bankruptcy code. It is also noted by the working group that the term Corporate Group, Group Company, Subsidiary, etc is defined under the other acts, regulations in India, and different accounting standards
•  In The foreign Direct Investment policy Article 2.1.12 defines Group Company as “two or more enterprises which, directly or indirectly, are in a position to (i) exercise twenty- six percent or more of voting rights in the other enterprise; or (ii) appoint more than fifty percent of the members of the board of directors in the other enterprise or (iii) control the management or affairs of the other enterprise”.
• In paragraph 2 of the systemically important non-banking financial (NON – Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential norms (Reserve Bank) directions, 2015 issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), defines companies in the group to mean two or more entities which are related to each other as subsidiaries, joint ventures, associate companies, promoter-promoters or have a common brand name and investment in equity shares of more than 20%. Similar definition has been included in the RBI Act, 1934 by Finance (no.2) Act, 2019.
• In the Regulation 2(1)(t) of the SEBI(Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 defines Group Company in the context of the related party transactions and states that group companies include “such companies(other than promoters and subsidiary/subsidiaries)with which there were related party transactions, during the period for which financial information is disclosed as covered under the applicable accounting standards, and also other companies as considered material by the board of the issuer.”
• Group Company is not defined in the Companies act 2013, but it defines holding and subsidiary companies based on a relationship of control. A subsidiary company under section 2(87) of the Act defines as the one in which “the holding company”
• controls the composition of the board of directors or
• exercises or controls more than one-half of the total voting power either at its own or together with one or more of its subsidiary companies”
• Section 2 (6) of the Act also defines an Associate Company in relation to another, as n associate company in relation to another, as a company in which that other company has a significant influence, but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence and includes a joint venture company.”

The accounting standards also define the term ‘group of companies’. The Indian Accounting Standard –Ind AS 110, regarding consolidated Financial Statements issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs defines Group to mean “a parent and its subsidiaries” wherein the parent is “an entity that controls one of more entities” and a subsidiary is “an entity that is controlled by another entity.” It also defines control of an investment as a situation “when the investor is exposed, or has rights to variable returns from its involvement with the invested and has the ability to affect those returns through its power over the invested.

It was noted by the working group that these legislation and accounting standards define the group in reference to ownership and control. However, it also noted by the working group that corporate group is defined in this legislation and standards in a specific context, which may not always be applicable in the context of insolvency of group companies.

International frame dealing with the insolvency of companies in a corporate group also define ‘Corporate Group’

• In the Art 2(13) of the regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (“EU Regulations”) that came into force in 2017 defines a group of companies to mean “a parent undertaking and all its subsidiary undertaking”.
• A Group is defined in the Insolvenzodnung in Germany (“German Legislation”) as legally independent enterprises that have the center of their main interests on domestic territory and are directly or indirectly affiliated with one another due to (i) the ability to exercise a controlling influence or (ii) consolidation under common management. This is applicable to partnership as well as companies. Whereas, the United States Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure make these framework applicable to “affiliated companies”.
• Part (III) of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law on Treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency’ (“UNCITRAL Guide”) defines an enterprise group as “two or more enterprises that are interconnected by control or significant ownership”, with control being “the capacity to determine, directly or indirectly, the operating and financial policies of an enterprise”. It is relevant to note that this definition takes into account horizontal integration between companies (which occurs when there is cross-ownership) as well as vertical integration (which occurs when there are layers of parents and subsidiaries).

While defining the Corporate Group for the purpose of this framework including extent of control, operational and financial dependency, ownership, common-brand or co-owning of intellectual property rights the Working Group has discussed various factors.

In the view of the Working Group, the corporate Group should be defined so that stakeholders can assess ex ante if any elements of this framework could be applicable to them, without attracting litigation to determine the applicability of the frame in the first place. This will have ex-ante benefits and avoid litigation which would add time and costs to the insolvency resolution of companies to whom the applicability of this framework is being assessed. It is recommended by the Working Group that a definition of the group should be provided, so that a case-by-case analysis need not be made to assess the applicability of the framework. And for the purpose of defining ‘Corporate Group’ for this framework, the Working Group noted that the definition should cover those companies that have interlinkages that raise the special issues in the insolvency of companies in a corporate group. These interlinkages can occur in horizontally as well as vertically integrated groups.

On analyzing the domestic and international definitions of the Corporate Groups, it seems that factors of control and ownership are common across definitions and these factors are likely to account for the horizontal and vertical interlinkages. The working Group is of the view that these factors are best reflected in the definitions of Holding, subsidiary, and associate Companies in the companies Act, 2013. Together these take into account both horizontal and vertical integrations between group companies. The Working group further believed that relying on the definitions in the companies Act 2013 which is the statue governing companies in the country will provide certainty and clarity to all the stakeholders. The working Group recommended that this framework should be made applicable to a ‘Corporate Group’ that is defined to include holding, subsidiary, and associate companies.

The working Group further recommended that an application can be made to the Adjudicating Authority to include companies that are so intrinsically linked as to form part of a ‘Group’ in commercial understanding but are not covered by the definitions mentioned above as long as it can be demonstrated that this will result in maximization of value of the insolvent company without destroying the value of the company being included so that there is overall value maximization.

Hope that this article provided crux about the framework for tackling group insolvency.

Stay connected with MUDS for more updates.

The post ELEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE FRAME WORK FOR TACKLING GROUP INSOLVENCY appeared first on MUDS.

“Dreaming to own a home, people invested in real estate but many of the builders never delivered; promises were broken, dreams shattered!”- Kritika Chabbra (Market Analyst, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

Uneasy Relationship!

The last two decades have witnessed a tug of war between the homebuyers and the builders. The homebuyers, as allottees, relentlessly struggled against fraudulent, rogue developers, as they faced endless delays of their projects; causing financial burden and mental stress to them. 

Some of the builders duped the homebuyers’ big time and never completed the projects, thus, leaving them in a lurch. As the number of aggrieved homebuyers multiplied over the years, the number of people seeking effective relief also increased manifold.

Homebuyers get the Status of Financial Creditors!

The distressed home buyers had very few legal options as they were stuck with one-sided agreements, although some did approach Consumer Courts or regular Courts but these were a time taking procedures.

But a big win came up for them when the Supreme Court of India bestowed on them the status of Financial Creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, on August 9, 2019. This decision was hailed as a landmark judgment and many homebuyers took this route to seek relief.

Anurag Singh Thakur, minister of state for Corporate Affairs stated in the Parliament, “A total 1,821 cases have been filed by homebuyers against builders under the Code.”

Short-Lived Happiness!

Within a few months, news started to trickle in that the real estate developers were very upset with this development and they alleged that the homebuyers were misusing the law. Citing that these tactics were leading to a delay in project completion, the developers started to demand an amendment so that single homebuyers are blocked from approaching NCLT.

Thus, the happiness of homebuyers was very short-lived and even before they were able to get positive results by applying for insolvency of the developer, the IBC 2016 has been amended.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Amendment Bill (IBC), 2019, threw a spanner in the homebuyers march towards long-awaited justice as Section 3 of the said amendment has added new provisions to Section 7 of the IBC.

It states, “Provided further that for financial creditors who are allottees under a real estate project, an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of such allottees under the same real estate project or not less than ten percent. of the total number of such allottees under the same real estate project, whichever is less.”

“This amendment has undoubtedly turned the wheels in favor of the Real Estate Developers!” — Isha Malik (Company Secretary, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

Reaction to the Latest Amendment!

As was expected, the homebuyers were highly disappointed by such an amendment which states that a minimum threshold of 100 or 10 percent home buyers, whichever is lower, is required to take a defaulting developer to the NCLT for starting the liquidation process.

On the other hand, the real estate developers and builders who were asking for such an amendment, have obviously welcomed the move.

Echoing the sentiments of homebuyers’ anguish against such a discriminatory law, Piyush Singh, Partner, PSP Legal, a Delhi-based law firm, states, “Bringing a threshold just for homebuyers is arbitrary while there is no threshold for any other financial or operational creditors. Even a single financial or operational creditor (other than homebuyer) can file an application against the company with NCLT for starting of the liquidation process.”

Plea in Apex Court!

As a last resort, homebuyers moved Supreme Court and several writ petitions have been filed on behalf of homebuyers.

There are several points that have been brought out in these writ petitions against the discriminatory nature of this amendment. One of the petitions states“…Real Estate Allottees who are Financial Creditors under Section 5(8) of the IBC have been rendered remediless and have been subjected to absolute discrimination by putting a precondition/threshold in the form of the minimum number of Allottees of a particular project required for filing an application for triggering the code under Section 7 of the IBC, which is not applicable to other financial creditors under IBC.”

Furthering its stand to reveal and expose the bias that this amendment creates, the same writ petition states, “Because the Ordinance runs in complete contradiction to IBC and imposing such a precondition on the filing of the application under Section 7 of the IBC is completely against the objective of the IBC, as the pre-condition for any financial creditor to approach the adjudicating authority is quantum of the debt and not the number of financial creditors.”

Aditya  Parolia of PSP Legal, who has filed a writ petition on behalf of 11 buyers from across projects, is perplexed and astounded by the complexity of this law and feels it would erode the right of the homebuyers. He says, “The condition imposed on the buyers to file a petition under IBC is highly arbitrary. How can homebuyers be expected to put together this number and then approach the court? There are thousands of cases pending against the builders in NCLTs across the country which in the light of this Ordinance will be automatically dismissed.”

Points of Dissent!

The multiple writ petitions have objected to the Amendment and its specifications on many fronts. Some of the major grievances against it are:

1. The Ordinance is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 as it denies them accessing their Fundamental Rights.  
2. It amounts to the creation of a “class within a class” which is “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary”.
3. The Ordinance will adversely affect allottees as it has been given retrospective effect. 
4. Allottees will not only lose their money but home and the right to move NCLT too.
5. In addition to these, there are practical issues that will come in the way of homebuyers who wish to pursue insolvency against their real estate developers.

Piyush Singh, Partner, PSP Legal, a Delhi based law firm, argues against the amendment’s impracticability and points out, “Most of the applications filed with NCLT are filed in cases of under-construction projects and there is no mechanism through which a homebuyer who is willing to file an application under Section 7, to get the insolvency proceedings started against the defaulting developer, can contact other homebuyers.”

A Temporary Relief!

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Ravindra Bhat issued notice to the government of India on petitions filed by homebuyers against the latest amendment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). This amendment has introduced a minimum threshold for filing an application with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against a defaulting developer. 

Further, taking cognizance of the homebuyers’ petitions pending in NCLTs, the Bench has ordered status quo on the matter.

Talking about the partial relief granted by the Apex Court Aditya Parolia of PSP Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, one of the representatives of petitioners, analyses this and says, “This basically means that the NCLT will have to maintain status quo with respect to the applications already filed by homebuyers and investors against defaulting developers.”

This is an interim relief and the Supreme Court will be scrutinizing the legality and constitutional validity of this amendment based on the facts presented by both: the government and the homebuyers!

Quote

Optimistic Expectations!

The words of Abhay Upadhyay, president, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts, a Kolkata-based consumer body, very aptly sums up the expectations of all the aggrieved Homebuyers.

Abhay says, “The amendment that has been brought by the central government despite our objections is definitely unfair for the homebuyers. Now that the matter has moved to the Supreme Court, we hope that the Supreme Court will take cognizance of this issue and will give appropriate directions to the central government,”

Read More: Loan Recovery Agents in India

Way Forward!

As the matter is now in the Apex Court, the homebuyers are hopeful of a favorable judgment as they feel they have a strong case against this amendment.

For the time being the status quo by the Supreme Court is being looked upon as a relief for those homebuyers who have their insolvency applications pending in the NCLT.

Which way things will go will depend on the facts and arguments presented by both sides and also how the Bench perceives it.

If the Court is convinced of the fundamental flaws, as being pointed out by the homebuyers’ multiple petitions, then obviously the order will come in favor of the aggrieved homebuyers.

The point of concern still is in favor of the homebuyers, who have lost money, mental peace, and facing the extra burden of home loan repayments.

What is needed in this hour of crisis is that the real estate developers understand their responsibility and deliver as they have promised.

A fair deal is what the homebuyers are demanding, and if that is delivered, then there is no need for them to approach NCLT or any other legal recourse!

“In this ‘wait and watch’ situation all reasonable stakeholders are hopeful that the Supreme Court will take note of the blatant discrimination against the homebuyers and rectify it!”
-Shweta Gupta, Founder and CEO, MUDS

The post Homebuyers file plea in Supreme Court challenging IBC’s latest Amendment appeared first on MUDS.

In its objective to usher ineffective economic reforms, the government passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). This was hailed as a positive step by all stakeholders as it shifted the focus from ‘debtor in possession’ to the much needed ‘creditor in control’ when dealing with debts, defaults and financial failures of Corporates.

IBC 2016 is a comprehensive Act that has helped in doing away with all overlapping regulations that were put to practice previously, like Sick Industrial Companies, 1985 and the Companies Act, 2013, etc. The implementation of the IBC Code has established a robust market mechanism leading to timely and time-bound resolution of corporates in distress.

In its short journey of 3 years, IBC 2016 has turned out to be on the right track as it has churned out the recovery of Rs 70,000 crore in the current fiscal year, thus, leaving a remarkable impact on the corporate ecosystem.

Dire need for Group Insolvency regulations!

There is no doubt that IBC 2016 has provided a well founded platform that has smoothened corporate insolvency but in recent years a dire need has arisen to create a holistic group insolvency framework.

Market data by Credit Suisse brings to light that a considerable percentage of Indian businesses are designed as closely connected group organizations, but operate as a single economic unit. While these companies mostly function as a legal independent entity yet their interdependence exists in matters like common proprietors, common directors, common controls and shared assets, inter-corporate loans etc.

“The interlinkages of these individual units largely work well for the group as a whole but the real problem arises when some of them become insolvent.” Kritika Chabbra (Market Analyst, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

Right now IBC 2016 lacks a consolidated mechanism to deal with insolvency of associate or subsidiary companies of a group as one. There have been many instances where many companies of the same group have committed a default and eventually, had to be consolidated into one proceeding by the Courts and Adjudicating authorities.

The trigger points!

These are some companies which have given ample reason for the need of a holistic regulation as regards to insolvency of groups.

1. SBI v. Videocon: Recently, the adjudicating authority under the IBC, Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench pronounced order of consolidation of the liabilities and assets of 13 group entities of Videocon.

2. Edelweiss ARC v. Sachet Infrastructure: In this instance, the adjudicating authority has mandated that all the 5 companies, which were working as a consortium and promised to develop a residential plotted colony, shall be treated as one. The court has appointed a single Resolution Professional who will work on a common resolution plan for all the individual entities of this group.

3. Corporation Bank v. Amtek Auto Limited: In a similar instance, independent companies of Amtek group like Metalyst Forgings Limited, Castex Technologies Limited, ARGL Limited, all were clubbed together by the adjudicating authority.

Apart from these there are hundreds of groups of companies like Lanco, Amrapali, Jaypee, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited, etc. which are facing group insolvency.

Framing of Working Group on Group Insolvency

In order to overcome these flaws which caused immense practical problems, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India decided to take some concrete steps to streamline coordinated and synchronized group insolvency.

The first step in this direction by the Bankruptcy Board of India was to constitute a Working Group on Group Insolvency vide office order No. IBBI/CIRP/GI/2018-19/001 dated 17th January 2019.

This Working Group comprising of 11 eminent members working under the able guidance of the Chairmanship of former SEBI chief UK Sinha, submitted ‘Report of the Working Group on Group Insolvency’ on September 23, 2019. 

“The Working Group has presented a blue-print of the group insolvency framework that has been based on extensive consultations with all stakeholders and domain experts.”- Isha Malik (Company Secretary, MUDS Management Pvt. Ltd.)

Salient Points of Working Group on Group Insolvency

In the letter presented along with the submission of the Report presented by the Working Group, UK Sinha, the Chairman of the group stated, “The thrust of the framework is ‘facilitation’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘choice’. It envisages an enabling group insolvency framework, to be implemented in a phased manner. The first phase may facilitate procedural coordination of only companies in domestic groups. Cross-border group insolvency and substantive consolidation could be considered at a later stage, depending on the experience of implementing the earlier phases of the framework, and the felt need at the relevant time.”

The key recommendation of the Working Group touches on all important aspects of insolvency and liquidation of a corporate group.

1)  Identifying the Group: The Working Group has proposed identification of ‘Group’ based on three factors:

1. Firstly, it is important to establish the mutual relationship shared by the companies; identifying them as per the Companies Act, 2013 whether the company is a holding, subsidiary or associate company of a group.
2. Secondly, the company should fall under the category of fulfillment of commencement standard, i.e., it must have committed a ‘default’ as defined under section 3(12) of the IBC Code, 2016. This is a mandatory clause as the Working Group has recommended only insolvent companies to be taken into consideration for the purpose of group insolvency 
3. Thirdly, it is essential to establish that the company in question is a domestic company as groups having overseas ventures are not included in the first phase of the recommendations of the Working Group.

Thus, the Working Group’s recommendation lays stress on two basic ingredients:

• Ownership
• Control

2) Scope of Grouping: WG has set down three rules that will guide the group insolvency mechanism.

(i) Procedural Coordination Mechanisms (PCM):  A set of rules that will work towards coordinating the ‘procedures’ of insolvency but at the same time keeping the assets of each group company separate.

(ii) Substantive Consolidation Mechanism (SCM):  This refers to consolidation of assets and liabilities of different group companies for the purpose of reorganization or distribution in liquidation, in case of being treated as a part of a single insolvency estate.

(iii) Rules dealing with perverse behavior of Companies: This lays down rules for corporate groups, enabling the creation of mechanisms to recapture assets subject to prejudicial transactions between group members, additionally impose liability on group companies for each other’s debts, etc.

The Working Group has recommended the implementation of PCM in the first phase.

3) Mechanism involving Grouping: Elaborating on the procedural coordination mechanisms, WG recommends that there should be flexibility in applying these mechanisms and should not be initiated in those cases where they don’t help maximise value of assets or lower costs of proceedings.

Further, it recommends that in the cases where it is implemented the Insolvency Professionals, CoCs and Adjudicating Authorities should cooperate, communicate and share information with each other, ensuring benefits like:

• Reducing the time taken in proceedings,
• Lowering costs by not duplicating efforts to collect information, and
• Promoting information symmetry.

Thus, these steps need to be followed for Group insolvency:

1. Joint Application: By making a joint application, the applicants shall be saving on the expenses of multiple applications.
2. Common Adjudicating Authority (AA): Continuing with its efforts to save time, money and efforts, the Working Group recommends one Adjudicating Authority. This can be taken up by the AA who has admitted the first application to commence the CIRP of any company in a group.
3. Common Insolvency Professional: Going ahead in the same direction, the Working Group recommends that the adjudicating authority should appoint a single insolvency professional for group insolvency.
4. Group Committee of Creditors: Working Group states that formation of group creditors’ committee will undoubtedly result in a coordinated negotiation yet, the decision must be left at the discretion of Committee of Creditors of each company.

4) Framework Agreement: The Working Group recommends a Framework Agreement for the group coordination proceedings and it shall have approval of the CoC of each participating company.

The Framework Agreement should include:

• Group Coordinator
• Opt-Out Option
• Common Resolution Plan
• Adjudicating Authority
• In case of liquidation

5) Timeframe: The Working Group has recommended that the entire resolution process shall not exceed 420 days; this is inclusive of additional extension of period up to 90 days.

Conclusion

This move, undoubtedly, will channelize the intricacies of Group Insolvency and assist the Bankruptcy Board to tackle Group Insolvency effectively and efficiently. When the recommendations of the report submitted shall be adopted and implemented, it will ensure immense benefits for all stakeholders: saving time, money and efforts.

The Working Group has recommended the implementation of group insolvency in a phased manner; this will help in understanding and decoding the various aspects better. With time the gaps or flaws will be evident and then they can be worked upon to streamline the entire process. A cautious yet progressive approach, as suggested by the Working Group, will help the Bankruptcy Board in framing an effective regulation for Group Insolvency.

“The necessity of a synchronized and coordinated regulation for Group Insolvency has been felt essential at numerous times by different agencies, and thus, framing concrete rules for a smooth resolution is a very welcome move.”
-Shweta Gupta, Founder and CEO, MUDS

The post Bankruptcy Board Set to Tackle Group Insolvency appeared first on MUDS.