Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Navigating cross-border insolvency
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Cross-border insolvency cases;
Why in the News?
It is essential to incorporate the significance of insolvency laws into global trade discussions through both multilateral and bilateral channels.
What are the key challenges in managing cross-border insolvency cases?
- Jurisdictional Conflicts: Difficulty in determining which country’s courts have jurisdiction over insolvency proceedings, especially when a company has assets and creditors in multiple countries.
- Recognition of Foreign Proceedings: Some countries may not recognize foreign insolvency proceedings, leading to inconsistent outcomes.
- Coordination Issues: Lack of cooperation between courts and administrators in different countries can complicate the resolution of cross-border insolvency cases.
- Legal and Cultural Differences: Variations in legal systems, insolvency laws, and business practices across countries make harmonization challenging.
- Enforcement of Judgments: Difficulty in enforcing insolvency-related judgments or agreements across different jurisdictions.
How does the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) address cross-border insolvency in India?
- Limited Provisions: The IBC, 2016, has provisions for handling cross-border insolvency on a case-by-case basis through bilateral agreements, but it lacks a comprehensive framework.
- Bilateral Arrangements: India’s approach currently relies on ad hoc bilateral agreements to manage cross-border insolvency cases, making the process fragmented and less efficient.
- No Adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law: Despite several recommendations by committees, India has yet to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which would provide a more standardized and efficient resolution mechanism.
What international frameworks exist to facilitate cross-border insolvency resolutions?
- UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997): A widely recognized framework designed to facilitate cooperation between courts and administrators in different countries.
- It operates on four pillars: access, recognition, cooperation, and coordination. It has been adopted by over 60 countries.
- EU Insolvency Regulation: Provides a framework for handling insolvency within EU member states, facilitating the recognition of insolvency proceedings across borders within the EU.
- NAFTA/US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA): Includes provisions for resolving insolvencies with cross-border implications between member countries.
- Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Agreements: Some international agreements include limited provisions on cross-border insolvency, though most focus on general trade and dispute resolution, leaving a gap in addressing insolvency directly.
Way forward:
- Adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law: India should expedite the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to establish a standardized framework, improving cooperation, recognition, and legal certainty in international insolvency cases.
- Integrate Cross-Border Insolvency in Trade Agreements: India should incorporate cross-border insolvency provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPAs) to ensure seamless insolvency resolution in international trade.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Proposed Amendments to Insolvency Resolution Process by IBBI
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBBI, IBC
- Why in the News?
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has proposed amendments to the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Process regulations to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and increase transparency.
- This aims to align with the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules and streamline the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Do You Know?Since its enactment, the IBBI has achieved notable successes in resolving insolvency cases and recovering debts:
|
Proposed amendments by IBBI
- Simplified Valuation: Instead of separate reports for different types of assets, there will be one comprehensive valuation report covering the entire company. This helps in keeping valuation consistent and clear.
- Single Valuer for Small Companies: For smaller companies with assets up to ₹1,000 crore and MSMEs, only one valuer will be appointed to determine the company’s value unless there’s a good reason for more than one.
- Option for Two Valuers: If needed, the creditors’ committee can choose to have two valuers to deal with complex cases, but they have to explain why.
- Faster Appointment of Representatives: Representatives appointed to represent creditors can start participating in meetings as soon as their application is submitted, to avoid delays.
- Guarantees in Resolution Plans: If a resolution plan suggests releasing guarantees, it won’t stop creditors from going after guarantors or using the guarantees according to their agreements.
About Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI)
Details | |
Establishment | Established on 1st October 2016 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.
|
Responsibility | Responsible for implementing and enforcing the IBC,
IBC consolidated laws related to insolvency resolution for individuals, partnership firms, and corporate entities. |
Functions |
|
Composition | Total 10 members
The term is 5 years or until age 65, with reappointment possible. |
Adjudicating Authorities under the IBC:
Under the IBC, two primary adjudicating authorities handle insolvency cases based on the nature of the entity:
- National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): NCLT adjudicates insolvency cases involving corporate entities and other limited liability entities.
- Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT): DRT has jurisdiction over insolvency cases concerning individuals and partnership firms, excluding Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs).
Recent Amendments to the IBC:
- Approval for segregated sale of assets or resolution plans.
- Increase in the number of NCLT benches to 16 for faster adjudication.
- Extension of timelines for filing claims to accommodate procedural complexities.
- Sector-specific amendments tailored to address unique challenges in various industries.
- Modifications in procedural forms such as Form G2 to enhance clarity and efficiency in insolvency proceedings.
PYQ:[2017] Which of the following statements best describes the term ‘Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A)’, recently seen in the news? (a) It is a procedure for considering the ecological costs of developmental schemes formulated by the Government. (b) It is a scheme of RBI for reworking the financial structure of big corporate entities facing genuine difficulties. (c) It is a disinvestment plan of the Government regarding Central Public Sector Undertakings. (d) It is an important provision in ‘The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’ recently implemented by the Government. |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
In international law, government cannot override Parliament
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: na
Mains level: constitutional principles in the execution of international obligations
Central idea
Tax treaties or protocols signed by the executive to alter or vary the provisions of the IT Act must withstand the rigours of the constitutional and statutory requirements
Key Highlights:
- Landmark Decision: The Supreme Court’s decision in Assessing Officer (International Tax) vs Nestle SA is a landmark ruling reaffirming the constitutional principle that international obligations assumed by the executive require specific legislative conditions for legal effect.
- Constitutional Framework: The judgment delves into the interplay between domestic law and international law within India’s constitutional framework, emphasizing the need for parliamentary approval when international obligations conflict with domestically enacted laws.
- Article 73 and Article 253: The powers of the Union executive, as per Article 73, are co-terminus with those of Parliament, allowing the executive to assume international obligations without legislation. However, Article 253 emphasizes the dualism between international law and municipal law, requiring a domestic legislative process for conflicting obligations.
- Delegated Powers: Parliament can delegate treaty-making powers to the executive, exemplified by tax treaties under section 90 of the Income Tax (IT) Act. The court clarifies that assuming international obligations and enforcing them domestically are distinct processes.
- Section 90 of IT Act: The judgment interprets section 90, titled “Agreement with foreign countries or specified territories,” emphasizing the necessity of a notification for the implementation of agreements related to the avoidance of double taxation.
- MFN Clauses: Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clauses, aimed at altering taxation provisions, must be notified for incorporation into domestic tax law. Failure to do so would create uncertainty in the tax system, with no constitutional or statutory backing for unnotified application.
- Chaos and Uncertainty: Unnotified application of MFN clauses could lead to chaos and uncertainty, with taxpayers and assessing officers interpreting and applying the clauses based on individual understanding, lacking legal foundation.
- Scope of Judgment: The judgment’s scope is limited to the need for a notification for the implementation of MFN clauses, and questions related to diplomatic accountability or the executive’s capacity to prolong the performance of international obligations were not addressed.
- Importance of Constitutional Principles: The Supreme Court’s decision is applauded for upholding democratic principles, ensuring that international obligations assumed by the executive align with constitutional and statutory requirements.
Challenges:
- Future Events Contingency: The activation of MFN clauses contingent upon future events poses challenges in their timely application and raises questions about the executive’s diplomatic accountability.
Key Phrases:
- Dualism of Legal Systems: The constitutional framework recognizes international law and municipal law as separate and distinct legal systems.
- Domestic Legislative Processes: International obligations conflicting with domestic laws must undergo legislative processes for enforceability in courts.
- Separation of Powers: The judgment underscores the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers in judicially incorporating international obligations into domestic law.
Critical Analysis:
The court’s decision provides a robust interpretation of constitutional principles, ensuring that assumed international obligations align with domestic legal processes. The focus on the necessity of notifications for the implementation of MFN clauses reflects the court’s commitment to maintaining clarity and avoiding chaos in the tax system.
Key Examples and References:
- Article 73 and 253 of the Constitution: The judgment extensively refers to constitutional provisions such as Article 73 and Article 253 to establish the legal framework.
Way Forward:
- Legislative Precision: Policymakers should ensure precision in legislative processes, especially concerning the implementation of international obligations, to avoid legal ambiguities.
- Clarity in Notification: The executive should prioritize clarity in notifications, particularly when activating clauses contingent upon future events, to prevent interpretational challenges.
- Review of Existing Treaties: Periodic reviews of existing tax treaties to ensure they align with constitutional and statutory requirements and to address any potential issues related to conflicting obligations.
- Enhanced Diplomatic Engagement: Diplomatic efforts should focus on ensuring that assumed international obligations are seamlessly integrated into domestic legal frameworks to uphold constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a guide for maintaining the sanctity of constitutional principles in the execution of international obligations, particularly in the context of tax treaties.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC)
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Mains level: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, shortcomings and proposals to address the gaps
Context
- The introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in 2016 brought about a structural change in the resolution architecture in the country. However, despite its promise, the IBC, in its functioning, has fallen short of expectations. Last week, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs invited comments on a fresh set of changes it is considering to bring about in the Code. This is a welcome step.
Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers
What is Insolvency?
- Simply speaking, insolvency is a financial state of being one that is reached when you are unable to pay off your debts on time.
- Insolvency is essentially the state of being that prompts one to file for bankruptcy. An entity a person, family, or company becomes insolvent when it cannot pay its lenders back on time.
What is Bankruptcy?
- Bankruptcy, on the other hand, is a legal process that serves the purpose of resolving the issue of insolvency.
- Bankruptcy is a legal declaration of one’s inability to pay off debts. When one files for bankruptcy, one obliges to pay off what is owed with help from the government.
What is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC)?
- The IBC was enacted in 2016 to simplify insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, safeguard interests of all stakeholders (the firm, employees, debtors and especially creditors), and resolve non-performing assets.
- From a ‘debtor in possession’ regime, it was a shift to a ‘creditor in control’ one.
- IBC provides for a time-bound process for resolving insolvencies.
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) is the regulator implementing the code and overseeing the functioning of stakeholders.
Why the IBC introduced?
- Increasing Non-Performing Assets: In 2016, at a time when India’s Non-Performing Assets and debt defaults were piling up, and older loan recovery mechanisms were performing badly, the IBC was introduced to overhaul the corporate distress resolution regime in India.
- Time bound mechanism: To consolidate previously available laws to create a time bound mechanism with a creditor in control model as opposed to the debtor in possession system.
- Two positive outcomes: When insolvency is triggered under the IBC, there can be just two outcomes: resolution or liquidation. liquidation means the process of winding up a corporation or incorporated entity
What are the shortcomings in the code’s functioning?
- Timelines are not followed: Realizations of creditors have been lower than expectations, and the strict timelines prescribed in the Code for resolving cases have not been adhered to.
- Less realizable value: According to the most recent data, the total realisable value in cases resolved till September 2022 stood at only 30.8 per cent of the admitted claims.
- Average time is rising: The data also shows that 64 per cent of the ongoing cases have crossed 270 days. In fact, as per reports, the average time taken for cases to be resolved has risen, driven in part by more time being spent on associated litigation.
Proposals to address the shortcomings
- Removing ambiguity and bringing the predictability: The changes aim to reduce the time for admitting cases and streamline the process by pushing for greater reliance on data with Information Utilities. Considering the delays in admitting cases, and the implications of recent judicial interventions, this proposal seeks to remove ambiguity, and bring about predictability in the process.
- Extending the pre-packed resolution to other firms: It has also been proposed that the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process that was introduced for micro, small and medium enterprises now be extended to other firms as well. While such a proposal should be appealing, so far very few cases have been admitted under this.
- A clear distinction between the real estate projects: A distinction is now being made between a particular real estate project and the larger corporate entity. The government’s rationale for doing so is that this could allow the corporate entity to continue on other projects, while the stressed project can be tackled separately.
- Changes to the manner in which proceeds will be distributed: Creditors will receive proceeds up to the liquidation value in line with the priority as prescribed under section 53 of the Code, and any surplus over such liquidation value will be rateably distributed between all creditors in the ratio of their unsatisfied claims.
Conclusion
- Attempts to improve IBC’s functioning are welcome. But some of the proposals need more careful examination. Changes to the Code should, after all, be driven by the objective of improving its functioning, and outcomes. This should be done keeping in mind the incentive structures of all stakeholders.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Pre-Pack IBC resolution
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Pre-Packs, IBC
Mains level: Not Much
India introduced the pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (PPIRP) in April 2021, as an alternative resolution process for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). However, it has only two cases admitted under it so far.
What is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)?
- The IBC was enacted in 2016 to simplify insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, safeguard interests of all stakeholders (the firm, employees, debtors and especially creditors), and resolve non-performing assets.
- From a ‘debtor in possession’ regime, it was a shift to a ‘creditor in control’ one.
- IBC provides for a time-bound process for resolving insolvencies.
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) is the regulator implementing the code and overseeing the functioning of stakeholders.
- The IBBI last week allowed payment of performance-linked incentives to resolution professionals.
What are Pre-packs?
- A pre-pack is the resolution of the debt of a distressed company through an agreement between secured creditors and investors instead of a public bidding process.
- This system of insolvency proceedings has become an increasingly popular mechanism for insolvency resolution in the UK and Europe over the past decade.
- Under the pre-pack system, financial creditors will agree to terms with a potential investor and seek approval of the resolution plan from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
- The approval of a minimum of 66 percent of financial creditors that are unrelated to the corporate debtor would be required before a resolution plan is submitted to the NCLT.
- Further NCLTs are also required to either accept or reject any application for a pre-pack insolvency proceeding before considering a petition for a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
How does it work?
- Unlike the CIRP, an informal understanding is reached with creditors before the application is filed.
- PPIRP begins only after 66% of financial creditors approve the proposal and the name of resolution professional.
- Debt resolution agreement between financial creditor and a potential investor is arrived at in consultation with the corporate debtor for which subsequent approval of the resolution plan is sought from the NCLT.
What were the objectives behind introducing PPIRP?
- MSMEs greatly contribute to the economy, and employ a wide section of the population.
- The pandemic severely impacted their operations.
- This alternative insolvency resolution process was designed to ensure quicker, cost-effective and value-maximizing outcomes for all.
What is the progress in PPIRP so far?
- Only two insolvency cases have been initiated under PPIRP since it was introduced.
- The poor response has been attributed to the hesitancy on the part of financial institutions.
- In the case of CIRP, the haircut involved is a last resort, against a voluntary one in case of PPIRP.
- Data shows that between December 2016 and June 2022, a total of 5,636 CIRPs commenced, of which 3,637 have been closed.
Does PPIRP defeat the purpose of IBC?
- The IBC’s objective is to facilitate exit from failed units so that capital can be reallocated to better ones.
- However, banks are not comfortable initiating PPIRP due to voluntary haircuts.
- There is a fear that such a decision might be scrutinized later.
- This means capital will remain locked up in failed units, defeating the purpose of IBC.
- Voluntary haircuts mean fewer resources from the winding-up process and greater scope for corrupt practices.
UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Recent Supreme Court judgment on IBC may weaken insolvency regime
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC
Mains level: Paper 3- Point of trigger for insolvency
Context
In the recent judgement the Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot admit an insolvency application filed by a financial creditor merely because a financial debt exists and the corporate debtor has defaulted in its repayment.
Why the point of trigger is important in insolvency law
- A critical element for any corporate insolvency law is the point of trigger.
- The law must clearly provide the grounds on which an insolvency application against a corporate debtor should be admitted.
- If there is any confusion at this stage, precious time could be wasted in litigation.
- That would cause value destruction of the distressed business.
- On the other hand, if the law is clear and litigation can be minimised, the distressed business could be resolved faster.
- Its value could be preserved.
- And all stakeholders collectively would benefit.
- Evidently, objective legal criteria for admission are critical for an effective corporate insolvency law.
Determining insolvency and implications of the SC ruling
- The balance-sheet test is one method for determining insolvency at the point of trigger.
- This test, however, is vulnerable to the quality of accounting standards.
- That’s why the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee did not favour this test in the Indian context.
- Instead, it recommended that a filing creditor must only provide a record of the liability (debt), and evidence of default on payments by the corporate debtor.
- This twin-test was expected to provide a clear and objective trigger for insolvency resolution.
- The Supreme Court’s latest ruling is likely to radically alter these expectations.
Implications of the Supreme Court ruling
- Resisting the admission by debtor: Now due to the Supreme Court ruling, even if the NCLT is satisfied that a financial debt exists and that the corporate debtor has defaulted, it may not admit the case for resolution if the corporate debtor resists admission on any other grounds.
- Corporate debtors are likely to use this precedent to the fullest to resist admission into IBC.
- Risk of value destruction due to delay: The likely outcome would be more litigation and delay at the admission stage, enhancing the risks of value destruction in the underlying distressed business.
Conclusion
In all fairness, the Supreme Court has been extremely pragmatic in its interpretation and application of the IBC. Even in the recent ruling, the court has rightly cautioned that the NCLT should not exercise its discretionary power in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Yet, this decision may have opened a Pandora’s box. Policymakers would be well-advised to take note before history starts repeating itself.
UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Effective and Efficient: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: BIFR
Mains level: Paper 3- Performance of IBC
Context
The performance of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been under intense scrutiny.
Basis for the criticism of IBC
- The Code has been mainly criticised on three counts:
- 1] Delay in resolution: There are inordinate delays in the resolution procedure.
- 2] Liquidation: There have been more liquidations than resolutions.
- 3] Low recovery amount: The recovery amounts under IBC are not substantial, making it more of a talking point than an effective structural reform.
Is the criticism about the delay justified?
- Assessing IBC based only on the average time taken to resolve successful cases does a substantial disservice to how much more efficient the IBC is compared to the previous regimes.
- It is calculated by taking a simple average of time taken on each completed case.
- This is one of the metrics used by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to compare the IBC regime with the earlier Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) regime.
- However, the performance of a bankruptcy resolution should ideally be evaluated along at least three dimensions:
- The average time taken to resolve a case, the fraction of cases resolved within a given timeframe, and the recovery rate conditional on resolution.
- Focusing on any single parameter may result in a gross under (over) estimation of the IBC’s (BIFR’s) performance.
- By examining the fraction of cases that are resolved within a specific timeframe, we see that for any fraction of the total cases resolved under each scheme, the IBC took considerably less time than BIFR.
- Total number of cases solved: Since its inception in 1987, the BIFR has resolved less than 3,500 cases while the IBC, since it was launched in 2016, resolved about 1,178 cases until it was suspended at the onset of the COVID pandemic.
- Most analyses of IBC’s performance overlook the important fact that many of the legacy BIFR cases were subsumed by IBC, and these were often zombie firms that were kept alive due to massive evergreening of loans between 2008-2015.
Conclusion
The bottom line is straightforward: The IBC has significantly outperformed the earlier BIFR regime in terms of the speed of resolution.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
What is UNCITRAL Model for Cross-Border Insolvency?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC, UNCITRAL
Mains level: Resolving cross-border insolvency
The Economic Survey 2021-22 has called for a standardized framework for cross-border insolvency as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) at present does not have an instrument to restructure firms involving cross-border jurisdictions.
What is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)?
- The IBC, 2016 is the bankruptcy law of India that seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy.
- It is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which previously was a long process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement.
- The code aims to protect the interests of small investors and make the process of doing business less cumbersome.
Cross-border insolvency proceedings
- Cross-border insolvency proceedings are relevant for the resolution of distressed companies with assets and liabilities across multiple jurisdictions.
- A framework for cross border insolvency proceedings allows for:
- Location of such a company’s foreign assets
- Identification of creditors and their claims
- Establishing payment towards claims and
- Process for coordination between courts in different countries
Current status of foreign stakeholders and courts in other jurisdictions under IBC
- Foreign creditors can make claims against a domestic company.
- However, the IBC currently does not allow for automatic recognition of any insolvency proceedings in other countries.
- Current provisions do not allow Indian courts to address the issue of foreign assets of a company being subjected to parallel insolvency proceedings in other jurisdictions.
What is the UNCITRAL Model?
- The UNCITRAL model is the most widely accepted legal framework to deal with cross-border insolvency issues.
- It has been adopted by 49 countries, including the UK, the US, South Africa, South Korea, and Singapore.
- It is designed to assist States in reforming and modernizing their laws on the arbitral procedure so as to take into account the particular features and needs of international commercial arbitration.
Key provisions
This law works on four main principles: access, recognition, cooperation and coordination:
- Direct access to foreign insolvency professionals and foreign creditors to participate in or commence domestic insolvency proceedings against a defaulting debtor.
- Recognition of foreign proceedings & provision of remedies.
- Cooperation between domestic and foreign courts & domestic and foreign insolvency practitioners.
- Coordination between two or more concurrent insolvency proceedings in different countries: The main proceeding is determined by the concept of Centre of Main Interest (COMI).
Implications for India
- The framework for cross-border insolvency adopted in India may like in the case of some other countries require reciprocity from any country which seeks to have its insolvency proceedings recognised by Indian courts.
- This would allow Indian proceedings for foreign corporate debtors to be recognised in foreign jurisdictions.
How is IBC different from the model law?
- Many countries that adopt the UNCITRAL model law do make certain changes to suit their domestic requirements.
- The Indian cross-border insolvency framework excludes financial service providers from being subjected to cross-border insolvency proceedings.
- This is because many countries exempt businesses providing critical financial services, such as banks and insurance companies, from the provisions of cross-border insolvency frameworks.
Back2Basics: UNCITRAL
- It is an affiliate organization to the UN made up of business and legal professionals.
- This group develops model standards and procedures for dealing with issues affecting international business.
- Perhaps most notably, UNCITRAL promulgated the Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG).
- The CISG is a model law commonly used as the governing provisions in contracts between parties from different nations.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
UNCITRAL Model for Cross Border Insolvency
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: UNCITRAL, IBC
Mains level: Cross border insolvency proceedings
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has published a draft framework for cross-border insolvency proceedings based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) model under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
About Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
- The IBC, 2016 is the bankruptcy law of India that seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy.
- It is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which previously was a long process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement.
- The code aims to protect the interests of small investors and make the process of doing business less cumbersome.
Cross border insolvency proceedings
- Cross-border insolvency proceedings are relevant for the resolution of distressed companies with assets and liabilities across multiple jurisdictions.
- A framework for cross-border insolvency proceedings allows for the location of such a company’s foreign assets, the identification of creditors and their claims.
- This helps establishing payment towards claims as well as a process for coordination between courts in different countries.
Current status of foreign stakeholders and courts in other jurisdictions under IBC
- While foreign creditors can make claims against a domestic company, the IBC currently does not allow for automatic recognition of any insolvency proceedings in other countries.
- Current provisions under the IBC do not allow Indian courts to address the issue of foreign assets of a company being subjected to parallel insolvency proceedings in other jurisdictions.
The UNCITRAL model
- The UNCITRAL model is the most widely accepted legal framework to deal with cross-border insolvency issues.
- It has been adopted by 49 countries, including the UK, the US, South Africa, South Korea and Singapore.
- The law allows automatic recognition of foreign proceedings and rulings given by courts in cases where the foreign jurisdiction is adjudged.
- Recognition of foreign proceedings and reliefs is left to the discretion of domestic courts when foreign proceedings are non-main proceedings.
- The model law deals with four major principles of cross-border insolvency:
-
- Direct access to foreign insolvency professionals and foreign creditors to participate in or commence domestic insolvency proceedings against a defaulting debtor.
- Recognition of foreign proceedings & provision of remedies.
- Cooperation between domestic and foreign courts & domestic and foreign insolvency practitioners.
- Coordination between two or more concurrent insolvency proceedings in different countries. The main proceeding is determined by the concept of Centre of Main Interest (COMI).
- The COMI for a company is determined based on where the company conducts its business on a regular basis and the location of its registered office.
- It is designed to assist States in reforming and modernizing their laws on arbitral procedure so as to take into account the particular features and needs of international commercial arbitration.
-
Issues with Indian framework
- The framework for cross-border insolvency adopted in India may require reciprocity from any country which seeks to have its insolvency proceedings recognized by Indian courts.
- This would allow Indian proceedings for foreign corporate debtors to be recognized in foreign jurisdictions.
Back2Basics: UNCITRAL
- It is an affiliate organization to the UN made up of business and legal professionals.
- This group develops model standards and procedures for dealing with issues affecting international business.
- Perhaps most notably, UNCITRAL promulgated the Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG).
- The CISG is a model law commonly used as the governing provisions in contracts between parties from different nations.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Tackling the problem of bad loans
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: NARCL
Mains level: Paper 3- NARCL-challenges and opportunities
Context
The newly-created National Asset Reconstruction Company (NARCL) in the public sector offers hopes for the faster clean up of lenders’ balance sheets.
Features of National Asset Reconstruction Company (NARCL)
- The newly-minted ARC, NARCL is not a bank, but a specialised financial institution to help resolve the distressed assets of banks.
- Faster aggregation: Its greatest virtue lies in the faster aggregation of distressed assets that lie scattered across several lenders.
- Soverign assurance: Its securitised receipts (SRs) carry sovereign assurance.
- This is of particular comfort to PSU banks as price discovery would not be subject to later investigations.
- Focus on large accounts: It would initially focus on large accounts with debts over Rs 500 crore.
- IDRCL: All eyes will be focused on IDRCL (Indian Debt Resolution Company), the operating arm, which would be in the private sector.
Past policy measures to resolve the bad debts
- Institutional measures include BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, 1987), Lokadalat, DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal, 1993), CDR (Corporate Debt Restructure, 2001), SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement, 2002), ARC (Asset Recovery Company, 2002).
- The RBI has also launched a slew of measures during 2013-14 to resolve, reconstruct and restructure stressed assets.
Why the measures to resolve the bad debt failed?
- Of the 28 ARCs (private sector) in operation, many are bit players.
- Dominance of few ARC: The top five ARCs account for over 70 per cent of the asset under management (AUM) and nearly 65 per cent of the capital.
- Restructuring as an exception: Financial and business restructuring appears to be more an exception than the norm.
- Nearly one-third of debts are rescheduled.
- This is not much value addition to what lenders would have otherwise done at no additional cost.
- Success and shortcomings of IBC: The IBC, introduced in 2016, was landmark legislation and marked a welcome departure from the earlier measures, with a legally time-bound resolution.
- The focus is on resolution rather than recovery.
- It nearly put an end to evergreening.
- Even though there are delays under this newfound promise, they are counted in terms of days and not years and decades.
- The NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) is the backbone of the IBC, but lamentably is starved of infrastructure and over 50 per cent (34 out of 63) of NCLT benches were bereft of regular judges.
- Even the parliamentary committee has expressed indignation on a large number of positions left vacant.
- This lack of adequate infrastructure, coupled with the poor quality of its decisions, has proved to be the IBC’s Achilles’ heel.
- We need judicial reforms for early and final resolutions.
- Issue of delayed recognition and resolution: Forty-seven per cent of the cases referred to the IBC, representing over 1,349 cases, have been ordered for liquidation.
- Against the aggregate claims of the creditors of about Rs 6.9 lakh crore, the liquidation value was estimated at a paltry Rs 0.49 lakh crore.
Suggestions to make IBC more effective
- Delayed recognition and resolution: Lenders and regulators need to address the issue of delayed recognition and resolution.
- Business stress and/or financial stress needs to be recognised even prior to regulatory norms on NPA classification.
- Dealing with anchoring bias: The tendency to make decisions on the basis of first available information is called “anchoring bias”.
- The first available information in bidding for distressed assets is the cost of acquisition to ARCs.
- Potential bidders would quote prices nearer to this anchor.
- Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman has suggests a three-step process to mitigate anchor bias: One, acknowledge the bias; two, seek more and new sources of information, and three, drop your anchor on the basis of new information.
Way forward for NARC
- Forbid wilful defaulters from taking back distressed asset: The IBC has made considerable progress in bringing about behavioural change in errant and wilful defaulters by forbidding them to take back distressed assets.
- Otherwise, the credit culture suffers.
- The NARC should uphold this principle, not dilute it
- Introduce Sunset clause: It should have a sunset clause of three to five years.
- This will avoid the perpetuation of moral hazard and also encourage expeditious resolution.
- Deal with anchor bias: Anchor bias needs to be mitigated by better extrinsic value discovery.
- Avoid selling to other ARCs: It should avoid selling to other ARCs.
Conclusion
The RBI has recently released (November 2) a report on the working of ARCs and makes 42 recommendations to improve the performance of ARCs. This article incidentally makes an effort to identify some constraints and offer solutions to improve the performance of ARCs.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
EoDB at risk if issue of appointments to tribunals is not resolved
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: NCLAT, NCLT
Mains level: Read the attached story
While hearing a challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the government of India for vacancies not being filled on time. This could severely impact the ease of doing business in India, said the court.
Background
- The government has lauded the role of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), for improving India’s ranking on the “Ease of Doing Business” index over the last couple of years.
- However, the SC’s observation is spot-on as vacancies in the tribunals have slowed down insolvency resolution due to the huge pendency of cases.
- When the SC made its observations, the NCLT had only 30 members against a total strength of 63.
About NCLAT and NCLT
- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was constituted under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013 for hearing appeals against the orders of National Company Law Tribunal(s) (NCLT) in 2016.
- NCLAT is also the Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of appeals against any direction issued or decision made or order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
- It is also the Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of appeals against the orders of the National Financial Reporting Authority.
Difference between NCLT AND NCLAT
NCLT |
NCLAT |
· NCLT is established as per Section 408 of companies act, 2013 | · NCLAT is established as per Section 410 of companies act, 2013 |
· It holds primary jurisdiction on cases of insolvency and bankruptcy | · It holds appellate jurisdictions over the cases judged by NCLT |
· NCLT accepts and analyzes the evidence from creditors and debtors | · NCLAT accepts and analyzes the decision made by NCLT |
· NCLT collects facts and evidences | · NCLAT analyzes facts and evidences |
CJI’s reservations over Pendency
- The NCLAT had a sanctioned strength of a chairperson plus 11 members but its functioning strength was of eight members.
- Both the NCLT and NCLAT have been without chairpersons for several months respectively.
- These vacancies are concerning because as of May 31, 13,170 insolvency petitions were pending before benches of the NCLT.
- Of these, 2,785 petitions have been filed by financial creditors and 5,973 by operational creditors.
Note: The IBC created an institution called an information utility to be the repository of information on debts and defaults in India. The sole utility in India at present is the National E-Governance Services Ltd. (NeSL).
Basis of these cases
- The financial creditors are facing criticism for taking haircuts as high as 90 per cent against their claims.
- A longer approval period would entail greater value erosion of a corporate debtor which would be an unattractive proposition for any prospective resolution applicant.
- This uncertainty can be cured by a faster approval process by the NCLTs by the creation of more benches and filling up of current vacancies.
Why is the Supreme Court fuming over vacancies?
(a) Covid impact
- The Indian economy is recovering from the adverse effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- During the downturn, financial institutions and banks have suffered higher defaults than usual, impacting the robustness of the system.
- Lending has decreased during this time and can only be encouraged now by shoring up the mechanism under the IBC to inspire confidence in creditors.
(b) Non-compliance by the govt
- The SC had granted time to the government till September 13 to take substantial steps in this regard, which was partially complied with by appointing 18 members.
- The government, however, failed to avoid embarrassment as the CJI expressed his anger at the appointment process which had ignored candidates recommended by the selection committee.
(c) Burden of pendency
- There is a real risk of the court taking matters into its own hands by making appointments itself, or by taking harsher steps like transferring jurisdiction under the IBC to high courts.
- One hopes that the situation is resolved quickly to make strict time-bound insolvency resolutions a reality.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Government sets up ‘bad bank’ to clear the NPA mess
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Bad Banks
Mains level: Asset reconstruction initiaitives by the govt
Paving the way for a major clean-up of bad loans in the banking system, the Union Cabinet has cleared a ₹30,600-crore guarantee programme for securities to be issued by the newly incorporated ‘bad bank’ for taking over and resolving non-performing assets (NPAs) amounting to ₹2 lakh crore.
What is a Bad Bank?
- A bad bank conveys the impression that it will function as a bank but has bad assets to start with.
- Technically, it is an asset reconstruction company (ARC) or an asset management company that takes over the bad loans of commercial banks, manages them and finally recovers the money over a period of time.
- Such a bank is not involved in lending and taking deposits, but helps commercial banks clean up their balance sheets and resolve bad loans.
- The takeover of bad loans is normally below the book value of the loan and the bad bank tries to recover as much as possible subsequently.
Bad Banks to be established
- The NARCL-IDRCL structure is the new bad bank.
- The National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (NARCL) has already been incorporated under the Companies Act.
- It will acquire stressed assets worth about Rs 2 lakh crore from various commercial banks in different phases.
- Another entity — India Debt Resolution Company Ltd (IDRCL), which has also been set up — will then try to sell the stressed assets in the market.
How will the NARCL-IDRCL work?
- The NARCL will first purchase bad loans from banks.
- It will pay 15% of the agreed price in cash and the remaining 85% will be in the form of “Security Receipts”.
- When the assets are sold, with the help of IDRCL, , the commercial banks will be paid back the rest.
- If the bad bank is unable to sell the bad loan, or has to sell it at a loss, then the government guarantee will be invoked.
- The difference between what the commercial bank was supposed to get and what the bad bank was able to raise will be paid from the Rs 30,600 crore that has been provided by the government.
Will a bad bank resolve matters?
- From the perspective of a commercial bank saddled with high NPA levels, it will help.
- That’s because such a bank will get rid of all its toxic assets, which were eating up its profits, in one quick move.
- When the recovery money is paid back, it will further improve the bank’s position.
- Meanwhile, it can start lending again.
Why do we need a bad bank?
- The idea gained currency during Rajan’s tenure as RBI Governor.
- The RBI had then initiated an asset quality review (AQR) of banks and found that several banks had suppressed or hidden bad loans to show a healthy balance sheet.
- However, the idea remained on paper amid lack of consensus on the efficacy of such an institution.
- ARCs have not made any impact in resolving bad loans due to many procedural issues.
- While commercial banks resume lending, the so-called bad bank, or a bank of bad loans, would try to sell these “assets” in the market.
Good about the bad banks
- The problem of NPAs continues in the banking sector, especially among the weaker banks.
- The bad bank concept is in some ways similar to an ARC but is funded by the government initially, with banks and other investors co-investing in due course.
- The presence of the government is seen as a means to speed up the clean-up process.
- Many other countries had set up institutional mechanisms such as the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP) in the US to deal with a problem of stress in the financial system.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
New Code for Creditors (CoC) under IBC
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Code for Creditors (CoC)
Mains level: Various reforms under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
The insolvency regulator has called for public comments on a proposal to introduce a code of conduct for Committees of Creditors (CoC), of companies undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Before proceeding, try this PYQ first:
Q. Which of the following statements best describes the term ‘Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A)’, recently seen in the news? (CSP 2017)
(a) It is a procedure for considering the ecological costs of developmental schemes formulated by the Government.
(b) It is a scheme of RBI for reworking the financial structure of big corporate entities facing genuine difficulties.
(c) It is a disinvestment plan of the Government regarding Central Public Sector Undertakings.
(d) It is an important provision in ‘The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’ recently implemented by the Government.
Post your answers here.
About IBC
- The IBC, 2016 is the bankruptcy law of India that seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy.
- It is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which previously was a long process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement.
- The code aims to protect the interests of small investors and make the process of doing business less cumbersome.
Key features
Insolvency Resolution: The Code outlines separate insolvency resolution processes for individuals, companies, and partnership firms. The process may be initiated by either the debtor or the creditors. A maximum time limit, for completion of the insolvency resolution process, has been set for corporates and individuals.
- For companies, the process will have to be completed in 180 days, which may be extended by 90 days, if a majority of the creditors agree.
- For startups (other than partnership firms), small companies, and other companies (with assets less than Rs. 1 crore), the resolution process would be completed within 90 days of initiation of request which may be extended by 45 days.
Insolvency regulator: The Code establishes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, to oversee the insolvency proceedings in the country and regulate the entities registered under it. The Board will have 10 members, including representatives from the Ministries of Finance and Law, and the RBI.
Insolvency professionals: The insolvency process will be managed by licensed professionals. These professionals will also control the assets of the debtor during the insolvency process.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Adjudicator: The Code proposes two separate tribunals to oversee the process of insolvency resolution, for individuals and companies:
- National Company Law Tribunal: for Companies and Limited Liability Partnership firms; and
- Debt Recovery Tribunal: for individuals and partnerships
What is the recent development?
Ans. Code of conduct for Committees of Creditors (CoC)
- A CoC is to be composed of financial creditors to the Corporate Debtor (CD) — or operational creditors in the absence of unrelated financial creditors.
- Under the IBC, CoC is empowered to take key decisions, including decisions on haircuts for creditors, that are binding on all stakeholders, including those dissenting.
- The CoC is also empowered to seek and choose the best resolution plan for a corporate debtor from the market, and its role is vital for a timely and successful resolution for a CD.
- The IBBI noted that a code of conduct for CoCs would promote transparent and fair working on the part of CoCs.
What are the issues that the code of conduct is seeking to address?
- Several cases in which certain lenders have withdrawn funds from a CD undergoing insolvency proceeding and contributed to delays in the insolvency process.
- Delays in resolution are seen as contributing to the loss of value in corporate debtors and have become a key criticism of the IBC, with over 75 percent of proceedings having crossed the 270-day timeline.
- The IBBI highlighted cases in which representatives of lenders have had to seek approval from seniors for decisions such as an appointment of resolution professionals.
- IBBI has recommended that a code of conduct require that members of the CoC nominate representatives with sufficient authorization to participate in meetings and make decisions during the process.
- The regulator also highlighted cases where lenders have withdrawn funds from a corporate debtor during insolvency or liquidation proceedings.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Getting the perfect haircut from the IBC
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC 2016
Mains level: Paper 3- Right timing in the use of IBC matters
Understanding the role of IBC 2016
- For reasons sometimes a company may experience stress, that is, is unable to repay the debt in time — implying that it has assets less than claims against it.
- So, when a company has inadequate assets, the claim of an individual creditor may be consistent with its assets while claims of all creditors put together may not.
- In such a situation, creditors may rush to recover their claims before others do, triggering a run on the company’s assets.
- The IBC provides for reorganisation that prevents a value-reducing run on the company.
- It aims to rescue the company if its business is viable or close it if its business is unviable, through a market process.
- Restructuring: The claims of creditors are restructured, which may be paid to them immediately or over time.
- In case of closure, the assets of the company are sold, and proceeds are distributed to creditors immediately as per the priority rule.
- Reorganisation by financial creditor: The IBC entrusts the responsibility of reorganisation to financial creditors as they have the capability and the willingness to restructure their claims.
Why so much variation in haircut?
- Where the company does not have adequate assets, realisation for financial creditors, through a rescue, may fall short of their claims known as haircut.
- The IBC process yields a zero haircut (100% recovery of claimed amount) in one case and 100 per cent haircut (i.e. 0% recovery) in another.
- Factors: It depends on several factors, including the nature of business, business cycles, market sentiments, and marketing effort.
- It critically depends on at what stage of stress, the company enters the IBC process.
- If the company has been sick for years, and its assets have depleted significantly, the IBC process may yield a huge haircut or even liquidation.
- A haircut is typically the total claims minus the amount of realisation/amount of the claims.
- But this formulation may not tell the complete story.
- The realisation often does not include the amount that would be realised from equity holding post-resolution, and through the reversal of avoidance transactions and the insolvency resolution of guarantors — personal and corporate.
- It also does not include realisations made in other accounts.
- The amount of claim often includes NPA, which may be completely written off, and the interest on such NPA.
- These understate the numerator and overstate the denominator, projecting a higher haircut.
Significance of IBC
- A haircut should be seen in relation to the assets available and not in relation to the claims of creditors.
- The market offers a value in relation to what a company brings on the table, not what it owes to creditors.
- Value maximisation: So, the IBC maximises the value of existing assets, not of assets that probably existed earlier.
- Market determined value: The IBC enables and facilitates market forces to resolve stress as a going concern.
- Resolution applicants, who have many options for investment, including in stressed companies, compete to offer the best value.
- If the best value offered by the market is not acceptable to creditors, the company is liquidated.
- Maximum realisation: In addition to rescuing the company, the IBC realises, of the available options for creditors, the highest in percentage terms.
Conclusion
It is a tool in the hands of stakeholders to be used at the right time, in the right case, in the right manner.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Back2Basics: Avoidable Transactions in IBC 2016
- The UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Law of Insolvency defines avoidance proceedings as “provisions of the insolvency law that permit transactions for the transfer of assets or the undertaking of obligations prior to insolvency proceedings to be cancelled or otherwise rendered ineffective and any assets transferred, or their value, to be recovered in the collective interest of creditors.”
- It is very important for the Resolution Professional (RP) or the liquidator to identify such transaction and file applications to avoid it so that creditors can collect their claims.
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) contains four types of avoidable transactions- preferential, undervalued, defrauding creditors and extortionate transactions.
- Usually, the avoidable transactions should be made within the prescribed relevant time or look back period.
- Look back period is the relevant time up to which an RP or a liquidator can go back to scrutinize an expected avoidable transaction.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
First group insolvency proceeding points to larger weakness in IBC
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: CoC in IBC
Mains level: Paper 3- Issues with IBC
Context
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) stayed the approval granted by the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to the resolution plan for the Videocon Group.
Concerns with resolution plan
- Resolution plan submitted by Twinstar Technologies, provided for payment of Rs 2,962 crore — a mere 4.15 per cent of Videocon’s total admitted debt of Rs 64,838 crore.
- Payment of debt not in fair and equitable manner: Under the IBC (Section 30(2)(b)), the resolution plan must provide for payment of debts amongst creditors in a “fair and equitable” manner.
- However, in the plan submitted by Twinstar, unsecured assenting financial creditors and operational creditors are getting a paltry 0.62 per cent and 0.72 per cent of their admitted dues.
- Even the secured assenting and dissenting financial creditors had to settle for only 4.9 per cent and 4.56 per cent of their respective dues.
- Confidentiality obligation concerns: Twinstar’s bid of Rs 2,962 crore is close to the liquidation value of the Videocon Group estimated at Rs 2,568 crore, thereby raising legitimate suspicion and concern over the confidentiality of the resolution process.
- The I&B Regulations, 2016 state that the resolution professional must maintain the confidentiality of the fair market value and liquidation value of the corporate debtor and can only disclose the same to the CoC members after the resolutions plan have been submitted.
- Time delay: Status-quo ante has been restored until the next date of hearing by which time more than three years would have passed since the Videocon group was admitted into insolvency proceedings.
- This is way beyond the statutory timeline of 330 days.
Confidentiality rules need to be revised
- The CoC members must, on receipt of the information, issue an undertaking of confidentiality.
- But no such obligation falls on the resolution professional.
- Further, Section 29(2) of the code provides that the resolution professional must disclose all “relevant information” to the resolution applicant and it is for the resolution applicant to ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations.
- Again, there is no such duty imposed on the resolution professional.
- Even under Section 25 of the code, titled “Duties of resolution professional”, the specific duty to maintain confidentiality of sensitive information is absent.
- Clearly, the current regime does not have much deterrence value so as to ensure solemn adherence to confidentiality.
Conclusion
Videocon was one of the first test cases to examine the prospects of insolvency jurisprudence in India and the first one, for group insolvency proceedings. However, almost four years and a 95 per cent haircut later, the call for an immediate course correction couldn’t be louder.
Back2Basics: Operational creditor and financial creditors
- When a corporate defaulter is brought under the resolution process (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process or CIRP), there can be two types of creditors to whom the corporate should give back money –
- (1) the entities who gave loans or funds to the corporate.
- (2) the entities from whom the corporate bought inputs and other services.
- The financial creditors are basically entities (lenders like banks) that have provided funds to the corporate.
- Their relationship with the entity is a pure financial contract, such as a loan or debt security.
- On the other hand, business and other entities that have provided inputs and other materials and services and to whom the defaulted corporate owes a debt are called as operational creditors.
- Both have claims on the defaulted corporate or the defaulted corporate owe payments to both these categories.
- Rights for these categories under the resolution process are also different.
- The IBC gives a clear preference to the claims of the financial creditors over the operational creditors through several procedures.
Haircut
- A haircut is the difference between the loan amount and the actual value of the asset used as collateral.
- It reflects the lender’s perception of the risk of fall in the value of assets.
- But in the context of loan recoveries, it is the difference between the actual dues from a borrower and the amount he settles with the bank.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Who is a Registered Valuer?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC, Registered Valuers
Mains level: Financial frauds these days
A valuation report by a registered valuer is at the heart of the recent controversy surrounding a Rs 4,000 crore share allotment decision by PNB Housing Finance.
Who is a Registered Valuer?
- A registered valuer is an individual or entity which is registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBIBI) as a valuer in accordance with the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017.
- Under Section 458 of the Companies Act, IBBI has been specified as the authority by the central government.
- The concept of registered valuer was introduced in the Companies Act in 2017 in order to regulate the valuation of assets and liabilities linked to a company and to standardize the valuation procedure in line with global valuation standards.
- Before the concept of registered valuer became part of the Companies Act, valuation was done in an arbitrary manner, often leading to question marks over the authenticity of the valuation.
What does the valuation report comprise?
- As per the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017, the valuer should, in his/its report, state 11 key aspects including disclosure of the valuer’s conflict of interest, if any.
- Among others, it must include the purpose of valuation; sources of information; procedures adopted in carrying out the valuation; valuation methodology; and major factors that influenced the valuation.
Who can become a registered valuer?
- An individual needs to clear the Valuation Examination conducted by IBBI.
- The rules state that an individual who has completed 50 years of age and has been substantially involved in at least ten valuation assignments of assets amounting to Rs 5 crore rupees or more, during the five years preceding the commencement of these rules, shall not be required to pass the Valuation Examination.
- The individual should, however, have a postgraduate degree in the specified discipline (relevant for valuation of the class of asset for which the registration is sought) and should have at least three years of experience in the discipline thereafter.
- As of March 31, 2021 there were 3,967 registered valuers in the country. Only 40 of them are registered entities; the rest are individuals.
For what assets can a registered valuer undertake valuation?
- A registered valuer can get themselves registered for valuation of assets such as land and building; plant and machinery; and securities and financial assets.
- They can get registered for valuation of all three classes, and can undertake valuation of only the assets for which they have got the registration.
Answer this PYQ in the comment box:
Q.Which of the following statements best describes the- term ‘Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A)’, recently seen in the news? (CSP 2017)
(a) It is a procedure for considering the ecological costs of developmental schemes formulated by the Government.
(b) It is a scheme of RBI for reworking the financial structure of big corporate entities facing genuine difficulties.
(c) It is a disinvestment plan of the Government regarding Central Public Sector Undertakings.
(d) It is an important provision in ‘The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’ recently implemented by the Government.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Supreme Court says Personal Guarantors liable for Corporate Debt
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC
Mains level: Asset reconstructions with IBC
The Supreme Court has upheld a government moves to allow lenders to initiate insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, who are usually promoters of big business houses, along with the stressed corporate entities for whom they gave a guarantee.
What is the Judgement?
- The judgment has allowed creditors, usually financial institutions and banks, to move against personal guarantors under the Indian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code (IBC) was “legal and valid”.
- The November 15, 2019 notification was challenged before several High Courts initially.
- The apex court said there was an “intrinsic connection” between personal guarantors and their corporate debtors.
What is a personal guarantee? How do promoters use this route to get funds?
- A personal guarantee is most likely to be furnished by a promoter or promoter entity when the banks demand collateral which equals the risk they are taking by lending to the firm, which may not be doing so well.
- It is different from the collateral that firms give to banks to take loans, as Indian corporate laws say that individuals such as promoters are different from businesses and the two are very separate entities.
- A personal guarantee, therefore, is an assurance from the promoters or promoter group that if the lender allows them the fund, they will be able to turn around the loss-making unit and repay the said loan on time.
Impact of the move
- The apex court ruling will help banks go after those who have offered guarantees to recover dues in case the resolution amount is short of the claims filed by them in the National Company Law Tribunal.
- Over the years, many companies have repeatedly defaulted in loan repayment and got banks to restructure the debt, often citing systemic issues.
- But as part of the clean-up initiated five years ago, the IBC was enacted and banks were told to go after those who were not paying their dues.
About the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- IBC is the bankruptcy law of India that seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy.
- It is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which previously was a long process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement.
- The code aims to protect the interests of small investors and make the process of doing business less cumbersome.
Key features of the code
(1) Insolvency Resolution:
- The Code outlines separate insolvency resolution processes for individuals, companies, and partnership firms. The process may be initiated by either the debtor or the creditors.
- A maximum time limit, for completion of the insolvency resolution process, has been set for corporates and individuals.
(2) Insolvency regulator:
- The Code establishes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, to oversee the insolvency proceedings in the country and regulate the entities registered under it.
- The Board will have 10 members, including representatives from the Ministries of Finance and Law, and the Reserve Bank of India.
(3) Insolvency professionals:
- The insolvency process will be managed by licensed professionals.
- These professionals will also control the assets of the debtor during the insolvency process.
(4) Bankruptcy and Insolvency Adjudicator:
The Code proposes two separate tribunals to oversee the process of insolvency resolution, for individuals and companies:
- the National Company Law Tribunal for Companies and Limited Liability Partnership firms; and
- the Debt Recovery Tribunal for individuals and partnerships
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
How IBC is moving away from promotor averse approach
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Pre-pack in IBC
Mains level: Paper 3- Pre-packs for MSME in IBC
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was amended recently taking into account its creditor centric approach.
Introducing pre-packs for MSMEs
- IBC was amended last week, through an ordinance.
- The amendment sought to address a structural weakness in India’s resolution architecture by introducing the concept of pre-packs for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
- The pre-packaged framework involves a privately negotiated contract between the promoters of a financially distressed firm and its financial creditors to restructure the company’s obligations.
- This contract is negotiated within the IBC architecture but before the commencement of insolvency proceedings.
- Once accepted by creditors, the plan must be presented to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for approval.
How this framework is different from the existing framework
- A firm’s promoters could have submitted a resolution plan even after it enters the insolvency proceedings, subject to restrictions imposed under Section 29A which clarifies all those who are ineligible for submitting the resolution plan.
- So, the difference in the new framework essentially boils down to the following.
1) Control of the firm
- Under the IBC, upon the initiation of insolvency proceedings, control of a firm is taken away from promoters, and a resolution professional is appointed.
- Now, during the restructuring, the promoter, through the pre-pack, retains control over the firm.
- So effectively, we have transitioned from a “creditor-in-control” model of resolution to a “debtor-in-control” model of restructuring.
- This amendment, which creates a framework for restructuring, without the promoter losing control over the firm, addresses a lacuna in the IBC.
2) Issue of price discovery
- In this arrangement, the is an absence of an open bidding process, such as during the resolution phase.
- This might raise questions over price discovery, especially if value maximisation for creditors is the yardstick to measure the efficacy of IBC.
- This marks a fundamental change in the IBC framework.
Why the changes were needed
- The IBC, while it has strengthened the position of the creditors, had swung to an extreme.
- The resolution architecture as it stood prior to this amendment was perceived as being too creditor-centric.
- Wresting control from the “errant” promoter, comes with its own set of consequences.
- The notion that all business failure is due to the connivance of promoters needs to be reconsidered.
- Firms may be unable to pay their obligations simply because the economic cycle has turned.
- Or projects have not materialised as expected.
- Of the 2,422 cases closed since IBC came into being, 46.5 per cent of the firms have gone into liquidation, while a resolution plan has been accepted in only 13.1 per cent of the cases.
- This indicates liquidation bias.
- At a time when there aren’t enough buyers in the economy, the IBC process would lead to significant value destruction.
How it will benefit both creditor and promotors
- Promoters get to hold on to their firms, and exit the process with more manageable obligations, making this an attractive proposition.
- For creditors, considering the liquidation bias in IBC, as long as the value of the restructured obligation is greater than the liquidation value it makes sense to choose this option.
- Moreover, this entire process remains outside the restructuring framework of the central bank.
- And, considering that the pre-packs encompass all financial creditors, as opposed to RBI’s restructuring schemes which deal only with banks.
- This takes into account the concerns of other financial creditors as well.
Consider the question “How far IBC has succeeded in improving the insolvency regime in India? How the concepts of pre-packs is different from the previous system?
Conclusion
This approach will help clarify issues, bring about greater certainty to the process. And, once the creases are ironed out, it will create a permanent mechanism for restructuring debts.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
What is the Pre-pack under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Swiss Challenge, Pre-Packs
Mains level: Debt recovery under IBC
The central government has promulgated an ordinance allowing the use of pre-packs as an insolvency resolution mechanism for MSMEs with defaults up to Rs 1 crore, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Read till the end to know about the ‘Swiss Challenge’.
What are Pre-packs?
- A pre-pack is the resolution of the debt of a distressed company through an agreement between secured creditors and investors instead of a public bidding process.
- This system of insolvency proceedings has become an increasingly popular mechanism for insolvency resolution in the UK and Europe over the past decade.
- Under the pre-pack system, financial creditors will agree to terms with a potential investor and seek approval of the resolution plan from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
- The approval of a minimum of 66 percent of financial creditors that are unrelated to the corporate debtor would be required before a resolution plan is submitted to the NCLT.
- Further NCLTs are also required to either accept or reject any application for a pre-pack insolvency proceeding before considering a petition for a CIRP.
Benefits of pre-packs over the CIRP
- One of the key criticisms of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been the time taken for resolution.
- One of the key reasons behind delays in the CIRPs is prolonged litigations by erstwhile promoters and potential bidders.
- The pre-pack in contrast is limited to a maximum of 120 days with only 90 days available to the stakeholders to bring the resolution plan to the NCLT.
- The existing management retains control in the case of pre-packs while a resolution professional takes control of the debtor as a representative of creditors in the case of CIRP.
- This allows for minimal disruption of operations relative to a CIRP.
What is the key motivation behind the introduction of the pre-pack?
- Pre-packs are largely aimed at providing MSMEs with an opportunity to restructure their liabilities and start with a clean slate.
- It provides adequate protections so that the system is not misused by firms to avoid making payments to creditors.
- Pre-packs help corporate debtors to enter into consensual restructuring with lenders and address the entire liability side of the company.
How are creditors protected?
- The pre-pack also provides adequate protection to ensure the provisions were not misused by errant promoters.
- The pre-pack mechanism allows for a swiss challenge for any resolution plans which proved less than full recovery of dues for operational creditors.
- Under the swiss challenge mechanism, any third party would be permitted to submit a resolution plan for the distressed company and the original applicant would have to either match the improved resolution plan or forego the investment.
- Creditors are also permitted to seek resolution plans from any third party if they are not satisfied with the resolution plan put forth by the promoter.
Back2Basics: Swiss Challenge
- A Swiss Challenge is a method of bidding, often used in public projects, in which an interested party initiates a proposal for a contract or the bid for a project.
- The government then puts the details of the project out in the public and invites proposals from others interested in executing it.
- On the receipt of these bids, the original contractor gets an opportunity to match the best bid.
- In 2009, the Supreme Court approved this method for the award of contracts.
- This method can be applied to projects that are taken up on a PPP basis but can also be used to supplement PPP in sectors that are not covered under the PPP framework.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
IBC as an enabler
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC 2016
Mains level: Paper 3- Analysing the working of IBC
The article analyses whether or not the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is delivering on its objectives.
Criticism of IBC
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 was enacted to resolve the stress of companies.
- However, the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) has been criticised as it rescues only about 25 per cent of companies and leads to liquidation for the rest.
Is IBC delivering on its mandate
Let’s analyse how Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016 is working towards value maximising outcomes.
1) It enables the market to attempt to resolve
- The CIRP enables the market to attempt to resolve stress through a resolution plan whereby the company survives.
- When it concludes that there is no feasible resolution plan to rescue the company, the company proceeds for liquidation.
- The market usually rescues a viable company and liquidates an unviable one.
- There are quite a few companies which have negligible assets and/or are defunct when they enter CIRP.
- Many of these are beyond rescue for a variety of reasons, including creative destruction, and their continuation is a cost to the economy.
- In such cases, the code enables liquidation to release available resources to alternate uses.
- It is welcome, as it releases the assets as well as the entrepreneur stuck up in an unviable company, which is a key objective of the code.
2) Look at the total asset value not the number of companies
- In terms of absolute numbers, 25 per cent of companies were rescued and 75 per cent proceeded for liquidation.
- In value terms, however, 75 per cent of the assets were rescued and 25 per cent of assets proceeded for liquidation.
- Of the companies sent for liquidation, 75 per cent were either sick or defunct, and of the companies rescued, 25 per cent were either sick or defunct.
3) Look at the overall impact, not just final numbers
- Third, the stress that a company suffers is like an illness which can be treated by a variety of options.
- Normally, recovery is better if diagnosis and treatment start early.
- Likewise, the health of the company deteriorates if the resolution process is delayed.
- The percentage of rescue at this later stage may not be significant.
- The credible threat of CIRP that a company may change hands has redefined the debtor-creditor relationship.
- Faced with the possibility of the CIRP, a debtor makes all-out efforts to prevent the stress, or resolve it much before it translates into a default, or settles the default.
- Even after an application is filed, a debtor continues efforts to resolve the financial stress midway through settlement, review, mediation, or withdrawal to avoid the consequences of CIRP.
- The number of companies that recover before filing the application as a percentage of those that get starts the insolvency process would give the fair idea about the efficacy of the IBC.
Consider the question “The IBC has often been criticised for liquidating the companies rather than rescuing them. Do you agree with this criticism? Give reasons in support of your argument.”
Conclusion
Liquidation or rescue is an outcome of the market forces; the law is only an enabler giving choices and nudging a company towards value maximising outcomes. The “invisible hands” of the market works towards the best outcome, which we should respect and accept.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
What is Section 32A of IBC?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC
Mains level: Read the attached story
The Supreme Court has held that the bidders for a corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would be immune from any investigations being conducted either by any investigating agencies.
Q.Examine the impact of various amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and suggest further improvements in the IBC.
Backgrounder: IBC
- IBC was enacted on May 28, 2016, to effectively deal with insolvency and bankruptcy of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals, in a time-bound manner.
- It has brought about a paradigm shift in laws aimed to maximize the value of assets, providing a robust insolvency resolution framework and differentiating between impropriety and business debacle.
- The predominant object of the Code is the resolution of the Corporate Debtor.
- It has been amended four times to resolve problems hindering the objectives of the Code.
What is Section 32A?
- In cases involving property of a corporate debtor, Section 32A covers any action involving attachment, seizure, retention, or confiscation of the property of the corporate debtor as a result of such Proceedings.
- It provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its property when there is the approval of the resolution plan resulting in the change of management of control of the corporate debtor.
- This is subject to the successful resolution applicant being not involved in the commission of the offense.
What were the challenges?
- Since the IBC came into being in 2016, the implementation of the resolution plan of several big cases has been delayed because of various challenges mounted by its own agencies and regulators.
- For example, a debt-laden company, admitted into insolvency in 2017, owes more than Rs 47,000 crore to banks and other financial institutions.
- After a prolonged bidding battle, another won the rights to take over it with a bid of Rs 19,700 crore.
- However, before it could move to take over, the ED/SEBI swooped in, and attached assets worth Rs 4,000 crore citing alleged fraud in a bank loan under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Observations made by the SC
- In its judgment, the apex court upheld the validity of Section 32.
- It said it was important for the IBC to attract bidders who would offer reasonable and fair value for the corporate debtor to ensure the timely completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
- Such bidders, however, must also be granted protection from any misdeeds of the past since they had nothing to do with it.
- Such protection, the court said, must also extend to the assets of a corporate debtor which will help banks clean up their books of bad loans.
- The apex court has, however, also said that such immunity would be applicable only if there are an approved resolution plan and a change in the management control of the corporate debtor.
Significance of SC’s intervention
- With the Supreme Court upholding the validity of Section 32 A will give confidence to other bidders to proceed with confidence while bidding on such disputed companies and their assets.
Must read
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Asset Reconstruction Companies
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Asset Reconstruction Company
Mains level: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/insolvency-law-ibc-corporate-debt-resolution-bankruptcy-code-nirmala-sitharaman-6704399/
The article argues for the greater role to Asset Reconstruction Companies by allowing them to invest in the equity [shares] of the distressed companies.
Context
- In a recently released paper “Indian Banks: A time to reform” Viral Acharya and Raghuram Rajan argued for a greater role for Asset Reconstruction Companies.
- They argue that when there are fewer bids in a bankruptcy auction, the value on loans is better realised if read an asset reconstruction company takes over the borrower and places the firm under new management.
Current limits on the role of ARC
- The RBI limited the role of ARC to participation in resolutions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) only by partnering with an equity investor, which is the resolution applicant.
- If the application succeeds, the equity investor would acquire the shares, while the ARC trust would acquire the debt.
Background of the ARCs
- Some stakeholders are asking for extending the role of ARCs by allowing direct invest in the equity of distressed companies through IBC resolution just like private equity funds.
- The RBI doesn’t appear to favour such an extended role for ARCs.
- This is due to the uninspiring performance of the Asset Reconstruction Companies in the past.
- At the time of the Asian Financial Crisis, India’s non-performing assets stood at a whopping 14.4 per cent.
- It was in this context that the Narasimham Committee (1998) recommended setting up an ARC specifically for purchasing NPAs from banks and financial institutions.
- Subsequently, the SARFAESI Act, 2002 created the legal framework for establishing multiple private ARCs.
- This policy achieved only modest success.
- The maximum average recovery by ARCs as a percentage of total bank claims stood at 21.5 per cent in 2010.
- Since then, it has steadily declined and reached 2.3 per cent in 2018.
- This low recovery could be the result of collateral disposal rather than genuine business turnarounds [i.e. operating the business and turning it profitable].
Need for extending the role of ARCs
- In 2002, India lacked an effective bankruptcy system.
- There was no market for corporate control of distressed firms.
- ARCs were originally designed for this peculiar institutional ecosystem.
- They were required to hand over the distressed business back to the original promoter once they had generated enough value to repay the debt.
- Consequently, ARCs had little incentive to turn around distressed businesses.
- This situation completely changed in 2016 as the IBC seeks to maximise the value of distressed businesses through a market for corporate control.
- ARCs should be able to fully participate in this market and attempt successful turnarounds by acquiring strategic control over distressed businesses.
- In a solvent company, shareholders have stronger incentives than creditors to maximise enterprise value.
- This is because an increase in enterprise value automatically increases the value of its equity.
- In contrast, creditors do not benefit from increases in enterprise value beyond their individual claims.
- If ARCs could hold more equity instead of debt in the resolved company, they would also have a stronger incentive to take strategic control to ensure successful turnaround.
Way forward
- The law should enable ARCs to invest in a distressed company’s equity, whether by infusing fresh capital or by converting debt into equity.
- Effectively, an ARC should act more like a private equity fund, as Acharya and Rajan suggested.
- This in turn would make the market for corporate control under IBC deeper and more liquid, improving ex-ante recovery rates for banks.
Consider the question “What are Asset Reconstruction Companies? How allowing the ARCs to invest in equity of distressed companies under IBC help successful turnaround of the distressed business?”
Conclusion
- If only ARCs are allowed to directly participate in IBC resolutions by infusing equity, they could emerge as the most efficient vehicle for turning around distressed Indian businesses.
Back2Basics: Difference between debt and equity
- Debt market and equity market are two broad categories of investment available in the general investment milieu.
- Equity markets trade in shares or stocks of the company listed on the stock exchanges.
- A stock in a company indicates a unit in the ownership of the company.
- As shareholders, you become part owners of the company.
- The largest shareholder, with 50% or more shares, becomes the owner of the company.
- Equity markets are riskier than debt markets.
- Debt is a form of borrowed capital.
- The central or state governments raise money from the market by issuing government securities or bonds.
- In effect, the government is borrowing money from you and will pay interest to you at regular intervals.
- The principal amount is returned on maturity.
- In the same way, a company raises money from the market by selling debt market securities such as corporate bonds.
- The debt market is made up of bonds issued by government authorities and companies.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Need for streamlining the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC
Mains level: Paper 3- Impact of IBC
The article analyses the impact of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the insolvency resolution and on Indian economy.
Measures that will improve investment
1) IBC: transforming insolvency resolution
- IBC replaced inefficient bankruptcy law regime and has transformed insolvency resolution in India.
- The IBC has focused on time-bound resolution, rather than liquidation.
- IBC acts as an empowering tool to support companies falling within its ambit.
- It has successfully instilled confidence in the corporate resolution methodology.
- It has allowed credit to flow more freely to and within India while promoting investor and investee confidence.
- The IBC is both flexible and dynamic, which makes it impactful, given how forward thinking the concept of an omnibus legislation of its nature actually is.
- Through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), it has established an unprecedented organisation that both regulates and develops insolvency policy, and assesses market realities.
Impact of IBC
- According to the Resolving Insolvency Index, India’s ranking improved to 52 in 2019 from 108 in 2018.
- Further, the recovery rate improved nearly threefold from 26.5% in 2018 to 71.6% in 2019
- The overall time taken in recovery also improved nearly three times, coming down from 4.3 years in 2018 to 1.6 years in 2019.
2) Decriminalisation of minor offences
- Criminal penalties including imprisonment for minor offences act as major deterrents for investors.
- The Government of India is also working toward decriminalisation of minor offences.
- This will significantly reduce the risk of imprisonment for actions or omissions that are not necessarily fraudulent or an outcome of mala fide intent.
3) Other legislative measures
- Together with the IBC, following 3 reforms suggests major and multi-dimensional effort by the government.
- 1) The rolling out of the commercial courts.
- 2) Commercial divisions and the Commercial Appellate Divisions Act, 2015, to allow district court-level commercial courts.
- 3) Removal of over 1,500 obsolete and archaic laws.
Way forward
- There could perhaps be a look at institutionalising the introduction of a pre-packed insolvency resolution process.
- This will also help resolve matters expeditiously, outside of the formal court system, and allow resolution even during the COVID-19 altered reality.
Consider the question “Examine the impact of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the insolvency resolution procedure and suggest the further improvements in the IBC.”
Conclusion
The IBC has provided a major stimulus to ease of doing business, enhanced investor confidence, and helped encourage entrepreneurship while also providing support to MSMEs. Its further streamlining and strengthening will surely instil greater confidence in both foreign and domestic investors as they look at India as an attractive investment destination.
B2BASICS
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
What are Pre-packs under the present insolvency regime?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Pre-Pack
Mains level: Asset reconstructions process under IBC
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has set up a committee to look into the possibility of including what is called “pre-packs” under the current insolvency regime to offer faster insolvency resolution.
Practice question for mains:
Q.What are the key features of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code? Discuss how operationalization of IBC is hindered by the slower resolutions of insolvency cases. Suggest measures for faster resolution.
What is Pre-pack?
- A pre-pack is an agreement for the resolution of the debt of a distressed company through an agreement between secured creditors and investors instead of a public bidding process.
- This system of insolvency proceedings has become an increasingly popular mechanism for insolvency resolution in the UK and Europe over the past decade.
Why need Pre-packs?
- Slow progress in the resolution of distressed companies has been one of the key issues raised by creditors regarding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC.
- Under the IBC, stakeholders are required to complete the CIRP within 330 days of the initiation of insolvency proceedings.
A case for India
- In India’s case, such a system would likely require that financial creditors agree on terms with potential investors and seek approval of the resolution plan from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
- This process would likely be completed much faster than the traditional CIRP which requires that the creditors of the distressed company allow for an open auction for qualified investors to bid for the distressed company.
- The process needs to be completed within 90 days so that all stakeholders retain faith in the system and cases that take more than this time should be taken through the normal CIRP.
What are the other key benefits of a pre-pack?
- Pre-packs would mostly be used for businesses that are running; the investors would likely need to maintain good relations with operational creditors.
- In the case of pre-packs, the incumbent management retains control of the company until a final agreement is reached.
- The transfer of control from the incumbent management to an insolvency professional as is the case in the CIRP leads to disruptions in the business and loss of some high-quality human resources and asset value.
Some limitations
- The key drawback of a pre-packaged insolvency resolution is the reduced transparency compared to the CIRP.
- Financial creditors would reach an agreement with a potential investor privately and not through an open bidding process.
- This could lead to stakeholders such as operational creditors raising issues of fair treatment when financial creditors reach agreements to reduce the liabilities of the distressed company.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Faults in section inserted for the suspension of IBC amid pandemic
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC
Mains level: Paper 3- Problems with IBC
Following the lockdown, the government announced the suspension of some provision of IBC to soften the blow of economic crisis. Section 10A was inserted to suspend the provision. But it giver rise to other questions. What are these questions? Read the article to know…
What changes were made?
- In mid-May, the Finance Minister announced that the government was planning to bring in an ordinance to suspend provisions enabling filing of fresh insolvency cases for a period of one year..
- Finally, on June 5, the government promulgated an ordinance which inserted Section 10A in the IBC.
- The government said the ordinance was promulgated because the lockdown has caused business disruptions which may lead to default on debts pushing such companies into insolvency.
- Therefore, it felt that suspending Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the IBC would be the right course of action.
What are the issues with section 10A?
- Section 10A provides that “no application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor shall be filed, for any default arising on or after 25th March, 2020 for a period of six months or such further period, not exceeding one year from this period, as may be notified in this behalf”.
- This means that these provisions shall remain suspended from March 25 till September 25, unless extended for another six months, which would extend the suspension up till March 25, 2021.
- However, the proviso to the section states that no application for insolvency resolution shall ever be filed against a corporate debtor for any default occurring during the suspension period.
- While the main Section 10A suspends such applications for a limited period, the proviso enlarges the scope to provide complete amnesty under the IBC for any default occurring during such period.
- The role of a proviso in a statute is to restrict the application of the main provision under exceptional circumstances.
- However, the proviso here expands the substantive provision in the main section.
- Further, if the main provision is unclear, a proviso may be given to explain its true meaning.
- In this case the main provision appears clear, only to be obfuscated by the proviso.
- The proviso therefore does not appear to be legally tenable.
- As creditors can still approach courts, and as banks/FIs can still approach Debt Recovery Tribunals, the protection given by this proviso seems illusory.
- But Section 10A also suspends provisions of Section 10 of the IBC which enables voluntary insolvency resolution.
- This is difficult to understand as such voluntary insolvency resolution should have been made easier for companies facing distress.
Painting all defaults with the same brush
- The ordinance appears to consider every default occurring during the suspension period to be a consequence of the pandemic.
- There could be cases where defaults were imminent due to other reasons, but which will now still enjoy this protection.
- The ordinance should have protected only such defaults which may occur as a direct consequence of the pandemic or the lockdown and should have left this determination to the National Company Law Tribunal.
- Also, a company defaulting on its payment obligations on March 24 (a day before the lockdown started) would not be provided any relief under the IBC as compared to a company defaulting on or immediately after March 25 due to similar reasons.
- This makes the suspension, in the absence of definition of a COVID-19 default, prima facie arbitrary.
Issue with increasing the default amount limit
- Earlier, the government increased the minimum default amount to trigger corporate insolvency resolution from ₹1 lakh to ₹1 crore.
- This was purportedly done to protect MSMEs from insolvency petitions.
- However, this also operates against such MSMEs because they will now be forced to approach civil courts to recover undisputed debts below ₹1 crore.
- The suspension of these provisions would now impact even claims above ₹1 crore for at least six months to a year.
Conclusion
The ordinance has opened itself up to a legal challenge on grounds of arbitrariness and untenability of the proviso due to the flaw in its drafting. It is unfathomable how these flaws arose despite the government having ample time to think this through.
B2BASICS:
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015
The code contains a clear speedy mechanism for early identification of financial distress and initiates revival/re-organisation of the company if it is viable.
Timeline
- The bill proposes a timeline of 180 days to deal with the applications for insolvency resolution with an option of extending it by 90 days for exceptional cases.
Insolvency Resolution Plan
- The insolvency resolution plan has to be approved by 75% of the creditors. If the plan is approved, then the adjudicating authority will give its sanction. In case of rejection of insolvency resolution plan, the adjudicating authority will pass an order for liquidation.
Insolvency Professionals (IPs) & Insolvency Professional Agencies (IPAs)
- The resolution processes will be conducted by licensed insolvency professionals (IPs). These IPs will be members of insolvency professional agencies (IPAs). IPAs will also furnish performance bonds equal to the assets of a company under insolvency resolution.
Information Utilities
- Information utilities (IUs) will be established to collect, collate and disseminate financial information to facilitate insolvency resolution.
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Adjudicator
- The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will adjudicate insolvency resolution for companies. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) will adjudicate insolvency resolution for individuals.
- The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which has jurisdiction over individuals and unlimited liability partnership firms. Appeals from the order of DRT shall lie to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).
Insolvency regulators
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India will be set up to regulate functioning of IPs, IPAs and IUs.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
New approach to economic revival: SNAP
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC 2016 provisions.
Mains level: Paper 3- IBC provisions and need for novel approach to deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic.
In this article the author suggests a new approach to deal with multiple bankruptcies and stressed assets that would come up post COVID. So, what is the new approach and how it is different from the existing IBC? Read further.
Why is speed of resolution important?
- First, because it is the only way to revive the economy.
- As revenues have dried up cash flow problems have cascaded down the supply chain.
- Firms will consequently be unable to restart production unless they first get credit to pay their suppliers and workers.
- But impaired firms cannot get credit and impaired banks cannot provide it.
- So, the entire economy will be stuck unless the balance sheet problem is sorted out.
- Second, speed will also minimise the losses from the COVID crisis.
- The value of bankrupt firms decays rapidly over time, and the bill for this loss will have to be borne ultimately by the government.
- So, speed is necessary to contain the damage to the government’s financial position, which has been badly eroded by the COVID crisis.
- But moving quickly will be difficult.
- The only real mechanism that currently exists to handle stress and bankruptcy is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) system, which has been suspended for six months.
Why the IBC cannot help much?
- Many have therefore argued for bringing the IBC back into operation as soon as possible.
- Why such a strategy would not be very effective? The system is slow, with many cases taking two years or more; it could easily become overwhelmed completely if it is forced to absorb a large new set of bankrupt firms.
- In addition, the IBC envisages that banks maximise their recoveries by auctioning off the bankrupt firms to the highest bidder.
- But in a nation and indeed a world, where all balance sheets are damaged, it is not obvious who would be able to buy these firms, or at what prices.
- So recovery rates from sales could be low, undermining the objective of the exercise.
- Even if strong bidders could be found, there is a fundamental political, even philosophical, question of whether it is really right to take these firms away from their promoters.
- After all, many of these firms did nothing wrong; they got into financial difficulties because of the corona crisis.
So, what is the solution?
- What is needed is a new set of procedures that can utilise much of the existing IBC framework, but are simple, straightforward, and prompt, with a built-in expiry clause.
- Let’s Call them Special Non-Adversarial Procedures (SNAP).
- As soon as the lockdown is largely over, the IBC creditor committees (CoCs) could meet to assess the new wave of NPAs.
- The largest, most complex cases — say, those with debts exceeding Rs 10,000 crore — would be sent to the IBC for regular treatment.
- But all other cases would be eligible under SNAP
- After all, the wider the set of companies that are put back on their feet quickly, the stronger the recovery will be.
How would the SNAP work?
- Under SNAP, CoCs would, over the next three months, examine delinquent firms’ financial records, checking to see whether they are actually viable.
- If so, these firms would be designated as Lockdown Affected Enterprises (LAEs), eligible under SNAP.
- Since the basis of the designation would be that the firm is fundamentally sound but because of COVID impact, an Insolvency Professional (IP) appointed by the CoC would work with existing management (who would continue to run the firm) to arrange for interim finance.
- Then, the IP would assess how much of a debt reduction the firm needs, and within three months would present a specific proposal to the CoC.
- If the CoC can reach a two-third majority in favour of the proposal, the promoter would keep the firm, while the firm would be granted immediately released from bankruptcy.
- Since the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is already overloaded, it would not be involved at all in SNAP.
- If the CoC cannot reach agreement within the three-month deadline, or if at any subsequent point the firm defaults on its newly reduced debt, it would be sent to the IBC for resolution.
- SNAP would be disbanded by end-December 2020.
Checks and balances under SNAP
- Such a system would have a series of checks and balances, to prevent firms from securing undeserved debt reductions.
- Banks would need to certify that defaulters are truly LAEs.
- IPs would need to certify the size of the debt reduction.
- A large majority of creditor banks would need to agree to the IP’s proposal.
What should be the role of the government in SNAP?
- With these checks and balances in place, the government should then commit to two things.
- First, it should provide some legal cover, ensuring that bankers would not be subject to investigations by the anti-corruption agencies, as long as they followed the LAE rules.
- Second, the public sector banks would be compensated for the costs of the reduction in the value of the asset, automatically and fully.
Major advantage of SNAP
- Besides speed, SNAP would have one further major advantage.
- It would reduce the adversarial nature of the IBC process, arising because promoters are forced to cede their firms.
- Under the proposed system, promoters would not only have incentives to cooperate; they would actually want to take the initiative, applying for LAE designation themselves, in the hopes that they could get back to business as soon as possible.
- Such a system might seem difficult to envisage, but it is certainly feasible: It is a design feature under Chapter 11 of the American bankruptcy act.
- If SNAP succeeds, some of the special procedures could be introduced permanently into the IBC framework, adding a new dimension: Not just liquidation and rehabilitation under new promoters but rehabilitation under existing management.
Way forward
- After SNAP, repair of the financial system would have to go back to addressing the long-standing problems, which will have been aggravated by the crisis.
- Firms that were unviable even before the COVID crisis would be sent directly to the IBC, but with the IBC reformed.
- The government should issue guidelines focusing on the following three-
- 1. Focusing the COCs on the goal of maximising value, disregarding non-commercial objectives.
- 2. Directing the NCLT courts to focus on the CoCs’ adherence to the procedure rather than on the merits of their decisions.
- 3. Increasing competition in the auction by allowing promoters to bid for their assets, as long as they have not been declared wilful defaulters.
- For the power and real estate sectors, a sui generis approach via the creation of a bad bank is still the best way forward.
- Real estate resolutions need to take into account the interests of home-owners, something that is almost impossible to do under the IBC.
Consider the question, “Economic revival after the pandemic would require some tweaks in the IBC as it was not designed to handle such situations. Suggest the ways to handle the bankruptcies more effectively and changes that are desired in the IBC.”
Conclusion
Introducing three-pronged strategy quickly would set the stage for the economic recovery of India: 1) Special, expedited, non-adversarial and time-bound bankruptcy procedures (SNAP) for COVID-affected firms 2) A reformed IBC focused squarely on loss-minimisation 3)Bad banks for stressed assets in the power and real estate sectors.
Back2Baciscs: What is Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code-2016?
- The Code creates time-bound processes for insolvency resolution of companies and individuals. These processes will be completed within 180 days. If insolvency cannot be resolved, the assets of the borrowers may be sold to repay creditors.
- The resolution processes will be conducted by licensed insolvency professionals (IPs). These IPs will be members of insolvency professional agencies (IPAs). IPAs will also furnish performance bonds equal to the assets of a company under insolvency resolution.
- Information utilities (IUs) will be established to collect, collate and disseminate financial information to facilitate insolvency resolution.
- The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will adjudicate insolvency resolution for companies. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) will adjudicate insolvency resolution for individuals.
- The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India will be set up to regulate functioning of IPs, IPAs and IUs.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Insolvency code should be suspended for six months to help companies recover
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: IBC, difference between operational and financial creditor, threshold limit to file insolvency case etc.
Mains level: Paper 3- Purpose and issues with IBC, its various provisions and changes that needs to be made in the wake of Covid-19.
This article argues the suspension of IBC for six months. The issues arising out of suspension like damage to the creditors are also dealt with here. Reading of this article will help us understand the finer details of IBC that are relevant from the UPSC point of view. We have also covered one article from livemint dealing with the same issue, but that article covered the issue in a broader sense.
Who are operational and financial creditors?
- After the lockdown is over, several companies are likely to default on their dues to both operational and financial creditors.
- Who is a financial creditor? The financial creditors include banks and others who have given financial assistance to a company in the form of loans and debentures.
- According to a 2018 amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2017, flat purchasers are also deemed as financial creditors.
- An operational creditor is just about anyone who has to receive money from a company.
- The IBC provides a fast-track mechanism to deal with companies which are unable to repay their creditors and have become financially unviable.
- Section 22 of the Code mandates the appointment of a Resolution Professional (RP) who is expected to miraculously turn around the company in 330 days.
- If this attempt fails, the company goes into liquidation.
The two types of creditors were in the news, so pay attention to these terms.
Increase in threshold limit to file an insolvency petition
- The IBC’s provisions have been extensively used by various creditors whose dues were not paid.
- What was the threshold limit? Initially, the threshold limit was just Rs 1 lakh and the IBC became an effective recovery mechanism for all operational creditors.
- What is the limit now? Just before the lockdown, the finance minister raised the threshold for invoking the insolvency provisions to Rs 1 crore.
- This limit was raised to prevent proceedings being initiated against small and medium enterprises.
Possibility of the domino effect after the lockdown is over
- After the lockdown, several enterprises, large, medium and small, might not be able to pay their dues, at least in the short-term.
- The easiest way for a creditor to recover money is to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debtor company and threaten it with liquidation.
- The shutdown of business after the lockdown could have a domino effect.
- How would the domino effect come into play? If an auto-manufacturer has shut down its operations, the ancillary units will not get their dues.
- This would then lead to non-payment to downstream vendors and service providers as well.
- It might take at least three to four months for the situation to stabilise.
Steps that should be taken to avoid the domino effect
- Moratorium on the IBC: The most important, and immediate, step that needs to be taken is to have a six-month moratorium on the IBC.
- It may be necessary to promulgate an ordinance suspending the prospective operation of Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC so that no fresh petition is filed against a company.
- Impact on creditors: While this could hurt some of the creditors, the damage that could be done to the corporate sector by invoking the IBC is likely to be far greater.
- A distressed creditor is not without a remedy as he can always approach the civil courts for relief, which will not be so severe on a defaulting company.
- If an insolvency petition is filed and the RP appointed, it is difficult to stop the insolvency process.
- The IBC requires a financially-stressed company to be taken over by a financially-sound
- For example, Essar Steel was taken over by ArcelorMittal and Bhushan Steel was taken over by Tata Steel.
- In the current scenario, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for an RP to find a suitable buyer and the only option would be to liquidate the company.
- Using the insolvency process to recover dues is contrary to the IBC’s objectives.
The objective of the IBC is not just insolvency but the reorganisation of companies, maximisation of value of assets and the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders. Pay attention to this point.
How the suspension of the IBC will be beneficial?
- Suspending the IBC for a short period would enable several companies to return to normalcy.
- It will help them function without the constant threat of an insolvency application and its Board of Directors and management being taken over by the RP.
- Moreover, the National Company Law Tribunal benches will simply be unable to take any additional workload.
Conclusion
Suspending the IBC for six months would be a much-needed step to prevent further damage to the economy. It would be in the larger public interest. Indeed, at this critical stage, permitting the legal remedy of insolvency could be the last nail in the coffin of many companies.
Back2Basics: What is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
- IBC provides for a time-bound process to resolve insolvency.
- When a default in repayment occurs, creditors gain control over debtor’s assets and must take decisions to resolve insolvency.
- Under IBC debtor and creditor both can start ‘recovery’ proceedings against each other.
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was implemented through an act of Parliament.
- It got Presidential assent in May 2016.
- The law was necessitated due to huge pile-up of non-performing loans of banks and delay in debt resolution.
- Insolvency resolution in India took 4.3 years on an average against other countries such as United Kingdom (1 year) and United States of America (1.5 years), which is sought to be reduced besides facilitating the resolution of big-ticket loan accounts.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
Can the insolvency code handle the aftermath of the corona crisis?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Committee of creditor, difference between financial and operational creditors etc.
Mains level: Paper 3- Issues in the IBC and suggestion to improve it.
The article is about the aftermath of Covid-19 for the Indian business. Though the government has announced the slew of relief packages, one expects a significant spike in the number of bankruptcies. Will India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code be able to deal with this new normal? Some pressing issues that could arise and solutions are discussed here.
Rise in the pending cases with NCLT
- Since the commencement of the IBC and setting up of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 12,000 cases have been filed.
- Around 4,500 cases have been settled before resolution, with a settlement amount of almost ₹2 trillion.
- 1,500 cases have been admitted and 6,000 cases are waiting in the queue.
- The covid-19 epidemic will only increase this traffic jam.
- Increasing the capacity of NCLT: The pile-up of cases needs to be addressed by increasing capacity of the NCLT, and by ensuring that as many cases as possible are settled without going to the IBC.
Every issue mentioned here is important from Mains point of view. IBC has been a significant step by the government to streamline the process of insolvency and bankruptcy.
Need for a relook at section 29A(c) of IBC
- What is section 29A(c) of IBC? This provision makes ineligible the defaulting person (promoter) from bidding for the asset (buying back) if it has been NPA for a year or more.
- What was the purpose of section 29A(c): The intent of section 29A is to prevent persons who, by their misconduct or fraudulent motives contributed to the default of the corporate debtor, from “buying back” the corporate debtor from the creditors, potentially at steep discounts.
- What’s the issue? While this is clearly a justifiable objective, the short window of one year has prevented even genuine promoters who faced major setbacks on account of unforeseen circumstances from being given a second chance.
- Even though such promoters are often in good the best position to revive their businesses.
- In view of the current force majeure, we recommend that the grace period of one year under section 29A(c) be extended to two years.
- And further extensions should be made possible on the approval of a supermajority (i.e. 75%) of the Committee of Creditors.
- Further, the newly introduced Section 12A allows the bank, which was the insolvency applicant, to exit the insolvency process.
- Which brings the promoter back in control—provided 90% of the Committee of Creditors agrees and the public bidding process has not commenced.
- The requirement for exit should be reduced to 75% of the committee.
Extension of timelines
- Recently, the Supreme Court did well by passing a suo-moto order on the extension of limitation generally.
- Based on these SC orders, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has ordered that such extension also apply to the outer limit of 330 days for the resolution of corporate insolvency cases.
- This could be further extended once the gravity of the situation becomes clear over the next few months.
- The moratorium period on debt financing recently announced by RBI should also be extended to cover money market instruments.
Need for providing more financing options to corporate debtors
- While the IBC does provide for interim finance with a preferential position for a corporate debtor, there are known limitations and residual risks on the provision of such finance.
- The government would do well to look at expanding the market by making changes.
- The changes could include permitting interim funding by asset reconstruction companies even without being creditors.
- And making provisions for a minimum return even in case of liquidation, and extending the enhanced priority standing given to interim financiers in the IBC phase to the pre-IBC phase.
- Post the lockdown, incremental working capital support upto, say, 25% of existing working capital exposure could be allowed in deserving cases even if the account is in default or NPA.
- This can be deemed to be priority lending to also protect bankers’ interests.
- The provision could also be made for the extension of concessional finance within limits based on demonstrated export potential.
- For example- order, short lead-time business, margin adjustments) in order to contribute to the recovery of exporting industries.
Equitable treatment of operational creditor
- In the Swiss Ribbons judgment, the Supreme Court urged equitable, though not equal, treatment of operational creditors.
- The need to protect the interests of operational creditors in bankruptcy proceedings is all the more critical in difficult market conditions where credit would be hard to obtain.
- Some broad guidelines appear to be desirable.
- For instance, one could stipulate that in the absence of quality issues, two operational creditors belonging to the same sub-class in terms of the type of product or service sold, should be treated equally.
- This should be irrespective of group relationships or continuity in the business of the resolved entity.
Facilitating resolution outside the corporate insolvency resolution process
- On the issue of closing a case before the onset of insolvency proceedings, there was a case for doing this even before the corona outbreak, and even without the paucity of processing capacity.
- The labelling of a company as insolvent or bankrupt has a chilling effect on its already dim prospects.
- Vendors, customers and employees start having second thoughts about associating with this company.
- Certain rules get triggered—for instance, the rule barring an infrastructure company from accepting new orders.
- The current outbreak amplifies the case for facilitating resolution outside the corporate insolvency resolution process.
- At the same time, there is a need to streamline the process to ensure enhanced proceeds.
Conclusion
All institutions of the economy will need to fire together in order to maximize the prospects of recovery. A suitably modified bankruptcy framework has a crucial role to play.
Back2Basics: Difference between financial and operational creditors
- Financial and operational creditors are different in the sense that their liabilities arise from different origins.
- Where a financial creditor is liable because of a contract such as a loan or debt and operational creditor is liable because of operational transactions.
- The difference between a financial creditor and an operational creditor is that a financial creditor is an individual whose relationship with the entity is solely based on financial contracts, such as a loan or debt security.
- Whereas, an operational creditor is an individual whose liabilities from the entity comes in the form of future payments in exchange for goods or services already delivered.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
The real reform
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Not much.
Mains level: Paper 3-How IBC has fared so far?
Context
The IBC has started emerging stronger as it delivered on its promise, passed the constitutional muster, earned global recognition and became the preferred option for stakeholders in case of default.
Demystifying the myths surrounding IBC
Myths about recovery:
Most of the myths surround recovery. Consider the following example for quick appreciation.
- M/s. Synergies Dooray was the first company to be resolved under the IBC. It was with the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for over a decade.
- The realisable value of its assets was Rs 9 crore when it entered the IBC process. It, however, owed Rs 900 crore to the creditors.
- How much did IBC recover? The resolution plan yielded Rs 54 crore for them.
- Some condemned IBC because the resolution plan yielded a meagre 6 per cent of the claims of the creditors, disregarding the fact that they recovered 600 per cent of the realisable value of the company, which had been in the sick bed for over a decade.
- If the company was liquidated, assuming no transaction costs, the creditors would have got at best Rs 9 crore — 1 per cent of their claims.
The myth that recovery under IBC is dismal
- Let’s examine the myth that the recovery through resolution plans is dismal.
- Two hundred companies had been rescued till December 2019 through resolution plans.
- They owed Rs 4 lakh crore to creditors. However, the realisable value of the assets available with them, when they entered the IBC process, was only Rs 0.8 lakh crore.
- The IBC maximises the value of the existing assets, not of the assets which do not exist. Under the IBC, the creditors recovered Rs 1.6 lakh crore, about 200 per cent of the realisable value of these companies.
- Why creditors had to take a haircut? Despite the recovery of 200 per cent of the realisable value, the financial creditors had to take a haircut of 57 per cent as compared to their claims. This only reflects the extent of value erosion that had taken place when the companies entered the IBC process.
- What is the conclusion? As compared to other options, banks are recovering much better through IBC, as per RBI data.
The myth that IBC is sending companies for liquidation:
-
- What is the primary objective of IBC: Recovery is incidental under the IBC. Its primary objective is rescuing companies in distress.
- More number of companies sent for liquidation: There is a myth that although the IBC process has rescued 200 companies, it has sent 800 companies for liquidation. The number of companies getting into liquidation is thus four times that of the companies being rescued.
- The context for the numbers: Numbers, however, to be seen in context. The companies rescued had assets valued at Rs 0.8 lakh crore, while the companies referred for liquidation had assets valued at Rs 0.2 lakh crore when they entered the IBC process.
- Looking from the value term angle: In value terms, assets that have been rescued are four times those sent for liquidation. It is important to note that of the companies rescued, one-third were either defunct or under BIFR, and of the companies sent for liquidation, three-fourths were either defunct or under BIFR.
The myth that IBC is resulting in huge job losses
- The next myth is that the IBC is resulting in huge job losses through liquidation. It is misconstrued that 600 companies — for which data are available and which have proceeded for liquidation — have assets (and consequently employment) at least equal to the aggregate claim of the creditors — Rs 4.6 lakh crore.
- Unfortunately, they have assets on the ground valued only at Rs 0.2 lakh crore.
- Take the examples of Minerals Limited and Orchid Healthcare Private Limited, which have been completely liquidated. They owed Rs 8,163 crore, while they had absolutely no assets and employment.
- What matters in this context is the assets a company has or the employment it provides — not how much it owes to creditors.
- The IBC process would release the idle or under-utilised assets valued at Rs 0.2 lakh crore, which would have dissipated with time, for business and employment.
- One also needs to consider the jobs saved through the rescue of 80 per cent of the distressed assets, and the job being created by these companies, post-rescue.
What changes IBC has brought?
- Changed the behaviour of debtors: A distressed asset has a life cycle. Its value declines with time if the distress is not addressed.
- The credible threat of the IBC process, that a company may change hands, has changed the behaviour of debtors.
- Debtors are settling debt at an early stage: Thousands of debtors are settling defaults at the early stages of the life cycle of a distressed asset.
- They are settling when the default is imminent, on receipt of a notice for repayment but before filing an application, after filing the application but before its admission, and even after admission of the application.
- These stages are akin to preventive care, primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care with respect to sickness. Only a few companies, who fail to address the distress in any of these stages, reach the liquidation stage.
- Value erosion at the liquidation stage: The value of the company is substantially eroded, and hence some of them would be rescued, while others are liquidated.
- The recovery may be low at this stage, but in the early stages of distress, it is much higher — primarily because of the IBC.
- The percentage of companies or distressed assets getting into liquidation is insignificant.
- Stakeholders should increasingly address the distress in the early stages and the best use of the IBC would be not using it all.
Conclusion
Stakeholders who understand business and have the backing of sophisticated professionals are using IBC with open eyes after evaluating all options. There is no reason to doubt their commercial wisdom. The 25,000 applications filed so far under IBC indicate the value and trust that stakeholders place on the law — the ultimate test of its efficacy.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
How is ease of doing business linked with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In India, lack of resolution of insolvency is one of the significant factors for the failure of credit market in the country. The present legislations governing insolvency are fragmented, multi-layered and the adjudication of insolvency matters take place in multiple forum, resulting in an unpredictable regime.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has been hailed as an excellent reform for India that will pay a critical role in improving the ease of doing business.
Why does India need a Bankruptcy law?
Currently it takes, on an average, more than 4 years to resolve insolvency in India. The proposed Bankruptcy Code will replace over a century-old archaic insolvency act – The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.
- Delays in making decisions on the viability of business.
- Sometimes, company promoters try to delay reorganisation or attempts to sell-off assets or change of management.
- Delays in disposing off cases by Debt Recovery Tribunal.
- Continued litigation at various levels and delays in appellate level.
- Currently, there are 4 different agencies viz. the HC, the Company Law Board, the BIFR and the DRTs that handle insolvency-related cases.
How can a modern law help?
- Speedy closure will help firms on the verge of brink in two ways, i.e. either restructure the firm or sell-off the assets to recover the money.
- It will promote efficient allocation and greater availability of credits for businesses, as it frees up capital.
- Development of financial markets such as bond market, due to clarity on repayment for debtors.
What is the international experience in this regard?
- US Bankruptcy Code provides for fairly quick liquidation or reorganisation of the company.
- In UK, once the cases are filed, then after 12 months, either the part of assets are discharged to pay-off debt or court-appointed administrators handle the case, if company can be turned around.
Was any committee formed to suggest Insolvency reforms?
- The Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee (BLRC) was set up in August, 2014 under the chairmanship of Mr. T.K. Vishwanathan.
- It was the first committee with the mandate of suggesting comprehensive and not incremental reforms.
- The BLRC extensively studied the insolvency regime within India as well as various international jurisdictions.
What was the recommendation of the Committee?
- The committee proposed an all-encompassing law for corporate and individual insolvency, reflecting the best practices from across the globe.
- The corporates should assess the viability of an enterprise in the early stages of insolvency, such that the creditor and the debtors can negotiate a financial arrangement while preserving the economic value of the enterprise.
- However, if the negotiations fail, then the enterprise is liquidated. The insolvency resolution is required to be done within a period of 180 days.
- It also suggested fast track insolvency resolution for certain entities which is required to be completed within 90 days.
What are the provisions of draft Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
The code aims to bring modern framework to deal with bankruptcy and insolvency of variety of economic players, including individuals, but excluding financial firms.
- It will restore some power to creditors, both financial and operational.
- It will fast-track mechanism of insolvency resolution process may be applicable to certain categories of entities.
- The corporate insolvency would have to be resolved within a period 180 days, extendable by 90 days.
- It also provides for fast-track resolution of corporate insolvency within 90 days.
- Debt Recovery Tribunals will be adjudicating authority over both individual & unlimited liability partnership firms.
- National Company Law Tribunal will be adjudicating authority with jurisdiction over companies with limited liability.
- It has a clause to provide for insolvency professionals who will specialize in helping sick companies. <These professionals will help revive control the management of distressed firm to revive it>
- It also provides for information utilities that will collate all information about debtors to prevent serial defaulters from misusing the system
- To setup Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to act as a regulator for these utilities and professionals.
- The bill also seeks to establish Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund of India.
What about Financial Sector Insolvencies?
- FSLRC recommended creation of a resolution corporation to monitor financial firms and intervene before they go bust.
- The aim is to close-down the firms which can’t be revived or change their management to protect investors or depositors.
The reform is dubbed as 2nd most important reform after GST, as it will also improve the ease of doing business in India.
Published with inputs from Pushpendra