Jayant Sinha, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


As the Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC), one of the crucial reforms that gives India Inc the ‘right to exit’ and start afresh, completed five years, ETCFO spoke with Jayant Sinha, former union minister and Chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on finance, to know if liquidation is a scam under IBC? And more.

“Liquidation should not be a benchmark. And that is why we have to think carefully about what should be the benchmarks and a resolution process particularly for secured financial creditors,” said Jayant Sinha.

Almost half of the closed cases by lenders under IBC in FY21 ended in liquidation, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), while only 13 per cent were resolved. In most of the cases under IBC, by the time they are resolved, their asset value depreciates leading to 90% haircuts, according to IBBI

Specifically from the secured creditors perspective, when they lend against collateral they expect 100 per cent value back instead of “salvage or the liquidation value”.

“If that was to be the case, the kind of loans a company would be able to get would be very modest, because everybody’s just lending against liquidation value. We can’t have that,” Sinha said, underscoring the importance of having benchmarks.

Liquidation can’t be a benchmark under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Jayant SinhaThese benchmarks are for secured financial creditors as there should be a very high level of confidence that they’re going to get the vast part of their loan back, he said.

But the question is how to decide the benchmark?

Sinha points to global benchmarks, the major economies that we compete with like Germany, Japan, China, the US, the UK. What secured financial creditors typically get through the resolution process should be the benchmark, he said.

Benchmark the quantum of haircut

In one of the recommendations, the parliamentary standing committee in its report titled, ‘Implementation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Pitfalls and Solutions’ was to benchmark the quantum of haircuts to avoid a 90 per cent haircut situation.

As per IBBI, in the resolved cases, the haircut, or the loss to banks on their claims, rose to 60 per cent in FY 2021, from 55 per cent average in the previous years. While in the March 2021 quarter alone, haircuts rose to a whopping 74 per cent of the claims made by the lenders against the defaulters.

While it is a matter of concern, how will benchmarking haircuts work?

Benchmarking haircut is not a prescription. It’s not a number that you have to meet. But it is something that should guide the committee of creditors in terms of how and how quickly they should go through the resolution process..

He believes that the system needs to gear up to deliver better outcomes. He feels there are many reasons why 40% recovery is happening. He ascribed these low recoveries to companies close to liquidation coming to IBC, processes that dragged on for a long time eventually eroding the value of the assets, apart from other reasons.

“Going forward, 40% cannot be the benchmark. It is not good enough. Whereas 5% is not good enough either. We need to do better for secured financial creditors. And the changes that we are suggesting are in support of all of that,” he said.

Role of NCLT

As far as delays in the process are concerned, one aspect is counter litigation by promoters. This costs money and time to the whole system. How should IBC deal with such issues, especially when NCLT is facing the challenge of capacity?

Sinha suggested three steps to reduce litigation.

Firstly, fill the vacancies at NCLT as quickly as possible because then there is more time to adjudicate a case well and come up with a good resolution.

If judges don’t have enough time and rush through cases, they won’t give good judgments, and then things will end up in litigation. Therefore, adding capacity as soon as possible is one way in which we can deal with these endless litigation type issues.

Liquidation can’t be a benchmark under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Jayant SinhaSecondly, improve the quality of NCLT members. The parliamentary committee has recommended that the NCLT should at least have high court judges so that we can benefit from their experience and their wisdom. That’s another way to prevent litigation.

The third way of preventing litigation is to ensure when people submit the resolution plan as per the deadline, they do not have an opportunity to come in with another resolution plan after that. Because not doing so, will again rest in litigation, and a lot of contentions back and forth.

“So these are three very concrete steps that we have suggested to reduce litigation as it is one of the reasons a lot of these timelines are being extended,” he said.

ALSO READ: RBI Governor and Jayant Sinha to discuss IBC



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

‘IBC is a success, now time to bring individual, group and cross border insolvency’, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been a success so far in its five years of existence and has brought about a “significant change” in the corporate landscape of India in terms of credit culture, feels Biswarup Basu, President at the Institute of Cost Accountants of India. He suggests now is the time to bring individual, group and cross-border insolvency frameworks to further strengthen the framework. Edited excerpts.

Q: What is your take on the IBC regulation? Five years gone, would you read it as a success or a work in progress?

IBC is one of the deepest economic reforms adopted in India. In the last five years, it has brought about a significant change in the corporate landscape of India in terms of credit culture, unlocking of value from the non-performing assets, and the equation between debtors and creditors. This has resulted in putting a large amount of money back into productive channels. It is a nascent law.

Five years in the journey of a law of critical importance is too short, so in a way, there are constant restructuring / amendment of several provisions of the IBC to make it conducive so as to achieve its objectives. So it’s been a success but still the provisions of individual insolvency, cross border insolvency, group insolvency are yet to be notified / operationalised, and to that extent, one can say that it is a work in progress..

Q: What’s your view on 90% haircuts seen in three high profile cases, Jet, Videocon, and Siva?

The objective of IBC is primarily rescuing a company in distress and not recovery. So the outcome of various cases under IBC till now has to be seen in that context. Moreover, the haircut depends upon the stage of distress at which the company is brought into the IBC framework. All these companies were brought under the umbrella of IBC at a much later stage of distress, by which time most of the value of the assets of the company had already been eroded.

Q: Would you say IBC has its limitations and can’t satisfy everyone at the end of the day?

The law stands on its principles and objectives and all the stakeholders accordingly may not have similar outcomes from an IBC matter.

it may be noted that the law is not adversarial in nature where one party wins and the other loses. It seeks to balance the interest of all stakeholders to the extent possible whereby it is not possible to make everyone happy..

Q: What three challenges exist in the current IBC framework? What changes would you propose?

First, the timelines provided under IBC are not being met in the majority of the cases due to litigation and also lack of capacity of NCLT / NCLAT to deal with the large number of cases brought up before them. The NCLT / NCLAT should be strengthened in terms of manpower. Maybe separate benches could be created to deal with IBC matters.

Second, cross border insolvency provisions have not yet been notified. There are many companies that have assets located in multiple jurisdictions. It is suggested that the government should give this matter priority to further enhance the scope of IBC.

Third, individual insolvency provisions have not yet been notified. This should be operationalised sooner to provide succour to the Individuals facing financial hardships.

'IBC is a success, now time to bring individual, group and cross border insolvency’Q: There is a view that the regulators or statutory bodies take their own decisions even after resolutions are approved successfully by the NCLTs. Should there be more clarity on which law is superior?

It is well settled law that once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority it becomes binding on all stakeholders. There is enough clarity in this regard.

Q: How can CMAs play a role in the resolution of assets under IBC? Today a lot of insolvency professionals are CMAs…

Many CMAs have become insolvency professionals and are regularly handling various cases under IBC. Besides acting as the interim resolution professional / resolution professional, CMAs can also assist in carrying out due diligence, forensic audit, preparation of Information Memorandum, and preparation of resolution plan.

Q: Last, CMAs as RPs have been or are being litigated against quite a lot by promoters or dissenting lenders over haircuts. How should the RPs deal with such a situation?

Many promoters, who find themselves on the verge of losing control of their companies, try to find some way out or at least try to drag the matter longer and thus involve resolution professionals in litigation. The RP should have confidence in his actions, maintain proper documents relating to CIRP, and justify his action appropriately before the adjudicating authority.

ALSO READ: ‘IBC can’t make everyone happy, Videocon case will help law mature further’



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY