Lenders slap personal insolvency cases on promoters of defaulting firms, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Banks are approaching the National Company Law Tribunal for invoking personal guarantees of defaulting promoters armed by the Supreme Court go-ahead for such action.

The latest data released by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) show that 56 new cases were filed in the first quarter ended June, almost half of the total 128 cases filed in the whole of fiscal 2021, as banks stepped up their recovery efforts from personal guarantors.

These include cases filed against promoters of Punj Lloyd, Amtek Auto, Videocon, DHFL, ABG Shipyard, Videocon, Varun Shipping, and Lanco Infratech.

Overall, a total of 201 cases have been registered against personal guarantors since the new law came into force in December 2019, 184 of which have been filed by financial creditors while 17 have been voluntarily filed by debtors.

Data from the IBBI show that creditors are chasing a total debt of Rs 36,014 crore through the personal insolvency process, which has been backed by personal guarantees of Rs 33,294 crore. Individual debtors have filed a relatively lower Rs 1,848 crore of claims backed by guarantees of Rs 791 crore.

The challenge

Anil Ambani, Kapil Wadhawan, Venugopal Dhoot had challenged proceedings against them under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to recover loans for which they had given personal guarantees.

They had argued that the resolution process would discharge them of all personal liabilities and guarantees and that the government was wrong to issue a notification that permitted lenders to initiate separate insolvency proceedings against them.

The guaranteed debt

According to an estimate, the top 10 personal guarantors have guaranteed debt of over Rs 1.6 lakh crore. Among the big names, former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Sanjay Singhal and his wife Aarti Singhal had furnished personal guarantees worth up to Rs 24,550 crore to take loans from a consortium of bank led by State Bank of India (SBI).

The former promoter of Reliance Communications, Anil Ambani, has also given a personal guarantee against the loan taken. Erstwhile promoter Wadhawan stands guarantee to loans taken by DHFL, which is sitting on debt of about Rs 90,000 crore, while Dhoot has also given a personal guarantee to a portion of Rs 22,000 crore loan to Videocon.

The Supreme Court order

The Supreme Court in May had held that the November 15, 2019 government notification allowing creditors, usually financial institutions and banks, to move against personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was ‘legal and valid’.

Post the judgement, a senior official of a public sector bank said banks are assessing the level of involvement of those directors who pledged their personal guarantee against the loan.

Banks have started receiving calls from some of the promoters for the exclusion of their personal guarantee from the non-performing assets. Some of them are coming forward to resolve bad loans to save their personal wealth.

Most of the promoters thought that once their case is admitted under IBC, their past obligations cease.

However, the order has generated fear among the promoters and directors who pledged their personal guarantee of losing their personal wealth as part of the resolution process.

The personal guarantees are likely to expedite the resolution process as the guarantor stands the risk of losing personal property.

The hurdle

Many of these promoters are being investigated for fraud and their assets are already attached by the investigative agencies. Getting these assets released from the law agencies will take time.

SBI action

SBI was one of the respondents to the 74 petitions and challenges by promoters on invocation of personal guarantees. It has been in the forefront of invoking guarantees of promoters of defaulting companies. It had invoked Rs 1200 crore of guarantees given by Ambani for defaulting companies Reliance Communications and Reliance Infratel.

SBI had also approached the Mumbai bench of the NCLT to initiate guarantees by the Videocon Industries Dhoot brothers totalling Rs 11,500 crore.

It had also taken Bhushan Power & Steel promoter Sanjay Singal to court to recover Rs 12,276 crore dues to the bank for which he was a guarantor. All these promoters had challenged these actions in court.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Personal insolvency proceedings start against Venugopal Dhoot; more promoters in line for action, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Videocon chairman Venugopal Dhoot is already under CBI investigation on charges of causing a wrongful loss to a consortium of Indian PSU banks led by SBI.

After ordering the freezing of assets of Videocon promoter Venugopal Dhoot and other officials, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted a personal insolvency petition against Dhoot.

Earlier the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) received permission to freeze Dhoot’s assets.

Asish Narayan has been appointed as the resolution professional (RP) in the case by a division bench led by judicial member Suchitra Kanuparthi and a technical member Chandra Bhan Singh. The next date of hearing is 20 September.

Lenders to Videocon had filed the personal insolvency petition to attach Dhoot’s assets a year ago and its admission now means the recovery process will go on full steam. But it is unclear how the admission of personal insolvency proceedings will impact the NCLT’s order freezing Dhoot’s assets on the MCA plea.

State Bank of India (SBI) the lead lender in the consortium of bank creditors to has also taken Venugopal’s brothers and Videocon co-promoters Rajkumar Dhoot and Pradipkumar Dhoot under the personal bankruptcy law.

Rs 18,000 crore debt

Banks led by SBI are seeking to recover close to Rs 18,000 crore by initiating guarantees given by the Dhoot brothers at different points in time to access loans from banks. Claims from Venugopal Dhoot come to about Rs 6100 crore while two separate petitions have also been filed by SBI has to invoke Rs 6,158 crore of personal guarantee given by Pradipkumar Dhoot and Rs 5353 crore to be recovered from Rajkumar Dhoot which are yet to receive the NCLT go ahead.

These guarantees were given by them for a mix of term and working capital loans granted to the company over the years.

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas is representing SBI in the case.

The way ahead

Now that NCLT has okayed the recovery process the RP will examine the application and submit his report stating the reasons for approval or rejection of the application within 10 days.

This process is different from the corporate insolvency process and the NCLT will determine going ahead with the personal insolvency based on the report of the RP.

In December over 94% of the creditors by value voted for Vendanta arm Twin Star Technologies as the preferred bidder to take over Videocon. Vedanta’s offer of a little over Rs 3,000 crore was a haircut of more than 95% on admitted claims of Rs 61,770 crore.

Other defaulting promoters

Banks have approached the National Company Law Tribunal for invoking personal guarantees of promoters of 17 defaulting companies.

The defaulting promoters include those of Punj Lloyd, Amtek Auto, ABG Shipyard, Videocon, Varun Shipping, and Lanco, according to reports.

Armed with a Supreme Court order, banks are looking to invoke personal guarantees of tycoons from Venugopal Dhoot to Kapil Wadhawan to recover unpaid loans from their delinquent firms

The guaranteed debt

According to an estimate, the top 10 personal guarantors have guaranteed debt of over Rs 1.6 lakh crore. Among the big names, former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Sanjay Singhal and his wife Aarti Singhal had furnished personal guarantees worth up to Rs 24,550 crore to take loans from a consortium of banks led by SBI.

The former promoter of Reliance Communications, Anil Ambani, has also given a personal guarantee against the loan taken. Erstwhile promoter Wadhawan stands guarantee to loans taken by DHFL, which is sitting on debt of about Rs 90,000 crore, while Dhoot has also given a personal guarantee to a portion of Rs 22,000 crore loan to Videocon.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Future, Voda Idea rulings threaten Rs 50,000 crore loans, underscore legal risks for banks, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Banks have been cautious in big-ticket lendings, taking into consideration various parameters.

Now they need to be overcautious about the adverse court rulings as just two verdicts of Future Group and Vodafone Idea delivered last week have put over Rs 50,000 crore loans in jeopardy.

Last week, the Supreme Court effectively blocked Future Group’s $3.4 billion sale of retail assets to Reliance Industries, jeopardising nearly Rs 20,000 crore the retail conglomerate owes to Indian banks.

Loans to Future worth nearly 200 billion rupees were restructured earlier this year, giving it more time to come up with repayments due over the next two years, but that was on the premise that Reliance would bail it out,

That Future ruling was delivered days after the Supreme Court rejected a petition to allow telecom companies to approach the Department of Telecommunications to renegotiate outstanding dues in a long-runinng dispute with Indian telecom players.

That raises concerns over whether Vodafone Idea will repay some Rs 30,000 crore it owes to Indian banks and billions of dollars more in long-term dues to the government.

At the end of March, Indian banks had total non-performing assets of Rs 8.34 lakh crore, the government has said.

Vodafone Idea

If the telecom firm fails to repay its adjusted gross revenue dues to the government and its guarantees are invoked, it would immediately turn into debt and would soon be classified as a non-performing asset. The Supreme Court last week rejected telecom firms’ plea for reconsidering calculation of adujsted gross revenues.

The hit on PSU banks will not be as large as their exposure because in recent years lenders have been demanding a substantially higher cash margin for their guarantees. IDBI Bank is understood to have up to 40% margins for the guarantees it has extended. But even then it will be large enough to wipe out profits for many.

What ahead?

The insolvency process can work only when there are buyers. In the case of Vodafone, the Rs 53,000-crore AGR (adjusted gross revenue) dues to the Centre are a deterrent. This is despite Birla being willing to write down his entire equity. The government dues cannot be avoided as the Centre cannot make an exception for one company. Even in insolvency cases, the department of telecom has claimed its dues to be that of a financial creditor although there have been attempts to mark them as operational creditors.

The uncertainty over DoT’s claims, which is already being experienced by lenders in the Reliance Communications insolvency case, would make telecom resolutions a challenge. Lenders do not want to risk insolvency as this would result in the exit of customers which was the case with RCom.

With the company’s debt obligations being equal to 1.5% of the banking sector’s credit, experts have suggested the debt be converted into equity shares, the company be nationalised and perhaps merged with BSNL and MTNL. However, it seems highly unlikely the government will nationalise the company. On balance, they would reckon it is better to give up the revenues than act politically incorrectly in bailing out a private sector player—one with a foreign promoter.

The Future is bleak

Local and overseas banks — 28 of them led by Bank of India — were counting on Reliance Retail’s takeover of the Future Group for recovery of their dues.

In April, the KV Kamath Committee set up by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) approved a proposal by the lenders to restructure loans to Future Retail and

Future Enterprises, the main units of the Kishore Biyani-led group. Bank of India is the lead lender among the 28 local and overseas financiers that floated the loan recast plan.

According to that deal, Future Group had promised to pay banks Rs 6,900 crore in two tranches by the end of FY22, mainly by selling its small format stores.

This would allow lenders to convert the short-term loans, non-convertible debentures and overdue working capital loans into term loans, which were to be repaid in two years. The group has not yet identified any buyers for these stores.

Bankers had agreed on the deal as a temporary arrangement on expectations that the Reliance takeover will be completed soon, meaning the lenders would no longer depend upon Future to make the payments.

With this latest court order, all such plans will have to be reconsidered.

The group has very little immovable property that can be sold. All its assets are in the form of inventory and receivables that are very difficult to recover. The Reliance-led plan is the best option right now because the recovery will be very low in the bankruptcy courts.

Future Retail is the largest debtor in the group, with about Rs 10,000 crore of dues. Two other listed companies — Future Enterprises that holds its supply

chain, and Future Lifestyle Fashions that houses apparel brands such as Central and Brand Factory — add another Rs 11,000 crore to the debt pile.

Lenders had agreed to an interest moratorium between March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021. They had also agreed upon waiving all penal interest and charges, default premiums and processing fees unpaid since March 2020 to the date of the implementation of the Reliance Retail takeover.

There is some respite in the central bank’s extension of the timeframe for meeting the financial parameters for companies undergoing restructuring.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks to discuss next course of action on Vodafone Idea, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: Lenders to Vodafone Idea (VIL) are expected to hold talks to decide on the future course of action with regard to their exposure to the debt-laden telecom player which is struggling to stay afloat.

This comes in the wake of Aditya Birla Group chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla offering to hand over his stake in VIL to the government or any other entity so that the company remains functional.

Meanwhile, Birla on Wednesday stepped down as non-executive director and non-executive chairman of Vodafone Idea.

S S Mallikarjuna Rao, MD and CEO of Punjab National Bank, on Tuesday said the developments in the last few days were areas of concern for the banking industry, referring the AGR-related issues for the telecom players.

Rao, however, said PNB‘s exposure is not very high in VIL and it is not going to impact its balance sheet.

“However, we will be definitely discussing with other bankers to see what kind of action we need to take going forward considering the statement of K M Birla only yesterday,” Rao said, referring to the billionaire businessman’s offer to hand over his stake in VIL to the government or any other entity.

The Supreme Court has dismissed applications by telcos for recalculation of AGR-related dues.

According to official data, VIL had an adjusted gross revenue (AGR) liability of Rs 58,254 crore, out of which the company has paid Rs 7,854.37 crore and Rs 50,399.63 crore is outstanding.

The apex court, in an order passed in September last year, had asked the telecom players to settle their AGR related dues worth Rs 93,520 crore towards the government over a period of 10 years.

VIL’s gross debt, excluding lease liabilities, stood at Rs 1,80,310 crore as of March 31, 2021.

IDFC First Bank has marked the account of VIL as stressed and has made provisions of 15 per cent (Rs 487 crore) against the outstanding exposure of Rs 3,244 crore (funded and non-funded).

“This provision translates to 24 per cent of the funded exposure on this account. The said account is current and has no overdues as of June 30, 2021,” the lender said in its Q1FY22 investor presentation, referring to the account as “one large telecom account”.

Writing a letter to Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba in June, Birla, who holds around 27 per cent stake in VIL, said investors are not willing to invest in the company in the absence of clarity on AGR liability, adequate moratorium on spectrum payments and most importantly floor pricing regime being above the cost of service.

“It is with a sense of duty towards the 27 crore Indians connected by VIL, I am more than willing to hand over my stake in the company to any entity- public sector/government /domestic financial entity or any other that the government may consider worthy of keeping the company as a going concern,” Birla said in the letter.

Among the other players, the AGR liability of Bharti Airtel is Rs 43,980 crore, Tata group Rs 16,798 crore, BSNL Rs 5,835.85 crore and MTNL Rs 4,352.09 crore.

Bharti Airtel has paid the government Rs 18,004 crore, Tatas Rs 4,197 crore and Reliance Jio has cleared its entire dues of Rs 194.79 crore.

Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Communications owes Rs 25,194.58 crore, Aircel Rs 12,389 crore and Videocon Telecommunications Rs 1,376 crore. However, these companies are under liquidation process.

Companies like Loop Telecom, Etisalat DB and S Tel, which jointly owe the government Rs 604 crore, have shut down their India operations.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks explore the option of invoking personal guarantee of promoters, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


New Delhi: Armed with Supreme Court order, banks may invoke personal guarantees of tycoons ranging from Venugopal Dhoot to Kapil Wadhawan to recover unpaid loans from their delinquent firms, sources said Monday.

According to an estimate, the top 10 personal guarantors have guaranteed debt of over Rs 1.6 lakh crore. Among the big names, former promoters of Bhushan Steel and Power Sanjay Singhal and his wife Aarti Singhal had furnished personal guarantees worth up to Rs 24,550 crore to take loans from a consortium of bank-led by State Bank of India (SBI).

The former promoter of Reliance Communications, Anil Ambani, has also given a personal guarantee against the loan taken. Erstwhile promoter Wadhawan stands guarantee to loans taken by DHFL, which is sitting on a debt of about Rs 90,000 crore, while Dhoot has also given a personal guarantee to a portion of Rs 22,000 crore loan to Videocon.

The Supreme Court in May had held that the November 15, 2019 government notification allowing creditors, usually financial institutions and banks, to move against personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was ‘legal and valid’.

Post the judgement, a senior official of a public sector bank said banks are assessing the level of involvement of those directors who pledged their personal guarantee against the loan.

After the assessment, another banker said, banks would move National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for invoking personal guarantee as part of the recovery process.

The official said that banks have started receiving calls from some of the promoters for exclusion of their personal guarantee from the non-performing assets. Some of them are coming forward to resolve bad loans to save their personal wealth.

Most of the promoters thought that once their case is admitted under IBC, their past sins and obligations cease, the official said.

However, the order has generated fear among the promoters and directors who pledged their personal guarantee of losing their personal wealth as part of the resolution process, the official said, adding, the personal guarantee angle would expedite the resolution process as the guarantor stands at risk of losing personal property.

The creditor-debtor relationship has got a leg up and this will minimise chances of default in the future.

The concept of ‘guarantee’ is derived from Section 126 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. A contract of guarantee is made among the debtor, creditor and guarantor. If the debtor fails to repay the debt to the creditor, the burden falls on the guarantor to pay the amount.

The creditor reserves the right to begin insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor if the latter does not pay. Usually, promoters of big businesses submit personal guarantees to creditors to secure loans and assure repayment.

During the hearings, the government had justified the November 2019 notification extending bankruptcy proceedings to personal guarantors. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued that by roping in guarantors, there was a greater likelihood that they would “arrange” for the payment of the debt to the creditor bank in order to obtain a quick discharge.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Wadhawan, Dhoot may lose assets as banks move to invoke personal guarantees, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The business tycoons whose bankrupt companies have been sold for a small fraction of the loans they owed may not be let off easily.

Lenders are in the process of appointing advisors to arrive at a fair value of their assets following the Supreme Court’s order on invoking personal guarantees of defaulting promoters.

Banks are assessing the value of assets held by promoters of at least 40 companies that are under the insolvency process, according to a report.

The promoters whose value of assets is being determined include Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhwan of DHFL; Videocon promoters Venugopal and Rajkumar Dhoot; Lanco Infratech’s Madhusudhan Rao and family, IVRCL’s Sudhir Reddy and Jatin Mehta of Winsome Diamonds.

Armed with the Supreme Court go-ahead to seize assets of personal guarantors, banks are looking to recover money parked in family trusts.

Many of the family trusts created by businesspeople are meant primarily to protect their assets from potential claims related to their companies, such as in bankruptcies. Neither lenders nor agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate or income tax department have been able to penetrate these asset protection trusts.

The SC verdict

The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A bench comprising justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that approval of resolution plan under the IBC does not discharge personal guarantors of their liability towards the banks.

“In the judgment, we have upheld the notification,” Justice Bhat said while reading out the conclusion of the judgement which decided as many as 75 petitions pertaining to the validity of the notification.

Petitioners had challenged the November 15, 2019 notification issued under the IBC and other provisions in as far as they relate to personal guarantors to corporate debtors.

Upholding the validity of the notification, the top court ruled that initiation of an insolvency resolution plan for a company does not absolve corporate guarantees given by individuals from paying up the dues to financial institutions.

The IBC law

Under the IBC law, banks can go after the family trusts formed by promoters or those who have given personal guarantees, provided there is a fraud or siphoning of money involved as per provisions of the IBC.

Promoters of several Indian companies had earlier accused their professional managers of fraud and diverting company funds. But they would not get any respite from the IBC as lenders will now invoke their personal guarantees.

SBI action

SBI was one of the respondents to the 74 petitions and challenges by promoters on invocation of personal guarantees. It has been in the forefront of invoking guarantees of promoters of defaulting companies. It had invoked Rs 1200 crore of guarantees given by Ambani for defaulting companies Reliance Communications and Reliance Infratel.

In January SBI had also approached the Mumbai bench of the NCLT to initiate invoking guarantees by the Videocon Industries Dhoot brothers totalling Rs 11,500 crore.

It had also taken Bhushan Power & Steel promoter Sanjay Singal to court to recover Rs 12,276 crore dues to the bank for which he was a guarantor. All these promoters had challenged these actions in court.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks eye family trusts of defaulting tycoons to recover loans, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Armed with the Supreme Court go-ahead to seize assets of personal guarantors, banks are looking to recover money parked in family trusts.

Many of the family trusts created by businesspeople are meant primarily to protect their assets from potential claims related to their companies, such as in bankruptcies. Neither lenders nor agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate or income tax department have been able to penetrate these asset protection trusts.

The SC verdict

The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A bench comprising justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that approval of resolution plan under the IBC does not discharge personal guarantors of their liability towards the banks.

“In the judgment, we have upheld the notification,” Justice Bhat said while reading out the conclusion of the judgement which decided as many as 75 petitions pertaining to the validity of the notification.

Petitioners had challenged the November 15, 2019 notification issued under the IBC and other provisions in as far as they relate to personal guarantors to corporate debtors.

Upholding the validity of the notification, the top court ruled that initiation of an insolvency resolution plan for a company does not absolve corporate guarantees given by individuals from paying up the dues to financial institutions.

The IBC law

Under the IBC law, banks can go after the family trusts formed by promoters or those who have given personal guarantees, provided there is a fraud or siphoning of money involved as per provisions of the IBC.

Promoters of several Indian companies had earlier accused their professional managers of fraud and diverting company funds. But they would not get any respite from the IBC as lenders will now invoke their personal guarantees.

SBI action

SBI was one of the respondents to the 74 petitions and challenges by promoters on invocation of personal guarantees. It has been in the forefront of invoking guarantees of promoters of defaulting companies. It had invoked Rs 1200 crore of guarantees given by Ambani for defaulting companies Reliance Communications and Reliance Infratel.

In January ET had reported SBI had also approached the Mumbai bench of the NCLT to initiate guarantees by the Videocon Indsutries’ Dhoot brothers totalling Rs 11,500 crore.

It had also taken Bhushan Power & Steel promoter Sanjay Singal to court to recover Rs 12,276 crore dues to the bank for which he was a guarantor. All these promoters had challenged these actions in court.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY