Parliamentary panel suggests capping ‘haircuts’ after furore over Videocon, Siva settlements, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


A parliamentary panel has suggested having a benchmark for the “quantum of haircut” in an insolvency process amid instances of financial creditors taking steep haircuts on their exposure to stressed companies.

Besides, the committee has pitched for measures to prevent protracted litigations with respect to an insolvency resolution process.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which came into effect in 2016, provides for a market-linked and time-bound resolution of stressed assets.

Emphasising that the fundamental aim of the Code is to secure creditor rights which would lower borrowing costs as the risks decline, the panel said there is a need for greater clarity in purpose with regard to strengthening creditor rights through the mechanism devised in the Code.

On haircuts

The committee flagged that “the low recovery rates with haircuts as much as 95 per cent and the delay in resolution process with more than 71 per cent cases pending for more than 180 days clearly point towards a deviation from the original objectives of the Code intended by Parliament”.

The committee particularly mentioned about the “disproportionately large and unsustainable ‘haircuts’ taken by the financial creditors over the years”.

In some insolvency resolution processes, the haircuts taken by creditors were more than 90 per cent.

“As the insolvency process has fairly matured now, there may be an imperative to have a benchmark for the quantum of ‘haircut’ comparable to global standards,” it noted.

A haircut refers to losses incurred by creditors on resolution of a stressed asset.

The suggestions have been made by the Standing Committee on Finance in its report on the ‘Implementation of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Pitfalls and Solutions’. The report was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday.

On delays

It is a matter of grave concern for the committee that the insolvency process has been stymied by long delays far beyond the statutory limits. It is disconcerting that even admission of cases in NCLT has been taking an unduly long time, which thus defeats the very purpose of the Code, the panel noted.

After about half a dozen amendments in five years, the IBC seems to have deviated from its original objectives, thanks to inordinate delay in resolution and the low recovery rate with haircuts running up to 95% in few cases, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance said in a report.

As many as 13,170 insolvency cases involving claims of Rs 9 lakh crore are awaiting resolution before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the report tabled in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday said.

The committee also pointed out that there have been instances of frivolous appeals, which further drags the resolution/ recovery process leading to severe erosion of asset value.

Abuse of provisions

The panel said it would therefore recommend that misuse/ abuse of well-intended provisions and processes should be prevented by ensuring an element of finality within the statutory stipulated period without protracted litigation.

There have been six amendments to the Code so far.

According to the committee, any legislative enactment and implementation need to constantly evolve to meet the challenges in the ever-changing ecosystem.

However, the panel said it is of the opinion that “the actual operationalisation of amendments made so far may have altered and even digressed from the basic design of the statute and given a different orientation to the Code not originally envisioned”.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

RCom bidding may be back to square one, haircut may exceed 65%, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Lenders of Reliance Communications are staring at lesser recovery prospects as they may have to go for fresh bidding.

They are worried that similar to the Aircel case, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is unlikely to permit asset reconstruction firm UVARCL buying RCom’s spectrum and other assets under a resolution plan.

The delay is rapidly eroding the value of the assets, especially spectrum, further depleting the amount the lenders were hoping to recover.

Aircel case

In the Aircel case, RBI denied UVARCL permission to buy Aircel’s assets for flouting norms under the Sarfaesi (Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest) Act. The RBI decision came even after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had approved the Aircel resolution plan.

According to the Sarfaesi Act, asset reconstruction companies cannot infuse equity into an insolvent company at the resolution stage.

The RCom resolution

RCom’s committee of creditors (CoC) cleared the resolution plan in March 2020, which would have seen UVARCL buy all assets, including spectrum, under RCom and Reliance Telecom, while a Reliance Jio unit was to buy the company’s towers housed under Reliance Infratel.

The plans were filed in the NCLT a few days later.

While the NCLT has cleared the tower sale to Jio, it has not cleared the transfer of the other assets to UVARCL yet. The tower sale, though, has not yet been implemented, with Jio recently approaching the NCLT with fresh concerns. RCom had filed for bankruptcy in 2019.

Under the resolution plan, UVARCL is expected to pick up RCom’s spectrum for Rs 12,760 crore, with the total recovery expected to be in the Rs 20,000-23,000 crore range against claims of Rs 57,382 crore, a roughly 65% haircut for lenders. Jio is to buy the towers for nearly Rs 5,000 crore.

Recovery worries

The IBC process has recently come under criticism after high-profile accounts such as Videocon were sold for near liquidation value and settlement in the case of Siva Industries yielded pittance.

The realisation for financial creditors from IBC declined significantly in FY2021 with a total resolution amount of around Rs 26,000 crore, almost a quarter of the realisations in fiscal 2020.

The pandemic has increased operational challenges for the various parties involved in a CIRP, which resulted in limited cases yielding a resolution plan. The suspension of new proceedings under the IBC for the entire FY21 resulted in a sharp slowdown in the resolution process.

Out of the total 4,300 cases that have been admitted to bankruptcy courts since FY17, only 8% has been resolved and nearly 40% of the cases are still pending. About 30% of the cases have seen liquidation.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Does Siva settlement signal banks’ disillusionment with IBC?, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Lenders of Siva Industries and Holdings have approved a one-time settlement proposal from the promoter under which they will take a 93.% haircut and just Rs 5 crore upfront cash.

Of the company’s total dues of Rs 4,863 crore, the IDBI Bank-led lenders will get Rs 313, excluding upfront payment, within 180 day of receiving NCLT nod.

They will recover Rs 318 crore, with Rs 5 crore as upfront cash, out of the company’s total dues of Rs 4,863 crore. This amounts to a haircut of 93.5 per cent.

The holding company owes financial and other creditors about Rs 5,000 crore. Tata Sons had filed a claim of Rs 863 crore against the Sivasankaran group company but that was rejected by the latter’s interim resolution professional.

The creditors received an offer from Mauritius-based Royal Partner for the company but that was rejected on the grounds that the investor had been unable to demonstrate its seriousness in completing the deal.

Unusual settlement

Bankruptcy experts have termed the development unusual, citing the rejection of such offers by promoters in the past.

The acceptance of Sivasankaran’s offer differs from the usual pattern of rejection by creditors of such deals proposed by promoters seeking to withdraw their companies from bankruptcy proceedings.

Atul Punj of Punj Lloyd, Videocon’s Venugopal Dhoot, Sanjay Singal of Bhushan Power and Steel, and the Ruias of Essar Steel had all made offers to creditors to persuade them to drop bankruptcy proceedings. All were rejected.

In DHFL’s case, the promoter Kapil Wadhawan had offered to repay the debt in full, but the lenders ruled in favour of Piramal.

Experts say while banks may be getting the most out of such settlement in absence of any serious bid, but such a move weakens the IBC, especially Section 29A that bars promoters from bidding for their assets in a bankruptcy court. The Siva deal, if it goes through, could set a precedent of promoters striking settlement deals with banks when there are no bidders.

Other controversies

Sivasankaran, who was the founder of Aircel before he sold it to Malaysia’s Maxis Communications, is no stranger to controversy.

The South India-based businessman has been at the centre of a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over alleged irregularities in loans obtained from IDBI Bank. Sivasankaran was accused of obtaining loans from IDBI Bank’s overseas branches and using the proceeds to repay loans obtained from the bank in India which had turned non-performing.

He was also accused by Cyrus Mistry of receiving favours from Ratan Tata such as the grant of a loan to buy a stake in Tata Teleservices. But these allegations were rejected by the Supreme Court in its verdict on the Tata-Mistry dispute delivered on March 26.

Siva Industries was admitted for bankruptcy proceedings on July 4, 2019, as per a public announcement uploaded on the website of the IBBI.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY