Tag: supreme court

Now, Indian crypto exchanges hit by payment processors pullout, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Personal Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Just as they were breathing easy with the Reserve Bank of India clarifying that banks can do due diligence of crypto clients, Indian crypto exchanges have been hit by another hurdle.

With the RBI reiterating that it does not favour cryptocurrencies, major payment gateways have pulled out hitting transactions.

Customer complaints have inundated all India’s key exchanges as the pullout by major payment gateways, including Razorpay, PayU and BillDesk has hit transactions, according to social media and users.

The options

Options being resorted to including tying up with smaller payment gateways, building their own payment processors, holding back on immediate settlements or offering only peer-to-peer transactions.

At least two exchanges have tied up with smaller payment processing firm, Airpay, as its larger peers have cut ties.

Some crypto exchanges, such as WazirX, are forced to stick only to peer-to-peer transactions on certain days, while others, such as Vauld, allow bank transfers with manual settlement as they hunt for a payment processor, backing up settlements.

Smaller payment gateways have not proved very successful in executing high volumes of transactions, leading to failures that have resulted in a flood of user complaints.

Others, such as Bitbns, have built their own basic payment processor, allowing some essential transactions since the systems do not require prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India, the central bank.

A grey area

Despite the boom, cryptocurrencies are in a grey area in India, with the Reserve Bank hostile towards it and the government unsure about its prospects.

There is no legislation or regulatory code yet to govern the crypto ecosystem, leading to confusion among customers, businesses and financial institutions providing banking services.

In 2018, the Reserve Bank of India barred financial institutions from supporting crypto transactions, which the Supreme Court overturned in 2020. The government has circulated a draft bill outlawing all cryptocurrency activities, which has been under discussion since 2019.

Last month, the RBI asked banks not to cite its 2018 circular and clarified that banks can do their own KYC for crypto clients. With this, banks are now reassessing the situation, but several banks currently lack the technical expertise to make a supervisory assessment on these transactions.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , ,

Less than 4% of bankrupt realty firms see resolution at IBC, homebuyers hit hard, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Five years after the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was notified, only eight resolution plans have been approved although some 205 cases had been admitted until March 2021.

That translates into a success rate of under 4%, making it the worst-performing sector, barring computer and related activity.

The highest resolution is 10% for manufacturing where 178 of the 1784 admitted cases were resolved, followed by 7% for construction where 32 of 458 cases were resolved.

The hiccups

Unlike other sectors, there are more complexities in real estate. The rules keep evolving, which makes it difficult to comply with newer guidelines when a developer looks to take over a project.

For banks, the primary focus of the resolution exercise is to minimise the hit that they have to take on their loans and maximise the gains. In contrast, homebuyers want a more stable company to take over the company even if it means that lenders have to take a haircut.

A fall in real estate prices has complicated matters, making the project unviable for resolution applicants. In many cases, funds have been diverted and the debtor company doesn’t have sufficient money to construct the units. There are other complications when land is owned by more than one entity and needs to be combined, but in IBC there are no project or group insolvency provisions.

Less than 4% of bankrupt realty firms see resolution at IBC, homebuyers hit hard

Financial creditor status

The Supreme Court has upheld amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that introduced a minimum threshold of 100 home buyers or 10% of the total allottees of a project, whichever was lower, for initiating the insolvency process against a defaulting developer. The homebuyers had not taken kindly to these amendments on the ground that in every other category even a single creditor could by itself move the insolvency court.

They had argued that this was discriminatory and placed homebuyers at a disadvantage as they would have to herd a minimum number before they could act against any errant builder. It was also time-consuming, they had claimed in court.

Before these amendments were made, even a single buyer with claims of at least ₹1 lakh could move the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking insolvency proceedings against any builder. The amendments had been brought in after a top court ruling, which placed homebuyers on par with other financial creditors.

Some of the petitioners were money lenders, who had to also fulfil the same requirements to recover their monies lent to the builders for their real estate projects.

Defending the law, the government had said that it reduces multiplicity of cases in the NCLT and ensures quick disposal.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

After SFB license, Shivalik to raise its first fund of Rs 100 crore, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The co-operative bank turned Small Finance Bank, Shivalik Bank is going to raise funds for the first time as a small finance bank.

The recently turned SFB is looking to raise Rs 100 crore growth capital from institutional investors.

Harsh Mittal, Chief Financial Officer, Shivalik Small Finance Bank

Harsh Mittal, Chief Financial Officer, Shivalik Small Finance Bank in a conversation talks about the fundraising and expansion plans.

Maiden Fundraise

Mittal said, “This is the first raise we are going to raise funds as a small finance bank and there wasn’t a debt in the market that existed for co-operative banks before and this is the first raise the bank is going to do.”

He added, “We are looking to raise Rs 100 crore in this year and hopefully do it in next quarter for which requisite board approvals are in place. Board has given the scope to increase the amount.”

This is growth capital as the bank has already invested heavily in the digital and tech infrastructures in the past. Mittal said, “Most part of this capital will be used as growth capital towards ramping up disbursements and growing business to achieve our stated targets. This year we want to grow the business by 50% and increase the total business size to Rs 3000 crore and by 2024-25 we want to triple the size by Rs 6000 crore.”

Debt-Equity

Mittal explained that the great part is that the balance sheet has a lot of flexibility as we don’t have much debt on our balance sheet. Most of our capital adequacy is in Tier1 equity so this Rs 100 crore we are largely looking at equity raise and there’s a small component which will also be raised from debt.”

He adds, “80:20 split would be a reasonable number and are appointing investment bankers to run the process for us and the names will be finalised by the end of this month or mid-July.”

The bank is looking to onboard an institutional investor base including insurance companies especially the ones who already are in tie-ups and a couple of private equity players who have been investing in the SFB space. The idea is to broaden the investor base as at the moment it is broadly retail, Mittal said.

Credit Disbursement

The bank’s 50% of the book is secured business loans and will continue to focus on that.

Mittal explains, “One of the differentiating factors for us is that as an SFB 90% of our book is secured either by property or gold collateral. So we are a very secured lender in that sense and only 10% of our book is MFI.”

He adds, “Our focus would be on secured and gold loan business. The gold loan book has doubled in the last year and we plan to increase it further substantially again. Now that lockdowns have eased up we would want to cater to small businesses too.”

Expansion Plans

Shivalik Bank will be opening branches in unbanked regions as per the norm of RBI and is aiming to open 15 branches in FY22.

Mittal said, “This covers us on the regulatory requirement and in addition to regulatory requirement we are also looking at expansion in adjoining states in Delhi & Uttarakhand as we are already present in UP and Madhya Pradesh. On the digital side, we’ve tied up with India Gold for gold-related business and this year we are looking to add more FinTech partnerships which would help us to source customers on the liability side as well.”

Impact of Second Wave

The NPA recognition case in the Supreme Court didn’t allow it to issue recovery notices or proceedings. Mittal explained, “Since that got lifted towards the end of March, April was much better for us as we were able to issue some of the proceedings, and as a result borrower discipline was improved on the secured side.”

There was no major challenge in collection efficiency as due to the secured nature of our book, customers were more amenable discussing how they can improve their position and we don’t have large exposures in any of the currently challenging sectors like hospitality or aviation impacted due to Covid-19. Our book is very granular and the average ticket size is Rs 4 lakhs, said Mittal.

The bank saw restructuring of less than half a percent of its book in FY 20-21 and Gross NPA at 31 March 2021 was 3.9% which is expected to remain largely unchanged in Q1 21-22



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , ,

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

Banking & Finance

[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

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

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

Banking & Finance

[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

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

RBI asks banks not to cite its 2018 cryptocurrency circular

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday asked regulated entities to desist from citing or quoting from its April 2018 circular on “Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies (VCs)” as it is no longer valid following the Supreme Court setting the circular aside in March 2020. The regulated entities include all Commercial and Co-operative Banks, Payments Banks, Small Finance Banks, Non-Banking Finance Companies, and Payment System Providers.

The central bank said it has come across media reports that certain banks/ regulated entities have cautioned their customers against dealing in virtual currencies by making a reference to the RBI circular on “Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies (VCs)”dated April 06, 2018. “Such references to the above circular by banks/ regulated entities are not in order as this circular was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on March 04, 2020 in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No.528 of 2018 (Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India),” RBI said in a statement.

Also read: RBI cancels licence of Pune-based Shivajirao Bhosale Sahakari Bank

The central bank said the regulated entities may, however, continue to carry out customer due diligence processes in line with regulations governing standards for Know Your Customer (KYC), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) and obligations of regulated entities under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, (PMLA), 2002. Further, they should ensure compliance with relevant provisions under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) for overseas remittances.

Banks issue warnings

Recently, many banks warned domestic crypto currency investors about virtual currency transactions being done through their bank accounts and have said it is not permitted by RBI.

Many crypto investors tweeted that HDFC Bank has sent them a cautionary email stating that their account reflects probable virtual currency transactions, which is not permitted by the RBI based on their 2018 circular. SBI Card too has sent a similar advisory to customers and said that usage of credit cards for transaction on virtual currency merchant platforms may lead to suspension or cancellation of the credit card.

Private digital currencies/ virtual currencies/ crypto currencies (CCs) have gained popularity in recent years. RBI is exploring the possibility as to whether there is a need for a digital version of fiat currency and in case there is, then how to operationalise it.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , ,

Multiple contempt petitions filed in SC against Shaktikanta Das, bank forum chief, others, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


A number of petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor, Shaktikant Das, Chief Executive of Indian Banks Association (IBA) and others for allegedly flouting the SC’s earlier order, by turning and declaring the account of the petitioners as Non Performing Assets (NPA) in connection with the moratorium matter.

The petitioners – M/s Azeez Trading Company, Umrazz Trading Corporation, Ajay Hotel and Restaurant, Latur, Maharashtra — have filed their plea through lawyer Vishal Tiwari and Advocate On Record (AOR) Abhigya.

The respondents, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor, Shaktikant Das, Chief Executive of Indian Banks Association (IBA) were duty-bound to promulgate and ensure the compliance of the order of this court throughout the country but they deliberately didn’t, the petition said.

The Supreme Court’s order, dated September 3, 2020, was operational on all lending institutions/banks throughout the country and was passed in favour of all borrowers accounts to grant relief from financial stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, Tiwari said in the petition.

The September 3 order was passed in the presence of the respondents represented by their counsel and all were very well aware of the Stay order, the petition said.

It further claimed that the contemptuous act of the respondents had not only disobeyed the court’s order but also caused severe irreparable damage and loss to the petitioners.

“The petitioners have lost their image and has been defamed as the possession notice was published in the new papers of his locality which made the dignity of the petitioner lower,” it added

The contemptuous act of all the respondents has shaken the confidence of the public and has degraded the trust of the borrowers. In this Covid-19 pandemic where all borrowers are passing through the worst scenario and financial stress, the respondents’ alleged act is very disgraceful and contemptuous. The petitioners thereby sought the issuance of notice to the alleged contemnors for willfully violating the order/directions of the Apex Court passed in a writ petition.

“Punish the contemnors for having committed contempt of this Court,” the petition said.

Further, in the petition, Tiwari said that the stay order was passed in the pandemic COVID-19 for the benefit of stressed borrowers so that they shall not suffer in present financial crisis during the pandemic.

“There is already a slump in the work of the petitioner. The stay order was operating as a lifesaving drug but the contemptuous act of the respondent has brought a major setback to the petitioner and his survival has become critical,” the petition said.

Several petitions have already been filed in the same case before the Supreme Court.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , ,

SBI, HDFC Bank don’t want sensitive data made public, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The two largest banks in the country — State Bank of India and HDFC Bank — moved the Supreme Court on Friday and sought a stay on the Reserve Bank of India’s directive to banks to provide financially sensitive data under the RTI Act, saying they feared that it could be detrimental to their business operations and compromise confidentiality of customer information

Though the direction was sought against RBI, it was aimed at the SC’s order that allowed divulging of such data.

Court earlier restrained RBI from disclosure under RTI Act

The SBI, through advocate Sanjay Kapur, said, “In view of the judgment in Jayantilal N Mistry case, the RBI is seeking disclosure of confidential and sensitive information of the applicant bank, including information of its employees and its customers, purportedly under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which are otherwise exempt under the provisions of Section 8 of said Act.”

Appearing for the SBI and HDFC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of Justices L N Rao and Aniruddha Bose that divulging sensitive information like inspection reports/risk assessment reports/annual financial inspection reports of banks would render them vulnerable in the competitive banking sector to rivals, who could exploit the RTI Act to know the trade secrets and internal strengths of successful banks.

The court had earlier restrained the RBI from disclosing such reports under the RTI Act.

However, that interim order got washed away because of the SC’s April 28 order refusing the review the Jayantilal N Mistry judgment.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , ,

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

Banking & Finance

[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

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

IBA reaches out to govt for refund of compound interest waiver by banks, BFSI News, ET BFSI

Banking & Finance

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Indian Banks‘ Association (IBA) on behalf of lenders has approached the finance ministry to refund the burden fallen on their shoulders due to a recent Supreme Court judgment on the waiver of compound interest on all loan accounts which opted for moratorium during March-August 2020.

The March judgment of the apex court directed the banks to waive off compound interest on loans above Rs 2 crore availing moratorium as loans below this got blanket interest on interest waiver in November last year.

Compound interest support scheme for loan moratorium cost the government Rs 5,500 crore during 2020-21, and the scheme covered all borrowers including the prompt one who did not avail moratorium.

Various banks are at the different stages of executing the order.

Punjab & Sind Bank Managing Director S Krishnan said the burden on the bank due to waiver works out to be around Rs 30 crore.

The issue of reimbursement of the waiver amount by the government is being pursued by IBA on behalf of the banks, he said.

Asked if the finance ministry has responded to their request, he said, “So far, we have not heard anything positive on this.”

The apex court order this time is only limited to those who availed moratorium. So, the liability of the public sector bank should be less than Rs 2,000 crore as per rough calculations, sources had said.

The RBI on March 27 last year announced a loan moratorium on payment of instalments of term loans falling due between March 1 and May 31, 2020, due to the pandemic, later the same was extended to August 31.

The Supreme Court on March 23, 2021, directed that no compound or penal interest shall be charged from borrowers for the six-month loan moratorium period, which was announced last year amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and the amount already charged shall be refunded, credited or adjusted.

The apex court refused to interfere with the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India‘s (RBI) decision to not extend the loan moratorium beyond August 31 last year, saying it is a policy decision.

Rejecting pleas for a complete waiver on interest the court opined that such a move would have consequences on the economy. The bench also said that interest waiver would affect depositors. Along with this, the court also rejected pleas for further relief in the matter.

Soon after the order, the RBI asked banks and NBFCs to immediately put in place a board-approved policy to refund/ adjust the “interest on interest” charged to the borrowers during the six-month moratorium, in conformity with the Supreme Court judgment.

The central bank also asked lending institutions to disclose the aggregate amount to be refunded/ adjusted in respect of their borrowers based on the reliefs in their financial statements for the year ending March 31, 2021.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Leave a comment , , , , , , , ,
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9