Tag Archives: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Shun rhetoric, appreciate IBC problem

The IBC ordinance is another example of attempting to write a law to solve a problem that is not properly defined at the threshold

The debate over the presidential ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (IBC) to insert disqualifications of potential participants in the resolution process of an insolvent has become bipolar and divisive. Television channels are going breathless airing alternative views on alternate days. Columns (including in this paper) have attributed motives and sought to call out “canards” — a classic “Hinduho-ke-Musalmaan” type of zeal seen only in “holy wars” claiming righteousness.

 

The very nature of this fight makes it evident that the ordinance is good politics. However, in the process, the sweep of the real problem posed by the ordinance, runs the risk of remaining unaddressed, thereby risking the very effectiveness of the IBC.

 

The disqualifications introduced should first be noticed. The ordinance lists various categories of persons who would stand disqualified from participating in any resolution plan for any insolvent under the IBC.  Any promoter of such disqualified person, and indeed any “connected person” with such disqualified person also stands disqualified. The term “connected person” includes all “related parties” and “associates” of the disqualified person. In other words, once any person is disqualified, the scope and sweep of the disqualification is wide and expansive.

 

Now, three categories of disqualifications in the list, clearly are amenable to the charge of not having been thought through, and will truly have mindless and unintended consequences.

 

First: the disqualification of any borrower that has been classified as a “non-performing asset” and has stayed in that status for over a year. At first blush, this would appear logical — obviously an entity that is unable pay its own debts cannot be involved in resolving the problems for any other insolvent. However, every “connected person” i.e. every “related party” of such entity and every associate too would automatically stand disqualified.

 

The term “related party” under the IBC is wide — for example, any company with common shareholding of just 2 per cent would be a related party. The term “associate” would be even more problematic — but the minute detail is not necessary to make this point in this column. Therefore, if a business goes bust for any reason whatsoever, every promoter of that business, and every related party and associate can never participate in any resolution plan for any other insolvent under the IBC. It is not even the case that only the participation of such related persons in the resolution of that disqualified person would be barred. Every resolution of every other insolvent under the IBC would also be barred.  This is extreme, an unreasonable restriction, and can substantially wipe out the supply of authors of resolution plans.

 

Second: the disqualification of any guarantor of any debt owed by any insolvent under the IBC. This is an inexplicable disqualification. A guarantor of a company’s debt is someone who believed in that debtor and agreed to guarantee that debtor’s promise. When a resolution plan is sought to be made, the guarantor would have skin in the game because it is his neck on the line.  While keeping out such a person from the resolution of the debtor is itself questionable, keeping out such a person and every person connected with him from every other resolution plan for every other insolvent under the IBC is not even intelligible.

 

Third: the disqualification of any person (and indeed, of every connected person, related party and associate of such person) to whom the capital market regulator may have issued directions not to deal in securities or access the securities market. No time frame of the period of prohibition on dealing in securities is set out. The capital market regulator is known to have been trigger-happy in the past, issuing such directions even on an “ex parte” basis (without a hearing). There is no settled science or rationale for the choice of the length of the directions in the law.  Courts disturb or uphold such directions on the basis of the human judgement of nature of the facts in the cases before them. This disqualification would remove from the resolution market for all insolvents, a wide range of persons for no plausible, objective or intelligible rationale.
Worse, the same principles of exclusion from the market, would apply to any affiliate outside India.  This would wipe out from the resolution market almost every single multinational company that has an interest in India.  If any person anywhere in the world has ever become insolvent, or has become a non-performing asset or has been issued any direction not to deal in securities. all affiliates of that person all over the world would be ineligible to participate in a resolution plan in India under the IBC.

 

One can go on to other disqualifications too — for example: the disqualification upon conviction with an imprisonment term for a period of two years, without regard to what the conviction was for. So, if one family member has had an unfortunate tragic criminal conviction, every relative and every “connected person” would be banned from participating in any resolution plan for any insolvent. However, the three examples above would suffice to show how the public debate is wrongly focussed on “good vs. evil” terms — without nuance, and with deployment of blunt weapons rather than sharp instruments.

 

The IBC ordinance is another example of attempting to write a law to solve a problem that is not properly defined at the threshold. If the problem sought to be solved was to keep out those responsible for the cause of an insolvency from the resolution of that insolvent, the ordinance as promulgated is not the solution.
The very concept of identifying persons responsible for causing insolvency is very difficult to define in a one-size-fits-all manner.  The ordinance has demonized the occurrence of insolvency instead of recognizing that business failure is a part of life.  Every star investor and global business would have insolvents among their related parties.
This is why the IBC clearly envisages a role for professional resolution professionals and bankruptcy professionals.  It is for these professionals to oversee a resolution plan for insolvent companies. A committee of financial creditors has to approve the resolution plan. It is open to the resolution professional and the financial creditors to weed out misfits from participation. If a resolution professional does not perform well, she is subject to regulatory intervention from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, the regulator of these professionals. Instead of studying if this profession performs properly, the ordinance has put the very efficacy of IBC at risk, with an air of misplaced righteousness. It is time to cut out the noise and focus on the gravity of the problem.

 

A substantial part of this piece was published as the Without Contempt column in the Business Standard editions dated November 29, 2017

Between what’s said and left unsaid

If at the end of reading this piece, you feel it is an “impractical” and “theoretical” approach to “Indian realities”, you may not be alone. Yet, the following has to be said: Our policymakers just demonstrated doublespeak in relation to market integrity. They have flinched in making truth available to financial markets, a vital element for informed market decisions.

A terse one-line press release, appropriately drafted in passive voice, was issued by the (Sebi) on September 29, 2017. It read: “It has been decided to defer implementation of Sebi circular no CIR/CFD/CMD/93/2017 dated August 4, 2017, until further notice.”

The press release is significant for what it did not say rather than for what it did. What the circular being deferred was about, when it was meant to take effect, what weighed with the regulator in introducing it and what weighed with the regulator to indefinitely defer its introduction, what transpired in the time between the two events were all left unsaid.

This column is not another iteration of lawlessness in the process of law-making. Indeed, pre-legislative consultations are to be expected only for measures that the regulators are reluctant to introduce or repeal. On measures that could beget bouquets or brickbats, it is normal not to expect any pre-consultations.

Back to the circular that has been put off. On August 4, 2017, Sebi issued a circular to provide that effective October 1, every listed company would have had to disclose within one day, the occurrence of any default in payment of interest or principal on the due date. A simple measure that would have brought cleanliness and transparency to financial markets, it would also have spurred the solvent but indolent to buck up and ensure they did not inadvertently err in servicing financial obligations.

The measure was vital for integrating the with the rest of the financial market system. That a company is unable to meet its obligations when due could be material information that would inform investors’ decision on what to pay for or what to expect for the securities of that company. The disclosure obligation was introduced on this premise. However, the known inability to pay would make it clear to the market for banking and financial services that a company, which is unable to pay its debts when due, is borrowing from the system. This would enable a clearer profiling of the risk in dealing with such a borrower.

When the circular was issued, a retiring whole-time member of Sebi spoke about its virtues at length in public interviews. Sebi was happy to take credit for being the harbinger of a game-changing measure. The withdrawal, on the other hand, has been made in a whimper.

However, it seems these are not good times for dissemination of bad news.  Perhaps it was felt that a spate of disclosures of defaults would follow, lending credence to the gnawing belief that the economy is in a spiral, headed for a hard landing. Inexplicably, without any articulation of the cause for change of heart, the regulator has given credence to that assumption.

“India is not ready for it” is an argument one usually hears in relation to any inconvenient policy reform measure — for example, making an open offer to acquire all the residual shares during a takeover of a listed company; and getting every listed company to publish a prospectus-type document to bring material information about the state of affairs into the public domain even without a securities offering being involved.

This circular had also imposed a statutory obligation on listed companies to inform credit rating agencies about such defaults. Virtually every credit rating agency of relevance is facing proceedings with Sebi for not having downgraded a certain listed company’s debt-servicing capacity. When this company’s inability to service debt was discovered, the effect was so severe that a certain mutual fund with exposure to that debt had to shut the gate for redemption of units. If the regulator now believes that full and clear transparency to rating agencies is not in public interest, surely it should stop making fall guys out of them.

Sebi is quick and prone to lashing out with premature actions against alleged insider trading. Even bank accounts get impounded for periods longer than the law permits in the garb of securing proceeds of insider trading. The introduction of an obligation to make timely disclosures would have served the regulatory war against insider trading. It would have prevented wrongdoing and obviated punishment — the quicker the dissemination of material information, the lesser the scope for those in possession of it, thereby reducing the ability to trade ahead of the rest of the market, without fear of also violating the law mandating dissemination.

The leadership at Sebi has been actively involved in a policy game changer in the financial system — the introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a legislation that has so far largely received a resounding endorsement from the higher judiciary. World markets were looking at this circular as a game changer in aiding the effectiveness of this new law. Now, it is not to be.

If media reports are to be believed, the circular was considered to be utopian enough to make many in the banking system chicken out. If we send a signal that bringing out the full truth would be unpalatable not only for listed companies but also for banks that have exposure to such listed companies, it would mean that we are happy to let the truth — not just about borrowing listed companies but also listed banking companies — be shoved under the carpet.

“Being practical” is in itself a dangerous phrase. Many a social problem today ranging from domestic violence to female foeticide has been compounded by living in denial and enforced silence. Perhaps, we just got the financial markets version. If inadvertent payment defaults by solvent companies sending avoidable panic signals to the markets was what the Sebi was worried about, it could have tweaked the timing of the mandatory disclosure to the date on which the cure period for the default expires without the default getting cured.

 

This column was published as Without Contempt in Business Standard editions dated October 5, 2017

 

Last resort shouldn’t turn into first choice

By Somasekhar Sundaresan
The of India is reported to have blessed a settlement between a litigating lender and a corporate borrower after the process for insolvency under the newly-legislated had been set in motion.

 

The parties settled their differences and their settlement terms were approved setting aside the process, using the court’s powers under of the  This is a material development and points to the need to take a close re-look at some of the policy choices made in the new bankruptcy law, which is now about nine months old.

 

First, the process brings on par with lenders, who may have thousands of crores in loans to a borrower, any operational creditor (say, supplier of furniture) who claims dues of just over a lakh of rupees, in the legal capacity to trigger the “resolution process” under the code.  The grounds on which the National Company Law Tribunal might refuse to set the process in motion are limited — for operational creditors, the primary ground is the existence of disputes before the claim is made. In other words, only uncontested dues on which there is a default would lead to the being attracted. The case in the was not of an operational creditor but of a financial creditor, but that does not matter for the analysis here.

 

Second, once the resolution process is set in motion, a moratorium kicks in. No debt can be enforced on the company against whom the claim was made. While this might seem normal about “bankruptcy protection” it works well only for companies that are truly bankrupt. For companies that are solvent but have bona fide disputes over claims made by counter parties, this results in a prompt trigger of pariah status. If your promises cannot be enforced against you, no one would transact with you. This is all the more reason for the setting of the process into motion to be done with a great deal of care and caution. Until a recent ruling by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, various benches of the National Company Law Tribunal, which administers the new law, had taken a position that unless actual litigation had been initiated, no claim of any operational creditor could be regarded as disputed.

 

Third, not only would a moratorium kick in, but also an “interim resolution professional” would stand vested with all the powers of the board of directors of the company. The powers of the board of directors would stand suspended forthwith. The moratorium and the change of control are certainly fantastic features to handle the best interests of stakeholders of a truly insolvent company but they are certainly poisonous and not medicinal for a company that is solvent but can be threatened with initiation of the resolution process. Therefore, the very threat of a possible initiation of this process leads to coerced recovery that could in fact hurt a larger segment of lenders, who truly have the long-term financial interests of the company at heart.

 

This is why HDFC Bank Managing Director Aditya Puri’s statement that resorting to the insolvency courts is not the best solution unless the borrower is a wilful defaulter makes immense sense. In his reported words, this is a law of “last resort” and not the “first thing”. The capacity of any goods or services provider — an operational creditor — to set such a serious process in motion as the first thing, is worrisome. Once the moratorium kicks in, even the financial creditors of a company for which a moratorium has kicked in, would get hit and be unable to recover their dues.

 

Indeed, the creditors’ committee that is supposed to work during the moratorium could comprise a majority of creditors, who see a future in the company and can drown out the voice of the lone creditor who does not. Therefore, theoretically, if one does call the bluff of an aggressive operational creditor or a disgruntled financial creditor, and stays the course, the initiation of the resolution process can eventually come to mean nothing. However, this is theoretical and not practical. Once the world at large rearranges its view of a company whose promises cannot be enforced and has to deal with a chartered accountant or company secretary acting as a resolution professional without experience in running a business, even a reasonable view of creditworthiness of a doubtful debtor has to change to a perception of a bad debtor.

 

In this context, the coding in the law that entails no roll-back once the resolution process is set in motion is a hard and blunt weapon of last resort, which can cause more injury than warranted when used as the first resort. When the uses “for doing complete justice” and takes on record the settlement terms between a creditor, who has set the resolution process in motion and the debtor on whom a moratorium has kicked in, it is because really unjust and unintended consequences can emerge from the working of this law.

 

For the long-term health of the effectiveness of the bankruptcy law, it would have been better to help the new law build its core strengths by generating capacity and getting the resolution professionals and bankruptcy professionals to build bandwidth and gain competence before unleashing the burden of handling the entire society’s corporate debts on them. The burden of private corporate debt recovery could have been held back from imposing itself on the enforcement machinery until the immediate task of serious financial debts working itself through. The Supreme Court, which has powers to intervene and roll back a moratorium in the interests of justice, having used this power, it is time for a serious and quick rethink and pilot short amendments to make this law effective with a review scheduled for after two years.

 

This column was published in the Business Standard’s editions dated July 27, 2017 under the title Without Contempt

How lines of role clarity are getting blurred

By Somasekhar Sundaresan
The question of whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) can dictate terms to a quasi-judicial tribunal that presides over enforcement of loan recoveries is making news, with the Gujarat High Court asking how the central bank had the powers to regulate tribunals. That the RBI believed it could dictate terms to a quasi-judicial body is not important. What is important — rather, scary — is how easily role clarity can officially get mistaken in the running of our public institutions.

 

The foundational blunder that embeds wrong policy choice into the DNA and blurs role clarity is the Presidential that specially empowered the RBI to direct commercial banks on the action banks must take towards recovery of dues owed by borrowers. This is a classic example of a simplistic policy solution, which is an outcome of its authors presuming that everyone else before them had not been clever enough to see an obvious fix to a serious problem.

 

It is not the RBI’s job to take enforcement decisions for commercial banks. But having been given a cloak and a shining armour, the RBI perhaps came to believe that it could issue directions even to the National Company Law Tribunal on what it must do. Giving the RBI powers to direct banks on how to act under the newly-legislated Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code presumes that commercial banks were napping despite having been empowered by a new law. By vesting in the RBI the executive function of banks that it regulates, in other sectors, too, such interventions could follow. The insurance regulator could be asked to run insurance companies, the securities market regulator could be asked to operate mutual funds, and the pensions regulator may be asked to run pension funds.

 

Worse, the foundation has also been laid for vigilance agencies to knock on the doors of RBI officials, say, five years down the line, for bad decisions that were taken in the course of such enforcement. The banks’ problems will have become the RBI’s problems. This is a real possibility as the poor non-performing assets may provide next to no recovery, and buyers of some of these assets may make profits buying assets cheap — fertile ground for the Central Bureau of Investigation to say in the future that even the RBI has become tainted by corruption.

 

The RBI jumping in to notify a declaration on what the tribunal must do is also a replication of a classic policy choice in the past few years. The very creation of the National Company Law Tribunal, with powers to take serious judicial decisions such as award of damages as if it were a civil court, is based on the erroneous policy choice of creating new institutions to deal with problems that hurt the performance of existing institutions. Since justice administration is ineffective (due to myriad problems that cannot be reduced to populist reasons such as length of court vacations or lack of judges), successive governments have been getting to make empowering regulators to play the role of the  The requisite training and capacity building to discharge such roles are never invested in. Every disappointment with such experiments leads to even more egregious experiments, further blurring the lines of role clarity.

 

Examples abound. Sweeping powers given to capital markets regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, despite being an executive organisation, to take serious quasi-judicial decisions without imparting judicial training, is a great example. Likewise, even the quasi-judicial tribunals that are being set up with serious responsibilities, face resource constraints. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal is now empowered to play the role of an appellate tribunal not only for company law but also for competition law, as indeed in appeals from decisions under the new bankruptcy law.  However, the tribunal has just two members — one is a retired Supreme Court judge, the other a retired officer from audit and accounts service. One seat is lying vacant. The Securities Appellate Tribunal has been empowered to hear appeals against decisions of the insurance regulator, but it took forever for the government to even complete appointments to achieve a full bench.

 

When the alleged scam in the telecom sector was making news, many “creative” policymakers advocated involving the Comptroller and Auditor General in executive decision-making before a decision is made, so that the auditor does not later find fault with propriety of decision-making.  This was an example of how little inter-institutional checks and balances are appreciated and how easily they can get disrupted if the clamour for “change” gets loud enough to drown out reasoning.  Getting the banking regulator to take decisions that regulated banks must take on their own is in the same vein.

 

It is highly possible that sometime in the near future, desperation over capacity constraints in “insolvency professionals” not being able to cope with the burden imposed on them under the new bankruptcy law could lead to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to being given powers to play the role of the professionals it regulates.  Nothing could be a bigger blunder in the gestation of a nascent ecosystem.  Such a measure would weaken the ecosystem of insolvency professionals, the same way commercial banks are being weakened today by having the RBI decide on their behalf how to handle bad loans.

 

In parallel, another role ambiguity is hurting the ecosystem. Under the new bankruptcy law, any operational creditor may initiate a “resolution process”, which, at the threshold, suspends the powers of the debtor’s entire board of directors, and imposes a moratorium on recovery of any dues from the debtor.  The abuse of this provision has begun in earnest. Instead of servicing the financial creditors whose firefighting needs the system’s support, the enforcement system is being clogged with anyone claiming Rs 1 lakh or more being able to hold all the financial creditors to ransom, to extract a settlement by threatening a snowballing effect of a moratorium. The pain of having the moratorium presents a perverse incentive to small operational creditors who can derail the financial creditors’ engagement with complex decisions, which can involve weighing recovery, enforcement, revival strategies and exit planning, all at once. Clearly, overzealous knee-jerk policy is only going to cause more problems, far from solving existing problems.

 

This Without Contempt column was published in the editions of Business Standard on July 13, 2017