New Amendments To CIRP Regulations – Relief For Bidders And Dissenting Financial Creditors
The Amendment Regulations have come into force on 5
October 2018.
India
Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the
IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons)
Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the fourth time in 2018 on
5 October 2018 through the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for
Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (Amendment
Regulations). The Amendment Regulations have come into force on 5
October 2018. The key highlights of the Amendment Regulations are
set out below:
Amendment
|
Implication
|
- Regulation 38(1) of the CIRP Regulations has been amended
to:
- remove provisions regarding payments towards insolvency
resolution process cost (IRP Cost) (erstwhile Regulation 38(1)(a))
and liquidation value to dissenting financial creditors (erstwhile
Regulation 38(1)(c)); and
- modify the provision regarding payment of liquidation value to
operational creditors to state that such payment will be given
priority in payment over financial creditors (previously, this
payment had to be made within 30 days of the order of the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approving the resolution plan).
- The following conditions specified in Regulation 39
regarding the mandatory payments under Regulation 38(1), have been
removed:
- the obligation on the COC to specify, while approving a
resolution plan, the amounts payable under Regulation 38(1) from
the resources under the resolution plan; and
- the obligation (inserted through the July 2018 amendment)
requiring a prospective resolution applicant to submit an
undertaking that it will provide for additional funds required for
Regulation 38(1) payments.
- The definition of "dissenting financial creditors"
has been removed from the list of definitions under Regulation
2.
|
- The removal of the 30-day payment period for operational
creditors' liquidation value will come as a relief for
resolution applicants (RAs). Most committee of creditors (COC)
allow RAs to make upfront payments within certain days of the NCLT
approval and sometimes give more than 30 days from NCLT approval.
Further, resolution plans may also contain conditions precedent and
RAs are understandably reluctant to make any payment pending the
completion of such conditions. Pegging this payment to the
financial creditor payment achieves the intended objective of
protection of operational creditors without adversely impacting the
RAs.
- The removal of the dissenting financial creditors' right to
receive their liquidation value has been mentioned in IBBI's
press release on the Amendment Regulations (Press Release) as being
a consequence of the change related to operational creditor payment
but that is hard to understand. It is important to note that unlike
the IRP Cost and operational creditors, the obligation to pay
liquidation value to dissenting financial creditors' protection
was provided only under the CIRP Regulations and not under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). In view of this
provision, certain resolution plans provided that dissenting
financial creditors will only be paid their liquidation value. But
the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the case of Central
Bank of India v Resolution Professional of Sirpur Paper Mills
Limited and Ors [NCLAT order dated 12 September 2018] has held that
no distinction should be made between payments to financial
creditors on the ground that they have dissented or consented to
the resolution plan. IBBI's removal of this provision appears
to have been prompted by this judgment.
- The rationale for deletion of the IRP Cost related provision
from Regulation 38 is not provided in the Press Release. However,
since the Code itself states that IRP Cost needs to be paid in
priority to all other debt of the corporate debtor, IBBI may have
felt that Regulation 38(1)(a) was superfluous.
- The Amendment Regulations have come into force immediately and
there is no clarity on whether these changes are equally applicable
to resolution plans which have been approved by the COC but pending
NCLT approval or where resolution plans have been approved by the
NCLT but pending implementation.
|
Regulation 21(3) has been amended to remove the requirement for
all members of COC to be present at the COC meeting in order for a
vote to be taken.
|
This change has brought Regulation 21 in line with Regulation 25
which anyway allowed COC members (who had not voted during the COC
meeting) to vote on the relevant matters later.
|
- Regulation 25 has been amended to require the RP to circulate
COC meeting minutes to the authorised representative of a class of
creditors. Further, a new provision has been inserted requiring
such authorised representative to circulate the meetings to the
creditors in the class and provide a 12-hour voting window with
notification of such window and voting instructions at least 24
hours before the window opens.
- As a corollary to the changes to Regulation 25, Regulation 26
has been amended to require the authorised representative to vote
as per the voting instructions received by him from the creditors
in class.
|
These changes are procedural in nature and allow creditors in a
class to vote through their authorised representative after a COC
meeting if they were unable to vote on any matter prior to such
meeting.
|
A new condition has been added under Regulation 39A requiring
the interim resolution professional (IRP) and RP to maintain
physical and electronic copies of records related to corporate
insolvency resolution process (CIRP) as per the record retention
schedule to be communicated by the IBBI in consultation with
insolvency professional agencies.
|
The objective of this change appears to be to promote greater
transparency and accountability in the performance of obligations
by the IRP / RP.
|
Comment
The amendments to Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations are
likely to have a significant impact on financial proposals under
resolution plans and decision making by COC although courts may
need to interpret the scope of the applicability of the new
provisions to pending resolution plans.
The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the
views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the
author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact
Khaitan & Co at legalalerts@khaitanco.com