In its final judgement on the insolvency proceedings against Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (ILFS), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) approved the resolution framework proposed by the government, on Thursday. Rejecting the opposition of the creditors, the two-judge bench headed by Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya said the money invested in IL&FS by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), State Bank of India (SBI), Central Bank of India and the ILFS Employees Welfare Trust, among others constituted public money, and hence the distribution framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should not be followed.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Thursday accepted a fresh distribution framework for Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS) suggested by the central government and SBI, which had proposed that there should be "fair and equitable" distribution of funds to all creditors. This plan was opposed by other creditors who had suggested that Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which gives preference to financial creditors over operational and all other kinds of creditors, be used for the resolution.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday directed the government-appointed board of the debt-laden IL&FS to conclude resolution of all its entities, preferably, within the next three months and distribute receivables on a pro-rata basis, as was suggested by the Uday Kotak-led IL&FS Board. The appellate tribunal also said the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the appellate tribunal has ample power to pass interim order in terms of Section 242(4) of the Companies Act and there was no need to modify or recall such orders issued earlier
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday approved the resolution framework for troubled IL&FS Group and sought the conclusion of resolution of all the entities, preferably within 90 days, while also clearing the formula for distribution of the sale proceeds to clear liabilities that add up to Rs 91,000 crore. In a 101-page order, NCLAT chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya set aside the question of jurisdiction and asserted that the cases will be decided by appellate tribunal.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Thursday rejected the objections raised by creditors over distribution of funds under the revised distribution framework in the Infrastructure Leasing and· Financial Services (IL&FS) matter, saying it would be against public interest. "We accept the suggestion of pro-rata distribution as suggested by Union of India and the procedure as suggested by it for the purpose of completing the resolution process," said NCLAT Chairman SJ Mukhopadhaya
Lenders to bankrupt Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd (IL&FS) expect to be able to offload some of the company's poorly performing road assets into an infrastructure investment trust (InvIT) by April, two people aware of the development said, requesting anonymity. They may, however, have to wait longer than their one-year lock-in period to make money from the assets, which would further extend the time-frame for resolving the IL&FS crisis
Company Appeal (AT) No. 346 of 2018 Union of India Vs Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. & Ors With Company Appeal (AT) No. 347 of 2018 Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
The liquidity position of housing finance companies is normalising and growth in the sector post IL&FS default is stabilising, according to the National Housing Bank. Going by the Q3 FY20 numbers, it sees a clear sign of growth pick-up. With Q4 being the peak period in the housing finance sector and Rs 20,000 crore of undrawn refinance sanctions available to HFCs, NHB expects a significant uptrend in their fresh sanctions and disbursements in the quarters ahead
At a time when Rana Kapoor, former MD and CEO of Yes Bank and his family are under investigation on charges of alleged money laundering and grant of suspicious loans extended by the Bank to various groups in the country, data sourced from top sources in the financial industry show that at least 44 companies, belonging to 10 large Indian business groups, accounted for bad loans of over Rs 34,000 crore of Yes Bank.
Given the dramatic rise in the number of resignations by independent directors, from 767 in 2018 to 1,393 in 2019, perhaps because of increasing risk of prosecution following corporate fraud and mis-governance, it is not surprising that the government should want to take some steps to check this. After all, if there aren't enough people willing to take up this job, how will corporate India find enough independent directors that are now required as part of the law? The corporate affairs ministry has ordered that no criminal or civil proceedings should be initiated against independent directors and non-executive directors of a company unless there is proof of complicity in an act of fraud/default; in any case, it has said that no prosecution can be initiated without the explicit approval of the government. There is, however, a flip side to this. The idea behind having independent directors on a company's board was to get another check on management and promoters- that is why the independent director was not to be related to the management/promoters, nor have a business relationship with them. But, if the independent director is to be completely shielded, and continue to get fat salaries/ commissions from firms, what is to even ensures/he will function as well?