Sober Ltd. (the Company) is engaged in the business of running hotel chains in India as well as outside India. Due to less demand faced during the pandemic, the Company was unable to meet its financial obligations. Finan
CS Professional · Insolvency - Law and Practice · PYQS · June 2023
Sober Ltd. (the Company) is engaged in the business of running hotel chains in India as well as outside India. Due to less demand faced during the pandemic, the Company was unable to meet its financial obligations. Financial creditors of the Company decided to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). On 1 st January, 2022, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the Company started and Shyam was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional. The Company was subjected to parallel insolvency proceedings in India as well as Netherlands (where it had registered office). In the Netherlands, the Company was declared bankrupt and the Dutch trustee had been appointed to manage the estate of the Company. During the 1 st meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), Shyam was confirmed to act as Resolution Professional (RP). Considering the future potential in the Company, many strategic and financial investors expressed their interest in buying the Company including one of the members of the CoC who also submitted Expression of Interest to the RP. Shyam after due verification, published the final list of the prospective resolution applicants. One of the investors, Simba Ltd. wrote an email to Shyam stating that they also want to participate in the process and submitted all the required documents to Shyam for their name to get included in the final list of the prospective resolution applicants. Shyam refused to include their name in the final list stating that no provision exist under the IBC to include name of any party, once the final list of the prospective resolution applicants is published by the RP. During the CIRP process, Shyam had appointed two valuers to carry out valuation. The fair value given by Valuer 1 was ₹1,750 crore and Valuer 2 was ₹550 crore and liquidation value was ₹1,000 crore and ₹200 crore respectively. During the discussions with the valuers to understand the methodology adopted by them to carry out the valuation, Shyam realized that both the valuers have carried out valuation based on the internationally accepted valuation methods and have made certain assumptions while arriving at the final numbers. Lawyer of Shyam had suggested that since the valuation given by Valuer 1 is advantageous for the stakeholders, he can put the valuation report issued by Valuer 1 before the CoC. Shyam agreed and moved ahead accordingly. During one of the meetings of the CoC, the financial creditors were deliberating on how to maximize the value of the Company and fetch a best possible resolution plan. In response, one of the members of the CoC requested the entire CoC to explore possibility of 'Swiss Challenge' to improve value of the resolution plans. However, none of the other members agreed stating that there is no provision under the IBC for exercising a 'Swiss Challenge'. When the final resolution plans had come, the RP after due verification and completing required formalities, had put-up all the plans on voting. The outcome of voting was as under: S. No. Particulars Voting result 1 Resolution Plan 1 56% 2 Resolution Plan 2 67% 3 Resolution Plan 3 67% 4 Resolution Plan 4 75% One of the members of the CoC suggested to carry out the voting again since the voting percentage of Resolution Plan 2 and 3 is same. The RP denied stating that once the voting is done, re-voting on the plans cannot be done again in the present scenario. Accordingly, Resolution Plan 4 was filed with the adjudicating authority for approval. The resolution applicant had mentioned in the Resolution Plan 4 to put ₹80 crore in the form of working capital as well as capital expenditure, once the company's handover formalities are completed. Even after 1 year of handover, the resolution applicant did not infuse the aforesaid amount. In fact, the resolution applicant requested the financial creditors to waive off the condition to infuse money for working capital and capital expenditure. Shyam being part of the monitoring committee, overseeing implementation of the resolution plan, expressed his concern on the request made by the resolution applicant citing violation of the provisions under the IBC. Consider the above case and relevant provisions of the IBC, its rules and regulations made thereunder, answer the following questions: Whether the following actions of Shyam are in accordance with the IBC? (i) Accepting the valuation report given by Valuer 1 and moving forward? If not, suggest an action plan to Shyam.
Answer & Explanation:
As per Regulation 35 of the IBBI (Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the fair value and liquidation value shall be determined as follows: The two registered valuers appointed under Regulation 27 must submit an estimate of the fair value and liquidation value, computed according to internationally accepted valuation standards, after physical verification of the corporate debtor's inventory and fixed assets. If, in the opinion of the Resolution Professional (RP), the two estimates of a value are significantly different, the RP may appoint another registered valuer to submit an estimate. The average of the two closest estimates of a value shall be considered as the fair value or the liquidation value, as the case may be. In the present case, the valuations provided are: Valuer 1: Fair Value = ₹1,750 crore, Liquidation Value = ₹1,000 crore Valuer 2: Fair Value = ₹550 crore, Liquidation Value = ₹200 crore The difference in valuations is significant: Fair Value difference: ₹1,750 crore - ₹550 crore = ₹1,200 crore Liquidation Value difference: ₹1,000 crore - ₹200 crore = ₹800 crore Given this significant difference, Shyam's action of accepting the valuation report from Valuer 1 and moving forward is not in accordance with the IBC regulations . Suggested Action Plan for Shyam: As per Regulation 35, Shyam should have appointed a third registered valuer . After receiving the third valuation report, he should then consider the average of the two closest estimates to determine the fair value and liquidation value.
Topics: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)
Related Questions in this Topic
- Mr. V. Ramaswamy is former Director of Corporate Debtor namely M/s Narmada Project Limited an application field with Res...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. Krish, an operational creditor, filed an application with the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Delhi) to initiate the C...
- Mr. K Sridhar and Mr. K. Murali are the Directors of M/s S & M Engineering Enterprises Limited (SMEEL). Unfortunately, b...