Role of Committee of Creditors (CoC) & It’s Commercial Wisdom / Business Decision under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC)

Role of Committee of Creditors & It’s Commercial Wisdom

The matters or grounds be it under Section 30(2) or under Section 61(3) of the Code are regarding testing the validity of the “approved” resolution plan by the CoC; and not for approving the resolution plan which has been disapproved or deemed to have been rejected by the CoC in exercise of its business decision”1

This part decodes:

  • Scope of judicial review by the adjudicatory authority in relation to the opinion expressed by the CoC on the proposal for approval of the resolution plan has held in various landmark judgments.
  • Commercial decision of CoC
  • Reverse the “commercial decision” of the CoC
  • Jurisdiction of NCLT & NCLAT in examining resolution plan
  • Discretion of the NCLT limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan
  • Justness of the approach of the dissenting financial creditors
  • Objection to the resolution plan
  • empower IBBI to specify requirements for exercising commercial decisions
  • constitution of a sub-committee

Case Laws referred in this part:

  1. Supreme Court decision in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.
  2. Supreme Court decision in Essar Steel India Limited
  3. Supreme Court decision in Maharasthra Seamless Limited Vs. Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors.

Introduction

Section 21(2) of the Code mandates that the Committee of Creditors shall comprise all financial creditors of the corporate debtor. “Financial creditors” are defined in Section 5(7) of the Code as meaning persons to whom a financial debt is owed and includes a person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred. “Financial debt” is then defined in Section 5(8) of the Code as meaning a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. “Secured creditor” is separately defined in Section 3(30) of the Code as meaning a creditor in favour of whom a security interest is created and “security interest” is defined by Section 3(31).

It is settled by several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court that in order to trigger application of the Code, a neat division has been made between financial creditors and operational creditors. It has also been noticed in some of judgments that most financial creditors are secured creditors and most operational creditors are unsecured creditors. The rationale for only financial creditors handling the affairs of the corporate debtor and resolving them is for reasons that have been deliberated upon by the BLRC Report of 2015, which formed the basis for the enactment of the Insolvency Code.

Provisions of the Code empower to the CoC explain as under:

  • Section 24 of the Code deals with meetings of the Committee of Creditors. Though voting on the approval of a resolution plan is only with the financial creditors who form the Committee of Creditors, yet the resolution professional is to conduct the aforesaid meeting at which members of the suspended board of directors may be present, together with one representative of operational creditors, provided that the aggregate dues owed to all operational creditors is not less than 10% of the entire debt owed. [Sections 24(2),(3) and (4)]
  • Voting shall be in accordance with the voting share assigned to each financial creditor, which is based on the financial debts owed to such creditors. [Section 24(6)]
  • As per Sec. 28, even though it is the resolution professional who is to run the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern during the intermediate period, yet, such resolution professional cannot take certain decisions relating to management of the corporate debtor without the prior approval of at least 66% of the votes of the Committee of Creditors.
  • Regulation 18 to 26 of the 2016 Regulations deal with meetings to be conducted by the Committee of Creditors. The quorum at the meeting is fixed by Regulation 22, and the conduct of the meeting is to take place as under Regulation 24. Voting takes place under Regulation 25 and 26.
  • CIRP Regulation 39(3) fleshes out Section 30(4) of the Code, making it clear that ultimately it is the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors which operates to approve what is deemed by a majority of such creditors to be the best resolution plan, which is finally accepted after negotiation of its terms by such Committee with prospective resolution applicants.

Supreme Court in Essar Steel held that it is clear that since corporate resolution is ultimately in the hands of the majority vote of the Committee of Creditors, nothing can be done qua the management of the corporate debtor by the resolution professional which impacts major decisions to be made in the interregnum between the taking over of management of the corporate debtor and corporate resolution by the acceptance of a resolution plan by the requisite majority of the Committee of Creditors. Most importantly, under Section 30(4), the Committee of Creditors may approve a resolution plan by a vote of not less than 66% of the voting share of the financial creditors, after considering its feasibility and viability, and various other requirements as may be prescribed by the Regulations.

Thus, what is left to the majority decision of the Committee of Creditors is the “feasibility and viability” of a resolution plan, which obviously takes into account all aspects of the plan, including the manner of distribution of funds among the various classes of creditors. As an example, take the case of a resolution plan which does not provide for payment of electricity dues. It is certainly open to the Committee of Creditors to suggest a modification to the prospective resolution applicant to the effect that such dues ought to be paid in full, so that the carrying on of the business of the corporate debtor does not become impossible for want of a most basic and essential element for the carrying on of such business, namely, electricity. This may, in turn, be accepted by the resolution applicant with a consequent modification as to distribution of funds, payment being provided to a certain type of operational creditor, namely, the electricity distribution company, out of upfront payment offered by the proposed resolution applicant which may also result in a consequent reduction of amounts payable to other financial and operational creditors. What is important is that it is the commercial wisdom of this majority of creditors which is to determine, through negotiation with the prospective resolution applicant, as to how and in what manner the corporate resolution process is to take place.

Approval of Resolution Plan

If the CoC had approved the resolution plan by requisite percent of voting share, then as per Section 30(6) of the Code, it is imperative for the resolution professional to submit the same to the adjudicating authority (NCLT). On receipt of such a proposal, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is required to satisfy itself that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements specified in Section 30(2).

In terms of Section 31 of the Code, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is expected to deal with two situations:

  • The first is when it does not receive a resolution plan under subsection (6) of Section 30 or when the resolution plan has been rejected by the resolution professional for noncompliance of Section 30(2) of the Code or also when the resolution plan fails to garner approval of not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors, as the case may be; and there is no alternate plan mooted before the expiry of the statutory period.
  • The second is when a resolution plan duly approved by the CoC by not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors is submitted before it by the resolution professional under Section 30(6) of the Code, for its approval.

In case of first category referred to above, In such a situation, the adjudicating authority can have no other option but to initiate liquidation process in terms of Section 33 (1) of the Code or say upon receipt of a “rejected” resolution plan the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is not expected to do anything more; but is obligated to initiate liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the Code.

In K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

  • the legislature has not endowed the adjudicating authority (NCLT) with the jurisdiction or authority to analyse or evaluate the commercial decision of the CoC much less to enquire into the justness of the rejection of the resolution plan by the dissenting financial creditors.
  • There is an intrinsic assumption that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan. They act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. The opinion on the subject matter expressed by them after due deliberations in the CoC meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is a collective business decision. The legislature, consciously, has not provided any ground to challenge the “commercial wisdom” of the individual financial creditors or their collective decision before the adjudicating authority. That is made non justiciable.

Discretion of the NCLT limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan

The discretion of the adjudicating authority (NCLT) is circumscribed by Section 31 limited to scrutiny of the resolution plan “as approved” by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors. Even in that enquiry, the grounds on which the adjudicating authority can reject the resolution plan is in reference to matters specified in Section 30(2), when the resolution plan does not conform to the stated requirements. Reverting to Section 30(2), the enquiry to be done is in respect of whether the resolution plan provides :

  1. the payment of insolvency resolution process costs in a specified manner in priority to the repayment of other debts of the corporate debtor,
  2. the repayment of the debts of operational creditors in prescribed manner,
  3. the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor,
  4. the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan,
  5. does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force,
  6. conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board. The Board referred to is established under Section 188 of the I&B Code. The powers and functions of the Board have been delineated in Section 196 of the Code. None of the specified functions of the Board, directly or indirectly, pertain to regulating the manner in which the financial creditors ought to or ought not to exercise their commercial wisdom during the voting on the resolution plan under Section 30(4) of the Code.

Jurisdiction of NCLT & NCLAT u/s 31(2) & 61(3) to interfere in Commercial  Decisions of CoC

Even the jurisdiction of the NCLAT being in continuation of the proceedings would be circumscribed in that regard and more particularly on account of Section 32 of the Code, which envisages that any appeal from an order approving the resolution plan shall be in the manner and on the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the Code.

The Court held that the remedy of appeal including the width of jurisdiction of the appellate authority and the grounds of appeal, is a creature of statute. The provisions investing jurisdiction and authority in the NCLT or NCLAT has not made the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of not approving the resolution plan or rejecting the same, justiciable. This position is reinforced from the limited grounds specified for instituting an appeal that too against an order “approving a resolution plan” under Section 31.

  • First, that the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force.
  • Second, there has been material irregularity in exercise of powers “by the resolution professional” during the corporate insolvency resolution period.
  • Third, the debts owed to operational creditors have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the prescribed manner.
  • Fourth, the insolvency resolution plan costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts.
  • Fifth, the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board.

Significantly, the matters or grounds be it under Section 30(2) or under Section 61(3) of the Code are regarding testing the validity of the “approved” resolution plan by the CoC; and not for approving the resolution plan which has been disapproved or deemed to have been rejected by the CoC in exercise of its business decision.

Indubitably, the inquiry in such an appeal would be limited to the power exercisable by the resolution professional under Section 30(2) of the Code or, at best, by the adjudicating authority (NCLT) under Section 31(2) read with 31(1) of the I&B Code. No other inquiry would be permissible. Further, the jurisdiction bestowed upon the appellate authority (NCLAT) is also expressly circumscribed. It can examine the challenge only in relation to the grounds specified in Section 61(3) of the Code, which is limited to matters “other than” enquiry into the autonomy or commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors. Thus, the prescribed authorities (NCLT/NCLAT) have been endowed with limited jurisdiction as specified in the Code and not to act as a court of equity or exercise plenary powers.

The Court held that in our view, neither the adjudicating authority (NCLT) nor the appellate authority (NCLAT) has been endowed with the jurisdiction to reverse the commercial wisdom of the dissenting financial creditors and that too on the specious ground that it is only an opinion of the minority financial creditors. The fact that substantial or majority percent of financial creditors have accorded approval to the resolution plan would be of no avail, unless the approval is by a vote of not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors. To put it differently, the action of liquidation process postulated in Chapter-III of the Code, is avoidable, only if approval of the resolution plan is by a vote of not less than 66% of voting share of the financial creditors.

No corresponding provision has been envisaged by the legislature to Reverse the “commercial decision” of the CoC

Be that as it may, the scope of enquiry and the grounds on which the decision of “approval” of the resolution plan by the CoC can be interfered with by the adjudicating authority (NCLT), has been set out in Section 31(1) read with Section 30(2) and by the appellate tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 32 read with Section 61(3) of the Code. No corresponding provision has been envisaged by the legislature to empower the resolution professional, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or for that matter the appellate authority (NCLAT), to reverse the “commercial decision” of the CoC much less of the dissenting financial creditors for not supporting the proposed resolution plan. Whereas, from the legislative history there is contra indication that the commercial or business decisions of the financial creditors are not open to any judicial review by the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. 

Justness of the approach of the dissenting financial creditors

There is no provision in the Code which empowers the adjudicating authority (NCLT) to oversee the justness of the approach of the dissenting financial creditors in rejecting the proposed resolution plan or to engage in judicial review thereof. Concededly, the inquiry by the resolution professional precedes the consideration of the resolution plan by the CoC. The resolution professional is not required to express his opinion on matters within the domain of the financial creditor(s), to approve or reject the resolution plan, under Section 30(4) of the Code. At best, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) may cause an enquiry into the “approved” resolution plan on limited grounds referred to in Section 30(2) read with Section 31(1) of the Code. It cannot make any other inquiry nor is competent to issue any direction in relation to the exercise of commercial wisdom of the financial creditors be it for approving, rejecting or abstaining, as the case may be. Even the inquiry before the Appellate Authority (NCLAT) is limited to the grounds under Section 61(3) of the Code. It does not postulate jurisdiction to undertake scrutiny of the justness of the opinion expressed by financial creditors at the time of voting.

To take any other view would enable even the minority dissenting financial creditors to question the logic or justness of the commercial opinion expressed by the majority of the financial creditors albeit by requisite percent of voting share to
approve the resolution plan; and in the process authorize the adjudicating authority to reject the approved resolution plan upon accepting such a challenge. That is not the scope of jurisdiction vested in the adjudicating authority under Section 31 of the Code dealing with approval of the resolution plan.

No empower IBBI to specify requirements for exercising commercial decisions

The Board established under Section 188 of the Code can perform powers and functions specified in Section 196 of the I&B Code. That does not empower the Board to specify requirements for exercising commercial decisions by the financial creditors in the matters of approval of the resolution plan or liquidation process.

Objection to the resolution plan is on account of infraction of ground(s) specified in Sections 30(2) and 61(3)

If the objection to the resolution plan is on account of infraction of ground(s) specified in Sections 30(2) and 61(3), that must be specifically and expressly raised at the relevant time. For, the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC can be challenged on those grounds. However, if the opposition to the proposed resolution plan is purely a commercial or business decision, the same, being non-justiciable, is not open to challenge before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) or for that matter the Appellate Authority (NCLAT). If so, non-recording of any reason for taking such commercial decision will be of no avail.

Non-recording of reasons would not per se vitiate the collective decision of the financial creditors

In terms of Section 30 of the Code, the decision is taken collectively after due negotiations between the financial creditors who are constituents of the CoC and they express their opinion on the proposed resolution plan in the form of
votes, as per their voting share. In the meeting of CoC, the proposed resolution plan is placed for discussion and after full interaction in the presence of all concerned and the resolution professional, the constituents of the CoC finally proceed to exercise their option (business/commercial decision) to approve or not to approve the proposed resolution plan. In such a case, non-recording of reasons would not per se vitiate the collective decision of the financial creditors. The legislature has not envisaged challenge to the “commercial/business decision” of the financial creditors taken collectively or for that matter their individual opinion, as the case may be, on this count.

No need to file appeal by dissenting financial creditors

In the K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors., cse it was then contended that NCLAT committed manifest error in not calling upon the dissenting financial creditors to respond to the applications filed in the concerned appeals pending before it, including with a prayer to allow the resolution applicant to revise the resolution plan.

The Court held that we find no merits in this submission. The reliefs claimed in the stated application filed before the NCLAT would not take the matter any further. For, it is enough for the dissenting financial creditors to disapprove the proposed resolution plan by voting as per its voting share, based on commercial decision. Indeed, if the opposition of the dissenting financial creditors is in regard to matter(s) within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal ascribable to Sections 30(2) or 61(3), then the situation may be somewhat different. But that is not in issue in these cases.

In the matter of Essar Steel, Hon’ble Supreme Court reinstated the existence of certain important assumptions as under:

It must necessarily take into account these key features of the Code before it arrives at a commercial decision to pay off the dues of financial and operational creditors

The minimum value that is required to be paid to operational creditors under a resolution plan is set out under Section 30(2)(b) of the Code as being the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of a liquidation of the corporate debtor under Section 53. The Insolvency Committee constituted by the Government in 2018 was tasked with studying the major issues that arise in the working of the Code and to recommend changes, if any, required to be made to the Code. The Insolvency Committee Report, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “The Committee Report, 2018”), inter alia, deliberated upon the objections to Section 30(2)(b) of the Code, in as much as it provided for a minimum payment of a “liquidation value” to the operational creditors and nothing more.

The Court held that this is the reason why Regulation 38(1A) speaks of a resolution plan including a statement as to how it has dealt with the interests of all stakeholders, including operational creditors of the corporate debtor. Regulation 38(1) also states that the amount due to operational creditors under a resolution plan shall be given priority in payment over financial creditors. If nothing is to be paid to operational creditors, the minimum, being liquidation value – which in most cases would amount to nil after secured creditors have been paid – would certainly not balance the interest of all stakeholders or maximise the value of assets of a corporate debtor if it becomes impossible to continue running its business as a going concern. Thus, it is clear that when the Committee of Creditors exercises its commercial wisdom to arrive at a business decision to revive the corporate debtor, it must necessarily take into account these key features of the Code before it arrives at a commercial decision to pay off the dues of financial and operational creditors. There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate discretion of what to pay and how much to pay each class or subclass of creditors is with the Committee of Creditors, but, the decision of such Committee must reflect the fact that it has taken into account maximising the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and the fact that it has adequately balanced the interests of all stakeholder  including operational creditors. This being the case, judicial review of the Adjudicating Authority that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors has met the requirements referred to in Section 30(2) would include judicial review that is mentioned in Section 30(2)(e), as the provisions of the Code are also provisions of law for the time being in force. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal.

The constitution of a sub-committee to the Committee of Creditors

In the matter of Essar Steel, Shri Sibal’s submitted that the Committee of Creditors delegated its functions to a sub- committee, which delegation is impermissible. As a result of this delegation, the sub-committee secretly made negotiations with ArcelorMittal, which secret negotiations then produced a wholly inequitable result in that Standard Chartered Bank, though a financial creditor, was only paid 1.74% of its admitted claim of INR 3487 crores as opposed to other financial creditors who were paid 74.8% of what was claimed by them. Under Section 21(8) of the Code, all decisions by the Committee of Creditors can be taken by a 51% majority vote, unless, a higher percentage is required under other specific provisions of the Code.

The Court found that when it comes to the exercise of the Committee of Creditors’ powers on questions which have a vital bearing on the running of the business of the corporate debtor, Section 28(1)(h) provides that though these powers are administrative in nature, they shall not be delegated to any other person, meaning thereby, that the Committee of Creditors alone must take the decisions mentioned in Section 28 and not any person other than such Committee. When it comes to approving a resolution plan under Section 30(4), there is no doubt whatsoever that this power also cannot be delegated to any other body as it is the Committee of Creditors alone that has been vested with this important business decision which it must take by itself. However, this does not mean that sub-committees cannot be appointed for the purpose of negotiating with resolution applicants, or for the purpose of performing other ministerial or administrative acts, provided such acts are in the ultimate analysis approved and ratified by the Committee of Creditors.

References

References
1 Supreme Court in K. Sashidhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

App

Install
×