Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + SCH Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (4) TMI SCH This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 569 - SCH - Insolvency and BankruptcyWithdrawal/modification of approved Resolution Plan - Section 31(1) of IBC - HELD THAT - Resolution plans are not prepared and submitted by lay persons. They are submitted after the financial statements and data are examined by domain and financial experts, who scan, appraise evaluate the material as available for its usefulness, with caution and scepticism. Inadequacies and paltriness of data are accounted and chronicled for valuations and the risk involved. It is rather strange to argue that the superspecialists and financial experts were gullible and misunderstood the details, figures or data. The assumption is that the resolution applicant would submit the revival/resolution plan specifying the monetary amount and other obligations, after in-depth analysis of the fiscal and commercial viability of the corporate debtor - Absence or ambiguity of details and particulars should put the parties to caution, and it is for them to ascertain details, and exercise discretion to submit or not submit resolution plan. Records of corporate debtor, who are in financial distress, may suffer from data asymmetry, debatable or even wrong data. Thus, the provision for transactional audit etc, but this takes time and is not necessary before information memorandum or virtual data room is set up. Financial experts being aware, do tread with caution. Information memorandum is not to be tested applying the true picture of risk obligation, albeit as observed by the NCLAT the resolution professional s obligation to provide information has to be understood on best effort basis. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses cross-appeals under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding the approval of a resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors. Summary: The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upholding the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the withdrawal or modification of a resolution plan. Referring to the case of "Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited," the Court emphasized that a resolution applicant cannot alter the plan post-approval by the Committee of Creditors. The Court highlighted that the resolution plan, once approved, becomes binding on all stakeholders under the Code. The resolution plan's approval by the adjudicating authority restricts any unilateral amendments or withdrawals by the resolution applicant. Regarding the specific grounds for withdrawal presented by the successful resolution applicants, the Court found that the reasons provided did not amount to fraud on the part of the resolution professional. The Court examined various aspects, including the information memorandum and data provided to prospective resolution applicants before plan submission. The Court also considered the manufacturing output and financial data available in the virtual data room to evaluate the resolution plan's viability. The Court scrutinized the Mott Macdonald Report and other critical aspects highlighted by the resolution applicants. It was noted that the resolution plans are prepared by financial experts after thorough analysis, and any deficiencies in data should be carefully considered by the applicants before plan submission. The Court emphasized that resolution plans are not to be judged based on absolute accuracy but on the overall commercial viability and risk assessment conducted by financial experts. Ultimately, the Court set aside the NCLAT's judgment and upheld the resolution plan submitted by the successful resolution applicants. The parties were directed to appear before the NCLT for further proceedings to expedite the resolution process. The appeals were allowed in favor of the successful resolution applicants, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|