9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1777 - Tri - Companies LawCorporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Held that - We are inclined to issue directions to have a reconsideration of modified offer, if any, submitted by the Resolution Applicant in the application. At this juncture Counsel appearing for the H-1 applicant strongly objected issuing such a directions to the RP. According to him such a direction, if issued, it would prejudice to the H-1 Resolution Applicant and that the entire process is to be disrupted. The above objection seems to have no legal force at all because RP not at all concluded the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the COC did not finalised, which is the best resolution plan to be taken into consideration for its approval. Only ranking of Resolution Applicant based on the highest offer and other requirement to be meted out as per the information memorandum is finalised. So in the interest of all stake holders and in order to arriving for maximisation of value of assets of the corporate debtor allowing the H-2 Resolution Applicant to modify its offer and give an opportunity in participating in the bidding process to be finalised by the COC is just and proper in the nature of this case. In the said circumstances it appears to us that directions to the Resolution Professional is to be issued in order to avoid further interruption in the CIRP.
Issues:
1. Stay of rank of H-1 applicant in a meeting. 2. Revision of bid by Resolution Applicant. 3. Consideration of modified offer by RP before COC approval. 4. Objection by H-1 applicant. 5. Issuance of directions by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of a stay of the rank of the H-1 applicant in a meeting held on 26/04/2018. The Resolution Professional (RP) mentioned that a Modified Information Memorandum was published on 23/04/2018, allowing Resolution Applicants to revise their offers. The applicant in question submitted a revised offer on 26/04/2018, which was lower than the H-1 applicant's offer. The RP contended that there was no merit in the applicant's request for a stay. 2. The Tribunal heard arguments from the applicant's counsel, RP's senior counsel, and the H-1 applicant's senior counsel. It was noted that the applicant sought a revision of its offer and reconsideration by the RP before the Committee of Creditors (COC) approved the Resolution Plan. The Tribunal decided to issue directions for a reconsideration of any modified offer submitted by the applicant, despite objections from the H-1 applicant's counsel. The Tribunal reasoned that as the CIRP was not concluded and the COC had not finalized the best resolution plan, allowing the H-2 applicant to modify its offer was in the interest of all stakeholders. 3. In response to the objection raised by the H-1 applicant's counsel, the Tribunal emphasized that the RP had not concluded the CIRP, and the COC had not finalized the best resolution plan for approval. The Tribunal believed that allowing the H-2 applicant to modify its offer and participate in the bidding process would maximize the value of the corporate debtor's assets. Therefore, the Tribunal issued directions to the RP to receive modified offers from both the H-1 and H-2 applicants and present them to the COC for consideration. 4. The Tribunal directed the RP to receive modified offers from both the H-1 and H-2 applicants by a specified date and time, and to file the final report or Resolution plan by a set deadline. The COC was instructed to consider both revised offers and choose the best one if it met all legal requirements. The case was scheduled for further consideration on a specific date to ensure the resolution process continued without interruptions.
|
