9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 943 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyDirections to the Resolution professional to provide or furnish the details of fair value/liquidation value of the assets of the corporate debtor - Direction to Respondent to provide the information pertaining to claims submitted by the secured and unsecured creditors to the Resolution professional/Interim Resolution Professional - section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT - Regarding claims admitted by the RP the applicant wanted directions to RP to furnish the information with regard to those claims. In fact applicant has participated in the COC meetings and the issue of claims were placed for consideration. The RP has filed minutes of the COC meetings. The applicant participated in all the COC meetings and applicant should have been informed of all the claims admitted having attended the COC meetings. It is not true that RP has not disclosed the information about the admission of the claims since claims which were admitted will be disclosed in the website of the corporate debtor. Therefore, applicant has knowledge about the claims admitted by the RP. Since he attended the COC meetings. Accordingly, no direction need be given to the RP in this regard. The contention of learned counsel for RP is that the erst while members of Board are only entitled to look into the plan as soon as resolution plan is filed with the COC it will be given to the applicant and there is no question of disclosing any information regarding Fair value and liquidation value. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the fair value/liquidation value of the corporate debtor's assets. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to information regarding the claims submitted by secured and unsecured creditors to the Resolution Professional. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Fair Value/Liquidation Value: The applicant, a promoter and shareholder of the corporate debtor, sought directions for the Resolution Professional (RP) to provide details of the fair value/liquidation value of the corporate debtor's assets. The applicant argued that refusal to provide such data violated the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in "Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Another, 2019 4 SCC 17" and the Hon’ble NCLAT in "Sri CH. Sridhar vs. Dr. G.V. Narasimha Rao and others, Company Appeal, AT (Insolvency no's 1132-1133) of 2019". The applicant claimed that this information was essential to assist the RP and to ensure that the assets of the corporate debtor were not undervalued. The RP countered that the applicant's reliance on these judgments was misplaced and that Regulation 35 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, mandated confidentiality of fair value and liquidation value, which could only be disclosed to Committee of Creditors (COC) members upon receiving an undertaking to maintain confidentiality. The RP emphasized that the applicant, being a mere invitee without voting rights in the COC, was not entitled to this information. The Tribunal upheld the RP's contention, noting that the regulation explicitly required maintaining confidentiality and that the applicant, not being a COC member, was not entitled to the fair value/liquidation value. The Tribunal dismissed the application on this ground. 2. Entitlement to Information on Claims: The applicant also sought directions for the RP to provide information regarding the claims submitted by secured and unsecured creditors. The RP argued that the applicant, having participated in COC meetings, was already privy to such information and that details of claims were disclosed in the information memorandum and on the corporate debtor’s website. The Tribunal found that the applicant, having attended COC meetings, should have been informed of all claims admitted by the RP. The Tribunal noted that the RP had filed minutes of the COC meetings, which the applicant had attended, and that claims admitted were disclosed on the corporate debtor’s website. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no need to direct the RP to furnish additional information regarding the claims, as the applicant already had access to this information. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the applicant was not entitled to the fair value/liquidation value of the corporate debtor's assets due to confidentiality requirements under Regulation 35 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the applicant already had access to information regarding claims submitted by creditors through participation in COC meetings and disclosures on the corporate debtor’s website.
|
