TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Halts Videocon Group Resolution Plan, Cites IBC Concerns</h1> <h3>Bank of Maharashtra and Ors. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. and Ors.</h3> Bank of Maharashtra and Ors. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. and Ors. - TMI Issues:Challenging the approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC, breach of confidentiality clause, payment modalities, adequacy of payments to creditors, concerns regarding Operational Creditors, valuation of assets, adherence to confidentiality clauses, representation of CoC members, and the stay on the Impugned Order.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal heard two Appeals challenging the Impugned Order approving a resolution plan for 13 Corporate Debtors of Videocon Group undergoing a consolidated CIRP. The dissenting Financial Creditor argued non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC, highlighting discrepancies in proposed payments compared to the Liquidation Value. The Counsel contended that the Resolution Plan's payment structure, involving NCDs, was altered without CoC approval, raising concerns about the breach of confidentiality clauses regarding the Liquidation Value.Furthermore, it was argued that the Resolution Plan offered a significant haircut to creditors, with minimal upfront payments, especially affecting Financial Creditors. The Adjudicating Authority's observations noted the substantial haircuts proposed for creditors, particularly Operational Creditors, and urged an increase in payouts to prevent insolvency among MSMEs. The Authority also raised concerns about the adequacy of payments and the possession transfer of Corporate Debtors to the Successful Resolution Applicant.Additionally, the Adjudicating Authority emphasized the valuation of assets, confidentiality clauses, and the representation of CoC members in the resolution process. It questioned the adequacy of payments, the valuation process, and the representation of CoC members, suggesting a thorough examination by IBBI to ensure compliance with confidentiality clauses and fair representation.In response to the concerns raised, the Appellate Tribunal stayed the Impugned Order, directing the maintenance of the status quo ante. It required the Respondents to file Reply-Affidavits, with subsequent filings of Rejoinders and Written-Submissions, and set a hearing date for the Admission of both Appeals. The Tribunal aimed to address the raised issues comprehensively, considering the exceptional circumstances of the case and the interests of all stakeholders involved in the resolution process.
TaxTMI 