Forfeiture under resolution process upheld where contractual LoI terms and failure to pay precluded refund of security.

Successful resolution applicant's refund claim for performance security and 1% upfront payment was rejected because the applicant failed to pay amounts and implement the approved resolution plan; the Letter of Intent expressly permitted release of assets only after full payment and allowed forfeiture of sums paid on default, and recorded acceptance of assets on an "as is where is" and "no recourse" basis. The adjudicatory finding that the applicant defaulted was treated as final, and the appeal against refusal to refund was dismissed, leaving the contractual forfeiture and non-refund outcome intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Successful Resolution Applicant is entitled to refund of the performance security and 1% upfront payment where it failed to deposit amounts and implement the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority's order of 19.01.2024, holding that the SRA failed to deposit the upfront payment and failed to implement the approved resolution plan, is final. The Letter of Intent dated 30.08.2021 expressly provided that assets would be released only after payment of the full resolution amount and that amounts already paid, including performance security and upfront payment, may be forfeited in case of default. The Letter of Intent also recorded that the Resolution Applicant had carried out due diligence and accepted assets on an "as is where is" and "no recourse" basis. The Appellant did not deposit amounts as per the plan and sought relief despite these contractual and procedural stipulations; the Adjudicating Authority applied these stipulations in rejecting the refund claim.

Conclusion: The Appellant is not entitled to refund of the performance security and 1% upfront payment; the appeal is dismissed and the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the refund application is upheld.

---