oppn parties IBC: Should Companies Be Handed Back To Promoters Who Ruined It?

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
IBC: Should Companies Be Handed Back To Promoters Who Ruined It?

By Linus Garg
First publised on 2018-10-31 07:42:43

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Linus tackles things head-on. He takes sides in his analysis and it fits excellently with our editorial policy. No 'maybe's' and 'allegedly' for him, only things in black and white.
The contentious issue of erstwhile promoters making a bid for their previous company under the IBC has reared its head again after the promoters of Essar Steel submitted a revised bid that was much higher than the bid submitted by Arcelor Mittal-Nippon Steel combine, with a condition that the creditors withdraw from the resolution process. As this was a very late bid, it had the potential of derailing the resolution process. Since the revised Essar bid, at Rs 54389cr was substantially higher than the Arcelor Mittal bid of Rs 42000cr, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) could have been swayed. But more than 92% of the creditors have decided to go with the Arcelor Mittal-Nippon bid.

It is obviously wrong to allow the promoters who have ruined a company and brought agony to creditors to bid for their own distressed assets. The simple reason for this is that it should be seen as an attempt to buy their assets at a heavily discounted price. Some people can also see a degree of fraud in this as the creditors are forced to take massive haircuts. The question also arises that how could the promoters arrange so much cash for bidding when they had none to run the company. Further, would it be wise to hand the company back to the ones who ruined it in the first place?

Obviously, the short-term interests of the creditors would be served better by going with whoever makes the highest bid as that would prevent them from taking big hits. But those creditors who think prudently would like to take a long-term view and think of doing further business with the revamped entity to recoup their losses. If that is the idea, then there is no point going with a discredited management. Arcelor Mittal-Nippon would bring in international expertise and good corporate policies to revive the company.