Goal in You

There always be the time when you think about what happiness look like, so you could get what you want and enjoy your life until you don’t have anything that you wanted. I don’t remember when the…

Smartphone

独家优惠奖金 100% 高达 1 BTC + 180 免费旋转




PERSONAL GUARANTORS TO REMAIN ON THE HOOK EVEN AFTER A SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION PLAN

In a flurry of petitions filed in the Supreme Court and in various High Courts across India, individuals, particularly promoters, and managing directors of defaulting companies, challenged the constitutional validity of the November 2019 Notification. These individuals had one thing in common, they had all furnished personal guarantees for amounts borrowed by their associated companies, and such companies had since defaulted in their payment obligations. The November 2019 Notification and the related rules and regulations, allowed counter parties, mostly banks and financial institutions to commence insolvency proceedings against such individual guarantors.

Banks and financial institutions welcomed this development as it provided them with an effective mechanism to recover their advances, and who so far could only seek contractual remedies against sureties or rely on British Era insolvency laws, which were as some would argue out-dated, ineffective and time- consuming. The personal guarantors on the other hand, were outraged to say the least and rallied in challenging the November 2019 Notification.

The petitioners’ challenge was built on numerous arguments, including those of competency and authority of the Central Government to issue the November 2019 Notification, non application of mind in issuing it, and the unreasonableness of the classification it creates.

It was also argued, and very forcefully, that a duly approved resolution plan (under Section 31 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016) in respect of the corporate debtor — the primary borrower— would propose to extinguish and discharge the liability of the principal borrower to the financial creditor. Therefore, the petitioners’ liability as guarantors under the personal guarantee — which is co-extensive with the principal debtor — would also stand completely discharged.

The Union of India, rebutted this line of argument and argued that neither the guarantor’s obligations are absolved nor discharged in terms of Sections 133 to 136 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on account of release/discharge/composition or variance of contract which a principal borrower may secure by way of operation of law for instance as under the Code. Therefore, by way of approval of a resolution plan, any release/discharge secured by the principal borrower or entering into a composition with the principal borrower (reference to Section 135 of the Contract Act) cannot discharge the guarantor in any manner what so ever. It was further submitted that while the creditors were entitled to a ‘double dip’ there were enough safeguards in law, which do not permit the creditor to recover more than the total debt owed to it.

It finally held that:

We do expect fresh petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court order, as the proposition of law would have ramifications beyond the Code. Individual guarantors continue to defend themselves in multiple proceedings before civil courts, debt recovery tribunals and criminal courts, for dues of companies who have since extinguished/restructured their liabilities and had a fresh start under a new control and management, pursuant to an approved resolution plan. This ruling will have a direct impact on such proceedings.

At the same time the creditors have got a shot in the arm, and should now be able to recover a few more cents to a dollar than what they recovered in the the resolution plan. Although asset tracing, and questioning undervalue or fraudulent transactions, will pose their own challenges.

Going forward, individual promoters and directors ought to exercise caution in furnishing such guarantees, and will be well advised to negotiate the terms of the surety keeping the Supreme Court’s judgement in mind.

For more information please contact:

Murtaza Somjee, Partner, Disputes and Insolvency, murtaza.somjee@jmp.law

Rhia Marshall, Partner, Disputes, rhia.marshall@jmp.law

Add a comment

Related posts:

The Benefits of Prioritizing Mental Wellness in the Workplace

May is Mental Health Awareness Month! There are millions of Americans who struggle with mental illness every day; however, the past year living in a global pandemic has brought new attention to just…

The Calculation Behind Creating An Award Winning Animated Explainer Video

An animated explainer video is catchy and highly effective for increasing the ROI of a marketing campaign. According to a study, animated videos, on average, increase the lead generation of a website…

What is Puke 2 Earn?

The Puke 2 Earn NFT collection contains 10,000 unique NFTs with a few of them having rare traits. The first mint will be on the Ethereum blockchain. Ethereum is the largest NFT market yet with the…