The Supreme Court, in a recent case of BRS Ventures Investments Ltd v SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd & Anr, has reiterated that assets of a subsidiary company cannot be part of the insolvency resolution plan of the holding company.
Brief Facts:
Gujarat Hydrocarbon & Power SEZ Ltd ("GHPSL") is the corporate debtor and a subsidiary of Assam Company Indian Ltd ("ACIL"). SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd ("SIFL"), being the financial creditor, had granted a loan of Rs 100 Crores for setting up of an SEZ project. The loan was secured by a corporate guarantee dated 5 January 2011 furnished by ACIL. Subsequently, a debt repayment and settlement agreement was entered into between GHPSL, SIFL and ACIL (as the guarantor). As GHPSL committed default, SIFL invoked the corporate guarantee of ACIL and initiated insolvency proceedings against ACIL. The Resolution Professional assessed claim of SIFL at Rs 241.27 Crores against ACIL. BRS Ventures Investments Ltd ("BVIL") i.e. the Appellant submitted the resolution plan, which was approved by Committee of Creditors ("CoC"), NCLT and confirmed by NCLAT. As a result, BVIL made a payment of Rs 38.87 Crores to SIFL in full and final settlement of all dues and demands. Thereafter, SIFL initiated insolvency proceedings against GHPSL for the balance amount under the loan facility of Rs 100 Crores. When resolution plan in respect of GHPSL was approved by CoC. The same was challenged by BVIL before the Apex Court.
Contention of the Parties:
BVIL i.e. the Appellant inter alia contended that assets of GHPSL were part of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings ("CIRP") in respect of ACIL. It was contended by BVIL that the entire project cost of GHPSL, including the land acquisition, was financed through equity and unsecured loans contributed by ACIL. As the information memorandum refers to this acquisition by ACIL under the caption "SEZ Business", the assets of GHPSL form part of CIRP of ACIL and therefore cannot be further dealt with in CIRP in respect of GHPSL.
SIFL i.e. the financial creditor contended that assets of the subsidiary company cannot be included in liquidation estate assets. Relying upon section 18 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code ("IBC"), it was submitted that assets of the subsidiaries cannot be included in the resolution process as subsidiary companies and holding company are separate legal entities, and, therefore, the holding company does not own assets of the subsidiary company.
Held:
After considering rival submissions, the Apex Court recorded a finding that the resolution plan for ACIL takes care of only the investment of ACIL in the subsidiaries and not the assets of the subsidiaries. It placed reliance upon (a) Explanation to section 18 (Duties of the interim resolution professional) of the IBC, which clearly states that the term "assets" will not include assets of any subsidiary of the corporate debtor, and (b) section 36(4) (Liquidation Estates), which states that assets of the subsidiary will not be included in the liquidation estate assets and shall not be used for recovery in the liquidation. As a result, objection of the Appellant i.e. BVIL was outrightly rejected.
MHCO Comment:
The view taken by the Supreme Court will ensure that subsidiary companies and holding company are treated as separate legal entities. Also, the assets of the subsidiary company will not in any way be included in the insolvency process of a holding company. This reiteration by the Apex Court will consolidate confidence amongst the shareholders of the subsidiary companies. At the same time, insolvency of the holding company will not adversely affect functioning of the subsidiaries as their assets will remain unaffected.
This article was released on 23 August 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.