Reliance Capital case: Battling for higher value to stakeholders says IIHL

The Hinduja group's IIHL, in its appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), has said it is batting for a higher valuation for the stakeholders of Reliance Capital.

The IIHL said there is no bar on multiple rounds of challenge mechanism to arrive at a higher valuation for a company and the the Adjudicating Authority has committed the grave error of jurisdiction in interfering with the commercial decision of the Committee of Creditors (COC) which has found the offers/resolution plans as sub-optimal.

The impugned order halts the COC's decision to continue with the challenge mechanism with a threshold value of Rs 9,500 crore.

The IIHL said the Adjudicating Authority had committed grave jurisdictional error in entertaining an application which seeks to interdict an ongoing Resolution Process being carried out by COC at the behest of a resolution applicant who is seeking to grab a company by causing a loss of several hundred crores to the financial creditors.

According to IIHL, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in restraining the COC in exercising commercial wisdom and achieving the objects of maximisation of asset value.

The IIHL also said the Adjudicating Authority has ignored that the COC has reserved in itself wide and sweeping powers which would allow it to conduct a comprehensive assessment of viability and thereby achieves the best possible value from the bidders.

It contended that the Adjudicating Authority has sought to effectively step in the shoes of the COC and take over the decision-making process and interfere with the exercise of commercial wisdom of the COC.

The Adjudicating Authority has usurped the powers of CoC, IIHL said.

In its appeal, the IIHL said the Adjudicating Authority has glossed over the fact that Torrent is not a successful resolution applicant as the evaluation is at an intermediate stage where the COC is undertaking a price discovery exercise for the maximisation of asset value.

Further, the Adjudicating Authority failed to envisage that Torrent, as one of the prospective resolution applicants, is merely a participant in the insolvency resolution process and would not have any locus to stall the resolution process.

The impugned order has been passed without any jurisdiction as any action by a claimant under Section 60(5) of the IBC has to draw its source from violation of any statutory provision under the Code, and the adjudicating authorities cannot exercise its jurisdiction upon equitable considerations while determining any such claim, the Hinduja group's IIHL said.

Reiterating its stand, IIHL said that they are compliant and the NPV through the challenge round is Rs 8,110 crore, but this represents only 30 per cent in the evaluation matrix.

According to IIHL, the Adjudicating Authority has provided undue weightage to the NPV submission of Torrent and has failed to consider that the NPV factor is the outcome of the payment proposition in the respective resolution plans.

The IIHL said it has offered Rs 9,000 crore in a compliant fashion in the interest of LIC, and the EPFO, and the other creditors of the CoC.

It also contended that the Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider that the NPV submission of the appellant was compliant and the outlay in the revised plan included heads under the "Total Payment to Creditors" as set out in the Process Note.

SEE ALSO:
India's first solar-powered electric vehicle could cut your daily transportation costs by one-third!
Sensex, Nifty clock gains with buying in IT and finance stocks