Critical Analysis Of Section 29A has emerged as a comprehensive legislation with a speedy and specific procedure for dealing with the issue of insolvency. One of the main objectives of the IBC is to provide the corporate debtor with a resolution plan. Before the Amendment Act, of 2017, there were no specific criteria or qualifications on who submits a resolution plan to the resolution professional. Due to which any party, including the promoters of the corporate debtor or any related party. This was highly criticized based on its wide scope permitted was a loophole, thus paving the way for the promoters to gain a back-door entry to the management of the debtor. Through the Amendment Act, 2017 was brought forth, wherein Section 29A was inserted.
Read more : Offences and Penalties under IBC, 2016
Critical Analysis Of Section 29A of IBC
What is the purpose of Section 29A?
The main goal of this provision is to prevent individuals to prevent individuals who contributed to a company’s financial distress from benefitting from the insolvency process by acquiring control at a discounted price. This ensures that only credible parties with the best interests of creditors can take over the company.
What are its key elements?
A person is ineligible to submit a resolution plan under Critical Analysis Of Section 29A if they are an undischarged insolvent, a wilful defaulter as per the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines, have a non-performing assets (NPAs) accounts, or are connected to someone who falls under these categories. Therefore, this section creates multiple layers of disqualification.
Applicability to Connected Persons:
“Connected persons” refers to individuals closely associated with the potential resolution applicant, like promoters, directors, or related parties. This means that if a connected person is ineligible, it can disqualify the resolution applicant.
Judicial Interpretations of Section 29A
The Supreme Court in the Essar Steel case clarified the provision of Critical Analysis Of Section 29A of the IBC. This case upheld the constitutionality of Critical Analysis Of Section 29A and affirmed its role in protecting the insolvency framework from abuse by defaulting promoters. The court ruled that the ineligibility criteria applied to the resolution applicant, as well as people acting jointly or in concert with them. In ArcelorMittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta, the court interpreted section 29A of the IBC, ruling that ArcelorMittal was ineligible to submit a resolution plan due to outstanding NPAs held by its related corporate debtor. Hence, this case effectively defines the scope and application of section 29A regarding eligibility restrictions for resolution applicants. In Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Case highlighted how Critical Analysis Of Section 29Acan be used to challenge the eligibility of a resolution applicant even if they are not directly connected to the promoters, but have familial ties with individuals considered ineligible.
Read more : Balancing environmental claims during CIRP
Layers of Ineligibility and Their Implications
Section 29A IBC establishes a multi-layered system of ineligibility, essentially four distinct layers where a person can be deemed ineligible to submit a resolution plan.
Layer 1:
This covers situations where the individual directly falls under the ineligibility criteria outlined in section 29A, such as having NPA with the corporate debtor, being a promoter of the company in distress, or having defaulted on significant debts. This section includes the “NPA for over a year” clause. This impacts genuine entrepreneurs who may have defaulted due to external circumstances and the potential exclusion of deserving resolution applicants.
Layer 2:
This layer extends the ineligibility to individuals closely associated with the first layer person, including family members, holding companies, subsidiaries, and anyone who controls or has significant influence over the first layer person’s business operations. Thus, Critical Analysis Of Section 29A leads to issues in determining the scope of connected persons and how it creates legal and practical complexities for resolution applicants.
Layer 3:
This layer further expands the scope to include individuals who are considered “related parties” to the connected persons, even if they do not have direct involvement in the first-layer person business. It effectively prevents defaulting promoters from regaining control of distressed assets, ensuring a clean and fair resolution process.
Layer 4:
The last layer extends to the scope of individuals who are considered related parties to the connected persons, even if they do not have direct involvement in the first person’s business. The ineligibility criteria disproportionately affect micro, small, and medium enterprise promoters, limiting their ability to participate in resolution plans.
Challenges in Implementing Critical Analysis Of Section 29A
Over-Deterrence:
The wide definition of ‘related party’ and ‘connected persons’ can inadvertently disqualify promoters who may have a genuine interest in reviving the company, even if they were not directly responsible for the financial distress.
Subjectivity in Application:
Insolvency professionals and Adjudicating Authorities find certain issues in interpreting Section 29A of the IBC. For instance, defining who constitutes a “person acting in concert” with a disqualified promoter can be ambiguous, potentially leading to unintended consequences.
Potential for abuse:
This provision also leaves room for individuals to abuse the insolvency law. Some may exploit Critical Analysis Of Section 29A to strategically disqualify the competitors from participating in the resolution process.
Comparative Critical Analysis Of Section 29A and Global Insolvency Frameworks
A US Chapter 11 Bankruptcy allows a financially distressed company to reorganise its debts and continue operating under court supervision while disqualifying certain individuals, wilful defaulters, or those with NPAs from submitting a resolution plan. Therefore it acts as a gatekeeper to prevent problematic parties from taking control during the insolvency process. The key difference between this Chapter and Section 29A of the IBC is the creditor-centric approach under the IBC. The US bankruptcy framework places fewer restrictions on applicants to encourage greater participation in the resolution process. Section 29A is similar to the insolvency regime in the United Kingdom (UK). Both frameworks aim to prevent people who contributed to a company’s financial distress from regaining control of it, but section 29A disqualifies certain people from submitting resolution plans or acquiring assets of a corporate debtor. On the other hand, the UK insolvency regime prevents people who contributed to a company’s financial distress from regaining control of it. To improve the current framework and reduce its challenges, India can adopt a balanced approach that considers global best practices to make Section 29A more inclusive and effective.
Practical Implications of Section 29A for Stakeholders
For Resolution Applicants:
The primary group of individuals impacted, particularly those with a history of mismanagement or significant financial irregularities contributing to the company’s insolvency are resolution applicants. Section 29A highlights the importance of due diligence to ensure IBC compliance before submitting a resolution plan.
For Insolvency Professionals:
Section 29A significantly impacts insolvency professionals by imposing strict eligibility criteria on potential resolution applicants, essentially barring individuals with a history of defaults or connections to the distressed company. Thus insolvency professionals are required to conduct thorough due diligence to ensure compliance and avoid potential legal complications when evaluating resolution plans submitted during the insolvency process.
Recommendations for Reforming Section 29A
To improve the applicability of Section 29 fo the IBC and reduce the potential for its abuse is listed below:
It is recommended to allow exceptions for genuine promoters with NPAs who can demonstrate external factors beyond their control.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) is advised to introduce clearer definitions to limit the overbroad interpretation of connected persons and prevent unnecessary disqualifications.
There is also a requirement to tailor section 29A for specific sectors, especially MSMEs, to ensure fair access to the resolution process.
It is recommended to issue guidelines or amendments to address ambiguities and improve the consistent application of Section 29A.
Conclusion
Section 29A has a critical role in promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in the insolvency resolution process. Evaluating the eligibility of resolution applicants under this section adds a layer of complexity to the insolvency process, demanding detailed investigations into the financial and legal status of potential bidders. Individuals may utilise this provision to misuse the IBC to benefit themselves. Further, those stakeholders who are genuine in their actions throughout the insolvency process may be barred due to the limitations of section 29A. Therefore, there is a need for legal reforms to strike a balance between fairness and inclusivity.