Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SBICAP, the CoC Advisor highlighted to the lenders that as per the Compliance Submission, there is no change in the Plan structure proposed by NARCL NARCL will continue to offer Security Receipts to the FCs and the redemption of the same (including the upside) will be based on the recovery from the SEFL NCDs which will be issued by SEFL to the ARC Trust. The above clarification was discussed in detail with the CoC members and the CoC Legal Counsel also gave their views on the same.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1072 of 2023

32. Appendix issued on 13.02.2023 in no manner states anything contrary to the minutes of meeting dated 03.01.2023. The appendix only noticed certain discussions and the clarifications received from the NARCL. Clarification received by the NARCL on 03.01.2023 have already been noticed above which was received much before the CoC meeting held on 03.01.2023. Appendix captures what was advised by the CoC advisors that there is no change in the plan structure proposed by NARCL. What is noticed in the appendix regarding the security receipts with committed repayment plan which has already been captured in the Resolution Plan as noted above. The appendix in no manner can be read contrary to the financial proposals submitted by the Appellant nor it amends any of the proposals of the Respondent No.2 nor there is any relaxation to any of the conditions of the final Resolution Plan of the Respondent No.2. More so, as noted above, voting has commenced on the plan on 24.01.2023 and concluded on 14.02.2023 and the appendix has no substantial effect on the process which has already undertaken including the terms and conditions of the Resolution Plan of the Respondent No.2 and the determination of the NPV value by the Process Advisors of the CoC as captured in the minutes dated 03.01.2023. We have found that the CoC has considered the Resolution Plan in accordance with the evaluation matrix and there were no error in determination of the NPV of the Respondent No.2. Further, the Appellant was not entitled for any marks on equity allotment to the Financial Creditors which mark was rightly not given to the Appellant in the evaluation matrix.