JSW Steel Share Price: What went wrong and why did Supeme Court reject resolution for Bhushan Power and Steel? Explained
Shares of JSW Steel Ltd fell over 5.6% to ₹971.40 on Thursday after the Supreme Court of India struck down its ₹20,000 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), terming it 'illegal' and directing liquidation of the bankrupt company. The verdict has come as a major setback for JSW and the financial creditors involved in the case. Why did the Supreme Court reject the plan?
The top court cited two key reasons for invalidating the resolution:
Mode of Payment: The court noted that JSW's proposal to complete the acquisition using a mix of equity and optionally convertible debentures was in violation of the IBC, which mandates that the resolution must be executed strictly via equity.
Delay in Implementation: JSW failed to implement the resolution plan within the stipulated time frame as prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), leading to a breach of procedural compliance. Background of the Case
JSW had offered a total of ₹19,350 crore to financial creditors, implying a haircut of nearly 60%. It also proposed to pay ₹350 crore to operational creditors, whose total admitted claims stood at ₹733 crore.
However, complications arose due to investigations against BPSL's former promoters, who were accused of diverting ₹4,025 crore in bank loans. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), in October 2019, attached BPSL assets worth ₹4,025 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, citing them as proceeds of crime.
Although JSW's resolution plan was previously cleared by both the NCLT and NCLAT, the ED challenged the plan, arguing that JSW was a 'related party' and could not claim immunity under Section 32A of the IBC. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the ED, ordering liquidation. What now?
With the Supreme Court ordering liquidation, the chances of financial recovery for lenders have diminished significantly. The decision also raises concerns for other IBC bidders on procedural compliance and potential delays.
This judgment sets a strong precedent around how courts view timeliness and structure of payment under resolution plans, and could impact investor confidence in distressed asset acquisitions.
Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Argentina's Kirchner says will hand herself in next week
Former Argentine president Cristina Kirchner said Friday she will surrender to authorities next week to begin serving a six-year prison sentence for corruption, which she has asked to serve under house arrest. Writing on X, Kirchner, 72, said she would hand herself in on Wednesday at the Palace of Justice in Buenos Aires "to conform with the law, as I have always done." Wednesday is the last day for her to submit to the authorities after the Supreme Court this week rejected her appeal against her conviction for fraudulent administration during her 2007-2015 presidency. The court's ruling rendered Kirchner's 2022 conviction and sentence, which includes a life-long ban on holding public office, final. Kirchner, who leads opposition to libertarian President Javier Milei's cost-cutting agenda, has requested to serve her sentence at her home in Buenos Aires -- an arrangement available to over-70s. Supporters of the polarizing left-winger who has been a dominant force in Argentine politics for the past two decades have cried foul over her conviction. They accuse the prosecution and judiciary of being cosy with her right-wing political foes. But some Argentines have expressed satisfaction at what they see as just punishment for the leader of the left-wing populist Peronist movement, which has been accused of widespread corruption and economic mismanagement. sa-pbl/cb/md
USA Today
41 minutes ago
- USA Today
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, at heart of deportation debate, pleads not guilty to human smuggling
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, at heart of deportation debate, pleads not guilty to human smuggling Abrego Garcia has become a central figure in the debate between Trump's policy of mass deportations and Democrats arguing for due process in court to fight criminal allegations and removals. Show Caption Hide Caption Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the US to face federal charges The Maryland man who was mistakenly deported is accused of making more than 100 trips to move illegal immigrants across the country. NASHVILLE − Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant at the heart of an international debate over President Donald Trump's tougher border security policies, pleaded not guilty to charges of human smuggling. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Tennessee was also hearing arguments June 13 about whether to keep Abrego Garcia, 29, detained while awaiting trial on charges he transported undocumented immigrants for financial gain. Prosecutors, who allege he is a member of the crime gang MS-13, a designated terrorist organization, argued he could flee or intimidate witnesses if released. But Abrego Garcia, who denies belonging to the gang, argues the charges don't justify being jailed. Abrego Garcia has become a central figure in the debate over Trump's tougher immigration enforcement. A longtime resident of Maryland, he was erroneously deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador on March 15 despite having an immigration court order preventing his removal. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the administration to facilitate his return, in a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, but officials resisted bringing him back until he was indicted May 21. Related: How a traffic stop exploded into human smuggling charges for Kilmar Abrego Garcia '5-alarm fire for Constitution': immigration advocate at rally At the doors of First Lutheran Church in Nashville, immigrant-rights advocates and labor organizers decried his arrest and criminal case ahead of his arraignment. About 80 people gathered and chants rang out: 'We are all Kilmar.' Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, told reporters their son Kilmar Jr. was graduating from kindergarten in Maryland as she spoke. "My son is alone on his big day," Vasquez Sura said. "And I'm here fighting for my husband, for his dad, to come back home." Vasquez Sura said her husband urged other families fighting to be reunited after a separation to have faith. "He said these dark times are where we're facing all of the tribulations God has put in our path," Vasquez Sura said. "But keep praying and keep fighting that the light will always come soon for all of us, and you too will be able to see your family again." Immigration advocates tied the case to heightened immigration enforcement because Tennessee officials cooperated with federal authorities detaining immigrants. 'We are here because we believe this is a five-alarm fire for our Constitution, our rights and our democracy,' Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director at the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, told reporters. 'We are fighting for our freedom, our families and our future — a future where no one is ripped off the street or from their car, and sent to foreign prisons without due process.' Charges in Tennessee stem from 2022 traffic stop The indictment alleges that from 2016 to 2025, Abrego Garcia and other unnamed people conspired to bring undocumented migrants into the United States from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia made more than 100 trips, typically transporting people within the country after picking them up in the Houston area. A Tennessee state trooper pulled over a Chevrolet Suburban in November 2022 with Abrego Garcia at the wheel and nine other Hispanic men inside. Garcia, who had $1,400 in cash while none of the other men had identification or luggage, said he was taking men back to Maryland after working in construction in St. Louis. Abrego Garcia told the officer he was taking the men back to Maryland from St. Louis, where he said they had been working on a construction site. But license-plate data showed the vehicle hadn't been in St. Louis for at least a year, but that it had been in Houston. The charges carry a maximum 10 years in prison for each person transported. Attorney General Pam Bondi said at a recent news conference that what changed since the 2022 traffic stop 'is Donald Trump is now president of the United States, and our borders are again secure.' Abrego Garcia fought to avoid deportation in Maryland Abrego Garcia had been fighting an immigration case for years before the criminal charges were fled El Salvador in 2006 and eventually arrived in Maryland. He applied for asylum and an immigration judge blocked his deportation in 2019 while that case was heard. Amid Trump's tougher immigration enforcement, federal agents arrested Abrego Garcia on March 12 and deported him with hundreds of others to El Salvador on March 15. Authorities later acknowledged an administrative error in his removal because of the court order barring deportation. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland called his deportation was "an illegal act" and ordered his return on April 4, in a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But Justice Department lawyers said they had no control over him in a foreign country. Abrego Garcia's immigration attorney has raised questions about the government's motivation for filing the criminal charges. 'The government disappeared Kilmar to a foreign prison in violation of a court order,' said his immigration attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice.' Contributing: Eduardo Cuevas of USA TODAY and Ruben Montoya, Austin Hornbostel and Craig Shoup of The (Nashville) Tennessean.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Appeals court rejects Trump's bid to overturn E. Jean Carroll verdict
A federal appeals court in an 8-2 vote Friday declined President Trump's bid to rehear his appeal of a jury verdict finding him liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, leaving the Supreme Court as Trump's only remaining pathway. A three-judge panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the verdict late last year. On Friday, the full active 2nd Circuit bench declined to disturb that decision over the dissent of two judges. 'Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez, joined by three of her colleagues, all of whom were appointed by former President Biden. 'In those rare instances in which a case warrants our collective consideration, it is almost always because it involves a question of exceptional importance or a conflict between the panel's opinion and appellate precedent,' Pérez added. In 2023, the New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and defaming her by denying her story when she came forward during Trump's first presidency. The jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million. Trump, who maintains he never assaulted Carroll, argued his trial was tainted because the jury heard improper evidence, like the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape and testimony from other women who accused Trump of sexual assault. The president also contends he should've been able tell jurors that a nonprofit funded by LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman helped Carroll pay her legal fees. The president's lawyers believed it bolstered their claims that the columnist went after Trump for political reasons, but the trial judge ruled it inadmissible. Two Trump-appointed 2nd Circuit judges, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, in dissent said Friday that the trial included a 'series of indefensible evidentiary rulings.' 'The result was a jury verdict based on impermissible character evidence and few reliable facts. No one can have any confidence that the jury would have returned the same verdict if the normal rules of evidence had been applied,' Menashi wrote. Of the 10 judges who voted, only Menashi and Park dissented. The 2nd Circuit has 13 judges in active service eligible to sit for the case, but three of them recused without explanation. The Hill has reached out to Carroll's and Trump's legal teams for comment. The White House deferred comment to Trump's attorneys. The case was the first of two times Carroll took Trump to trial. In Carroll's other lawsuit, another jury later ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million in defamation damages for continuing to deny her story. Trump's appeal in that case heads to a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel for oral arguments on June 24. The panel is expected to rule beforehand on whether the Justice Department can replace Trump as the defendant, which would enable him to avoid paying any damages.
