Latest news with #MasterRestructuringAgreement
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
NCLAT upholds insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Cement Corp
NEW DELHI: The insolvency appellate tribunal has approved the insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden Jaypee Cement , upholding an earlier order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A two-member bench of the NCLAT rejected the appeal filed by Alok Gaur against the NCLT order, saying the debt and default matter is proved, and it did not find any error in the order directing the initiation of insolvency proceedings. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected Gaur's submission that its parent firm Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) has signed an MRA (Master Restructuring Agreement) with lenders, undertaken to discharge its liabilities. As all debt stood transferred to JAL, now facing CIRP ( Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ) for failure to implement MRA, and the debt of both JAL and JCCL can be considered, an appropriate resolution can be done. However, rejecting it, the NCLAT said the debt, which was owned by JCCL, to the lenders "shall not be evaporated" merely by the fact that JAL has taken the liability to discharge its debts of JCCL and it does not prohibit the lenders to file insolvency proceedings against it under Section 7 of the IBC, due to the failure of the restructuring proposal. "The submission of the appellant that JAL having undertaken the liability to clear the debts and defaults of JCCL, hence, JCCL has no liability and no application was maintainable against JCCL, also does not commend us," said the NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Barun Mitra. The appellate tribunal further said initiation of CIRP proceedings against JAL cannot be a ground to contend that no proceedings can be initiated against JCCL. "JCCL has also given its securities for obtaining the various facilities from the SBI between 2012 and 2015. The Financial Creditor can always invoke the securities given by JCCL to realise the debt," it said. The Financial Creditor has never shown the debt of JCCL to be transferred to the JAL in its Financial Statements, and the fact that JAL and JCCL in their financial statements have treated the debt to be discharged is not binding on the Financial Creditors. Moreover, the NCLAT in its 26-page-long order pointed out that JCCL was not even the party of MRA, which was not even fulfilled. "The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, has come to the conclusion that debt and default on the part of the CD - JCCL is proved. When the debt and default are proved, the admission of the Section 7 Application against JCCL cannot be faulted. "We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 Application," the NCLAT said, dismissing Gaur's petition. On July 22, the Allahabad bench of NCLT admitted a petition filed by India's leading public sector lender State Bank of India (SBI), which had provided credit facilities to Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd (JCCL) between 2012-15. Both JAL and JCCL had defaulted in payment of loans and lenders, including SBI. Later, a composite Scheme of Debt Realignment Plan for the debt of JAL and JCCL was proposed. As per the MRA executed on October 31, 2017, it was divided into three different buckets. Under Bucket 1, the divestment of a substantial part of its cement business along with debt of Rs 11,689 crore to UltraTech Cements was approved. The residual debt of JAL and JCCL was bifurcated into two different buckets. Bucket 2A has a sustainable debt of Rs 5,072 crore, which was to be retained under the residual business of JAL to be serviced from the cash flow from the operations of the residual business of JAL. It also envisaged the shifting of JCCL's Shahabad Cement Plant exposure of Rs 778.10 crore to JAL. While Bucket 2B has an unsustainable debt of Rs 13,590 crore, and it was proposed to be transferred to a separate Real Estate SPV for 20 years, backed by land of 1039 acres (already mortgaged to lenders) of the company, having the value of Rs 14,156 crore. The debt of Bucket 2B has not been resolved and remains outstanding.
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
NCLAT Upholds Insolvency: NCLAT Affirms Insolvency Proceedings Against Jaypee Cement Corp Amid Debt Crisis, ET LegalWorld
The insolvency appellate tribunal has approved the insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden Jaypee Cement, upholding an earlier order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A two-member bench of the NCLAT rejected the appeal filed by Alok Gaur against the NCLT order, saying the debt and default matter is proved, and it did not find any error in the order directing the initiation of insolvency proceedings. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected Gaur's submission that its parent firm Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) has signed an MRA (Master Restructuring Agreement) with lenders, undertaken to discharge its liabilities. Advt Advt As all debt stood transferred to JAL, now facing CIRP ( Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ) for failure to implement MRA, and the debt of both JAL and JCCL can be considered, an appropriate resolution can be rejecting it, the NCLAT said the debt, which was owned by JCCL, to the lenders "shall not be evaporated" merely by the fact that JAL has taken the liability to discharge its debts of JCCL and it does not prohibit the lenders to file insolvency proceedings against it under Section 7 of the IBC, due to the failure of the restructuring proposal."The submission of the appellant that JAL having undertaken the liability to clear the debts and defaults of JCCL, hence, JCCL has no liability and no application was maintainable against JCCL, also does not commend us," said the NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Barun appellate tribunal further said initiation of CIRP proceedings against JAL cannot be a ground to contend that no proceedings can be initiated against JCCL."JCCL has also given its securities for obtaining the various facilities from the SBI between 2012 and 2015. The Financial Creditor can always invoke the securities given by JCCL to realise the debt," it Financial Creditor has never shown the debt of JCCL to be transferred to the JAL in its Financial Statements, and the fact that JAL and JCCL in their financial statements have treated the debt to be discharged is not binding on the Financial the NCLAT in its 26-page-long order pointed out that JCCL was not even the party of MRA, which was not even fulfilled."The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, has come to the conclusion that debt and default on the part of the CD - JCCL is proved. When the debt and default are proved, the admission of the Section 7 Application against JCCL cannot be faulted."We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 Application," the NCLAT said, dismissing Gaur's July 22, the Allahabad bench of NCLT admitted a petition filed by India's leading public sector lender State Bank of India (SBI), which had provided credit facilities to Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd (JCCL) between JAL and JCCL had defaulted in payment of loans and lenders, including SBI. Later, a composite Scheme of Debt Realignment Plan for the debt of JAL and JCCL was per the MRA executed on October 31, 2017, it was divided into three different Bucket 1, the divestment of a substantial part of its cement business along with debt of Rs 11,689 crore to UltraTech Cements was approved. The residual debt of JAL and JCCL was bifurcated into two different 2A has a sustainable debt of Rs 5,072 crore, which was to be retained under the residual business of JAL to be serviced from the cash flow from the operations of the residual business of JAL. It also envisaged the shifting of JCCL's Shahabad Cement Plant exposure of Rs 778.10 crore to Bucket 2B has an unsustainable debt of Rs 13,590 crore, and it was proposed to be transferred to a separate Real Estate SPV for 20 years, backed by land of 1039 acres (already mortgaged to lenders) of the company, having the value of Rs 14,156 debt of Bucket 2B has not been resolved and remains outstanding. Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business
- Business Standard
NCLAT upholds insolvency order against Jaypee Cement, dismisses appeal
The insolvency appellate tribunal has affirmed the insolvency process against Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited (JCCL), upholding an earlier ruling by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A two-member panel of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed an appeal filed by Alok Gaur, stating that the debt and default issues had been established and that it found no fault in the NCLT's order to initiate insolvency proceedings. Gaur argued that Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL), the parent company of Jaypee Cement, had entered into a Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) with lenders and had committed to settling its debts. However, the NCLAT noted that since all debt obligations had been transferred to JAL, which is now undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to its failure to honour the MRA, the liabilities of both JAL and JCCL could be considered for resolution. The NCLAT dismissed this argument, asserting that the debt originally owed by JCCL to its lenders remains valid. It added that the mere fact that JAL had assumed responsibility for JCCL's liabilities did not prevent lenders from initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) after the failure of the restructuring plan. The appellate body clarified that the commencement of CIRP proceedings against JAL does not preclude initiating similar proceedings against JCCL. 'The submission of the appellant that JAL having undertaken the liability to clear the debts and defaults of JCCL, hence, JCCL has no liability and no application was maintainable against JCCL, also does not commend us,' remarked the NCLAT bench, led by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Barun Mitra. 'JCCL has also given its securities for obtaining the various facilities from the State Bank of India between 2012 and 2015. The financial creditor can always invoke the securities given by JCCL to realise the debt,' it stated. It was also emphasised that the financial creditor has never reflected the transfer of JCCL's debt to JAL in its financial records, and even if JAL and JCCL have, in their statements, recorded the debt as settled, such treatment does not bind the financial creditors. Additionally, the NCLAT pointed out that JCCL was not a party to the MRA, which in any case was not implemented. 'We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority admitting Section 7 application,' the appellate tribunal concluded, thereby rejecting Gaur's appeal. Previously, on July 22, the Allahabad bench of the NCLT admitted a plea by State Bank of India (SBI), India's top public sector lender, which had provided credit facilities to Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited (JCCL) during 2012–2015. Both JAL and JCCL defaulted on their loan repayments, prompting lenders, including SBI, to consider a comprehensive Debt Realignment Plan for the combined debts of both companies. The MRA executed on October 31, 2017, divided the debt into three categories. In Bucket 1, the transfer of a major portion of JAL's cement business along with a debt of Rs 11,689 crore to UltraTech Cement was sanctioned. The remaining debts of JAL and JCCL were categorised into two further segments. Bucket 2A involved a sustainable debt of Rs 5,072 crore, intended to be retained within JAL's residual business and serviced through its operational cash flows. This category also included the shifting of JCCL's Shahabad Cement Plant exposure of Rs 778.10 crore to JAL. Bucket 2B comprised an unsustainable debt of Rs 13,590 crore, which was proposed to be transferred to a separate real estate special purpose vehicle for a period of 20 years, backed by land assets totalling 1,039 acres (already mortgaged to lenders) with an estimated value of Rs 14,156 crore. Jaiprakash Associates' CoC clears cash outflow for June quarter In May, the lenders of JAL gave the green light to a cash outflow plan of Rs 936.27 crore for the June quarter to ensure the company's operations remain stable. In a regulatory filing, JAL mentioned that its Committee of Creditors (CoC) had sanctioned 'the budgeted cash outflows of the corporate debtor for the period from 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025, of up to Rs 936.27 crore.' This sanctioned amount comprised Rs 856.73 crore designated for regular operational costs and Rs 79.54 crore allocated for one-time expenses.
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
NCLAT upholds insolvency proceedings against Jaypee Cement Corp
The insolvency appellate tribunal has approved the insolvency proceedings against the debt-ridden Jaypee Cement, upholding an earlier order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). A two-member bench of the NCLAT rejected the appeal filed by Alok Gaur against the NCLT order, saying the debt and default matter is proved, and it did not find any error in the order directing the initiation of insolvency proceedings. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected Gaur's submission that its parent firm Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) has signed an MRA (Master Restructuring Agreement) with lenders, undertaken to discharge its liabilities. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Les banques sont jalouses du livret or à 8,63% Top Finance Lire la suite Undo As all debt stood transferred to JAL, now facing CIRP ( Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ) for failure to implement MRA, and the debt of both JAL and JCCL can be considered, an appropriate resolution can be done. However, rejecting it, the NCLAT said the debt, which was owned by JCCL, to the lenders "shall not be evaporated" merely by the fact that JAL has taken the liability to discharge its debts of JCCL and it does not prohibit the lenders to file insolvency proceedings against it under Section 7 of the IBC, due to the failure of the restructuring proposal. Live Events "The submission of the appellant that JAL having undertaken the liability to clear the debts and defaults of JCCL, hence, JCCL has no liability and no application was maintainable against JCCL, also does not commend us," said the NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Member Barun Mitra. The appellate tribunal further said initiation of CIRP proceedings against JAL cannot be a ground to contend that no proceedings can be initiated against JCCL. "JCCL has also given its securities for obtaining the various facilities from the SBI between 2012 and 2015. The Financial Creditor can always invoke the securities given by JCCL to realise the debt," it said. The Financial Creditor has never shown the debt of JCCL to be transferred to the JAL in its Financial Statements, and the fact that JAL and JCCL in their financial statements have treated the debt to be discharged is not binding on the Financial Creditors. Moreover, the NCLAT in its 26-page-long order pointed out that JCCL was not even the party of MRA, which was not even fulfilled. "The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, has come to the conclusion that debt and default on the part of the CD - JCCL is proved. When the debt and default are proved, the admission of the Section 7 Application against JCCL cannot be faulted. "We, thus, do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 7 Application," the NCLAT said, dismissing Gaur's petition. On July 22, the Allahabad bench of NCLT admitted a petition filed by India's leading public sector lender State Bank of India (SBI), which had provided credit facilities to Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd (JCCL) between 2012-15. Both JAL and JCCL had defaulted in payment of loans and lenders, including SBI. Later, a composite Scheme of Debt Realignment Plan for the debt of JAL and JCCL was proposed. As per the MRA executed on October 31, 2017, it was divided into three different buckets. Under Bucket 1, the divestment of a substantial part of its cement business along with debt of Rs 11,689 crore to UltraTech Cements was approved. The residual debt of JAL and JCCL was bifurcated into two different buckets. Bucket 2A has a sustainable debt of Rs 5,072 crore, which was to be retained under the residual business of JAL to be serviced from the cash flow from the operations of the residual business of JAL. It also envisaged the shifting of JCCL's Shahabad Cement Plant exposure of Rs 778.10 crore to JAL. While Bucket 2B has an unsustainable debt of Rs 13,590 crore, and it was proposed to be transferred to a separate Real Estate SPV for 20 years, backed by land of 1039 acres (already mortgaged to lenders) of the company, having the value of Rs 14,156 crore. The debt of Bucket 2B has not been resolved and remains outstanding.
Business Times
26-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Stocks to watch: Sats, The Hour Glass, Japan Foods, Manulife US Reit
[SINGAPORE] The following companies saw new developments that may affect trading of their securities on Monday (May 26). Sats : The in-flight caterer on Friday reported net profit of S$38.7 million for the three months ended Mar 31, 2025, gaining 18.3 per cent from S$32.7 million in the corresponding year-ago period. This indicates earnings per share of S$0.026 for the quarter, compared with S$0.022 in Q4 FY2024. Revenue for the fourth quarter was S$1.5 billion, up 10.4 per cent year on year from S$1.3 billion, driven by growth in business volume and rate improvements. The group has proposed a final dividend of S$0.035 per share, which will be paid on Aug 15. This is higher than the final dividend of S$0.015 per share in the corresponding year-ago period. Shares of Sats ended flat at S$2.98 on Friday. The Hour Glass : The retailer of luxury watches reported a 6 per cent drop in net profit to S$74.4 million in the six months ended March 2025, from S$79.5 million in the year-ago period. Revenue was at S$622.6 million, up 9 per cent year on year from S$571.3 million. Earnings per share stood at S$0.1148 for the half-year period, down from S$0.1217 previously. The luxury watch retailer said on Friday that for the full year, profits had been affected by increased operating expenses driven by inflationary pressures on rents and wages combined with a fair value adjustment on investment properties. Shares of The Hour Glass closed flat at S$1.61 on Friday, before the results were released. Japan Foods : The restaurant operator on Sunday reported a loss of S$6.2 million for the second half year ended Mar 31, 2025, sinking further into the red from a loss of S$576,000 in the corresponding year-ago period. This comes as the group's revenue for the half year slid 7.5 per cent year on year to S$40.2 million, from S$43.4 million. The group attributed this to 'tough market conditions', as existing brands, including Yakiniku Shokudo, Ajisen Ramen and Menya Musashi, generated lower revenue. Loss per share for the period stood at S$0.036, compared to a loss per share of S$0.0033 in H2 FY2024. The group did not declare a final dividend, despite declaring a S$0.002 dividend per share in H2 FY2024. Shares of Japan Foods climbed 2.4 per cent or S$0.005 to S$0.215 on Friday. Manulife US Real Estate Investment Trust (MUST) : The manager of the Reit's US office on Friday announced it has received approval from lenders to extend the deadline for the disposal of assets by six months to Dec 31. The Reit will use US$25 million in cash, in addition to proceeds from the sale of a Class A office building Peachtree in Atlanta, US, to partially pare down debts due in 2026, 2027 and 2028. The extension will give MUST more time to meet obligations under the Master Restructuring Agreement. Units of MUST closed 1.6 per cent or US$0.001 higher at US$0.062 on Friday, before the announcement.
