The Securities and Exchange Board of India has joined and followed the Reserve Bank of India in imposing restrictions on `wilful defaulters’ from raising monies from the public. The step is laudable. Defaults, while a necessary risk of lending/investing, are a problem enough for lenders and investors. The tedious laws relating to taking action against them aggravate these problems. However, when persons default not due to difficulties but out of deliberate defiance, law does need to go an extra mile. Naming and shaming them is of course one step. However, now, SEBI, following RBI, has imposed certain restrictions on them from raising capital from the markets.
There are, however, difficulties. The definition of `wilful defaulter’ is felt to be a little too broad. The process for labelling a borrower a `wilful defaulter’ too has raised questions. There are concerns about independent and non-executive directors as to how they will be affected, though at least on paper there is some relief. As will be seen later, such matters have gone in litigation and Court had already read down the rules to some extent. These concerns are more since labelling as `willful defaulter’ would have a cascading effect on companies where such persons may be directors. Generally, auditors too of `wilful defaulters’ would be affected since there are provisions for debarring them from being given more work, etc. if they are found at fault.
Summary of new requirements
There already exist some restrictions on `wilful defaulters’ in the SEBI Regulations. However, now, SEBI has amended its Regulations relating to raising monies by issue of securities and also taking control of companies by `wilful defaulters’.
An issuer who is a `wilful defaulter’ is debarred from making any public issue of its equity securities. This bar will also apply if any of its directors or promoters is a `wilful defaulter’. Public issue of convertible debt instruments or debt securities are also barred in such cases. Further, if it is in default of repayment of principal amount of it debt instruments/debt securities or in payment of interest thereon for more than six months, then too such bar will apply. Certain disclosures are also required in respect of the `wilful default’ where issue is by way of private placement. This will ensure that subscribers know about such past defaults.
The bar does not cover issue of equity securities on `right basis’. However, certain disclosures would have to be made to ensure that the subscribers are made aware of the fact that the issuer is a `wilful defaulter’. Further, the promoters or the promoter group cannot renounce their rights except within the promoter group.
SEBI has also debarred `wilful defaulters’ from making open offers for acquiring shares under the Takeover Regulations. They are also barred from entering into any transaction that could result into attraction of obligation of making such an open offer. However, if someone else makes an open offer, then the `wilful defaulter’ can make a competing bid by way of an open offer. The intention is apparent. `Wilful defaulters’ would thus be prevented from taking control of a listed company or consolidating their stake therein.
Definition of `wilful defaulter’
The SEBI Regulations that impose restrictions on `wilful defaulters’ define the term as follows:-
“wilful defaulter” means an issuer who is categorized as a `wilful defaulter’ by any bank or financial institution or consortium thereof, in accordance with the guidelines on `wilful defaulters’ issued by the Reserve Bank of India and includes an issuer whose director or promoter is categorized as such.”
Thus, SEBI will effectively follow lead of the Reserve Bank of India. Hence, if a person is categorized as a `wilful defaulter’ by the banks/financial institutions in accordance with the guidelines of RBI, he would also become a `willful defaulter’ for the purposes of SEBI Regulations. Promoter or director of a wilful defaulter would also be categorized a `wilful defaulter’.
The Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India on `Wilful Defaulters’ dated 1st July 2014 has defined `wilful default’ as follows:-
“A “wilful default” would be deemed to have occurred if any of the following events is noted:-
(a) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment / repayment obligations to the lender even when it has the capacity to honour the said obligations.
(b) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment / repayment obligations to the lender and has not utilised the finance from the lender for the specific purposes for which finance was availed of but has diverted the funds for other purposes.
(c) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment / repayment obligations to the lender and has siphoned off the funds so that the funds have not been utilised for the specific purpose for which finance was availed of, nor are the funds available with the unit in the form of other assets.
d) The unit has defaulted in meeting its payment / repayment obligations to the lender and has also disposed off or removed the movable fixed assets or immovable property given by him or it for the purpose of securing a term loan without the knowledge of the bank/lender.
There are some points that can be observed from the above definition. For a person to be held to be a wilful defaulter, he needs to have made a default in meeting his payment/repayment obligations to the lender. This is a primary and obvious pre-condition. Such a defaulter would thus become a `wilful defaulter’ if he is found to have done one or more additional wrongs. For example, he may have capacity to honor his obligations and yet he defaults. He may have not utilised the finance for the specific purpose for which it was raised but diverted the funds for other purposes, or he has siphoned off the funds and such funds are not available with the unit in the form of other assets. Finally, he has disposed of or removed assets given as security without the knowledge of the lender.
The term diversion or siphoning of funds has been elaborated further and the meaning seems to go not just beyond the ordinary meaning but also to a situation where there can be serious difficulties. For example, “transferring borrowed funds to the subsidiaries / Group companies or other corporates by whatever modalities;” is also deemed to be diversion/siphoning. Now it is of course true that funds are often siphoned off through the subsidiary/group companies route. However, bonafide investments are also needed to be made through such entities. Deeming such investments in hindsight to be siphoning off can be harsh. A similar difficulty arises in respect of another category of deemed siphoning which reads “investment in other companies by way of acquiring equities / debt instruments without approval of lenders”. One trusts that these words are read in context of the original definition and that such deeming would apply only if such investments were in violation of the specific terms on which the finance was given.
Where Independent Directors/Nonexecutive directors are declared as `wilful defaulters’
The SEBI Regulations specifically provide that a person is declared as a `wilful defaulter’, then the companies where he is a director or a promoter would also be deemed to be a `wilful defaulter’. This is irrespective whether the director is a non-executive director or an independent director. This thus would have a wider effect. However, fortunately, this deeming is not the other way round too. If a company is held to be a `wilful defaulter’, its directors are not automatically deemed to be `wilful defaulters’.
As regards independent/non-executive directors, the RBI’s Master Circular does require that the principles for determining whether such a person is a `officer in default’ under the Companies Act, 2013 would be applied here. Thus, unless such an independent/non-executive director can be so held, he would not be considered a `wilful defaulter’.
However, once a persons is held to be a `wilful defaulter’, there is a cascading effect. The other companies where he is also a director would be required by its lender banks/ financial institutions to remove him.
It is interesting to note that the original wide reach of the Rules has been reducedto an extent by the Gujarathas been reducedto an extent by the Gujarat High Court, in Ionic Metalliks vs. Union of India (128 SCL 316 (Gujarat)[2015]), the court has held that the Master Circular, so far as it said that all the directors of the `wilful defaulter’ company would also become `wilful defaulters’ is arbitrary and unreasonable. To this extent, the Circular has been declared as ultra vires the powers of RBI and has been declared to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Master Circular now provides for caution and requires, that the conditions under the Companies Act, 2013, for holding a director as officer in default should be applied.
Cut off amount of Rs. 25 lakhs of lending for categoriSation of `wilful defaulters’
Wilful defaulters of any amount would attract various consequences as applicable under law. However, the Master Circular provides that “…keeping in view the present limit of Rs. 25 lakh fixed by the Central Vigilance Commission for reporting of cases of `wilful default’ by the banks/FIs to RBI, any wilful defaulter with an outstanding balance of Rs. 25 lakh or more, would attract the penal measures stipulated at para 2.5 below. This limit of Rs. 25 lakh may also be applied for the purpose of taking cognisance of the instances of ‘siphoning’ / ‘diversion’ of funds”.
Process of declaration of a person as a `wilful defaulter’
An elaborate, transparent and multi-level process has been laid down in the Master Circular to declare a person as a wilful defaulter. A Committee consisting of an Executive Director and two other senior officers of rank of general manager/deputy general manager would examine the evidence whether there was a case of `wilful default’. If it is so concluded, a show cause notice would be issued to the company and its whole-time directors/ promoters and their submissions, including in personal hearing if deemed fit to be given, would be noted. Finally, another Committee headed by Chairman/CEO/MD of the Bank and consisting of two independent directors would review and take a final decision. While this process does sound reasonable, concerns are also raised since the process can be subjective and that it is the lender itself who takes the final decision. In this context, the Gujarat High Court, in the matter of Ionic Metalliks vs. Union of India (ibid) can be usefully referred to for its observations.
Conclusion
`Wilful default’ is something that cannot be generally defended. However, it is necessary that, considering the disclosure, restrictions, etc. that the process of declaring entities and individuals as willful defaulters is fair, transparent and objective. The consequences on persons having no direct role can be devastating in terms of reputation and business both. At the same time, it serves as caution to directors of companies to be extra vigilant in companies on whose board they serve. Considering, the already heavy responsibilities of non-executive/ independent directors under the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI’s norms on corporate governance, like other laws, this is yet one more reason deterring individuals from coming forward to serve on Board of companies.
