Skip to main content

RBI withdraws SDR, S4A, sets banks 180-day timeline for bad loan resolution

RBI withdraws SDR, S4A, sets banks 180-day timeline for bad loan resolution
Banks must implement a resolution plan within 180 days where exposure is Rs2,000 crore and above, failing which the NPA account has to be referred to the insolvency and bankruptcy code within 15 daysThe Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday tightened norms for bad loan resolution by setting timelines for resolving large NPAs, failing which banks will have to mandatory refer them for insolvency proceedings. It also withdrew existing debt restructuring schemes such as SDR and S4A.
RBI has issued definitions of different resolution plans and an indicative list of financial difficultly, and directed lenders to share data on certain defaulted borrowers with the central bank’s database on large exposures on every Friday.The large accounts are mainly those where banks have initiated resolution and are classified as restructured standard assets. Indian banks are sitting on a stressed assets pool of over Rs10 trillion.
According to the new rules, for such accounts, where the banking sector’s aggregate exposure is Rs2,000 crore above, lenders must implement a resolution plan within 180 days, starting 1 March 2018.“If a RP (resolution plan) in respect of such large accounts is not implemented as per the timelines specified, lenders shall file insolvency application, singly or jointly, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) within 15 days from the expiry of the said timeline,” the RBI said in notification issued late on Monday.
This circular comes at a time when banks are finalizing resolution plans for 11 of the 12 accounts in RBI’s first defaulter list under the insolvency and bankruptcy code. They are also filing insolvency petitions for some of the 28 accounts which were part of central bank’s second defaulter list.

The central bank has warned banks that they will be penalised for failure to adhering the timelines.“Any failure on the part of lenders in meeting the prescribed timelines or any actions by lenders with an intent to conceal the actual status of accounts or evergreen the stressed accounts will be subjected to stringent supervisory / enforcement actions as deemed appropriate by the Reserve Bank, including, but not limited to, higher provisioning on such accounts and monetary penalties,” it said.
In case the resolution plan involves change in the ownership structure of the defaulting firm, RBI has mandated that account should not be in default at any point during the specified period.Specified period is the time between implementation of the plan and the date, where up to 20% of the outstanding principal debt is repaid.
If there is a default in the specified period, the account must be referred for IBC proceedings, RBI said. “Banks shall conduct necessary due diligence in this regard and clearly establish that the acquirer is not a person disqualified in terms of Section 29A of the IBC,” the central bank said.
RBI said that for other accounts with aggregate exposure below Rs2,000 crore but and, at or above Rs100 crore, it intends to announce, over a two-year period, reference dates for implementing the resolution plans to ensure calibrated, time-bound resolution of all such accounts in default.
“It is, however, clarified that the said transition arrangement shall not be available for borrower entities in respect of which specific instructions have already been issued by the Reserve Bank to the banks for reference under IBC. Lenders shall continue to pursue such cases as per the earlier instructions,” the RBI said.
Banks must also vet the resolution plan through credit rating agencies for independent credit evaluation (ICE) of residual debt. Accounts with aggregate exposure of Rs500 crore there must require two such ICEs, and one for in other cases.With new norms, all regulatory guidelines pertaining to restructuring of loans under different schemes of the central bank such as strategic debt restricting (SDR), 5/25 refinancing, and Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A), among others, stand withdrawn with immediate effect, RBI said.
“Accordingly, the Joint Lenders’ Forum (JLF) as an institutional mechanism for resolution of stressed accounts also stands discontinued. All accounts, including such accounts where any of the schemes have been invoked but not yet implemented, shall be governed by the revised framework,” RBI said.
The Mint, New Delhi, 13th February 2018

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

At 18%, GST Rate to be Less Taxing for Most Goods

About 70% of all goods and some consumer durables likely to cost less

A number of goods such as cosmetics, shaving creams, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, plastics, paints and some consumer durables could become cheaper under the proposed goods and services tax (GST) regime as most items are likely to be subject to the rate of 18% rather than the higher one of 28%.

India is likely to rely on the effective tax rate currently applicable on a commodity to get a fix on the GST slab, said a government official, allowing most goods to make it to the lower bracket.

For instance, if an item comes within the 12% excise slab but the effective tax is 8% due to abatement, then the latter will be considered for GST fitment.

Going by this formulation, about 70% of all goods could fall in the 18% bracket.

The GST Council has finalised a four-tier tax structure of 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% but has left room for the highest slab to be pegged at 40%. A committee of officials will work out the fitment and the council…

Coffee-Toffee, the GST Debate Continues

Hundreds of crores of rupees in the form of taxes ride on the exact categorisation of products Is Parachute hair oil or edible oil? Is KitKat a chocolate or a biscuit? Is a Vicks tablet medicament or confectionery? For the taxpayer and the tax collector, this is much more than an exercise in semantics -hundreds of crores of rupees ride on the exact categorisation.
As the government moves closer to rolling out the goods and services tax (GST) on July 1, many such distinctions are being debated so that no ambiguity remains. Not just that, the government is revisiting old tax cases that were lost over product categorisation, according to people with knowledge of the matter, presumably with a view to making sure that revenue collections can be maximised. “In the past, several tax officers had challenged some of the product categorisations, including those in the retail segment, but lost out in court or at appellate level,“ said one of the persons. “Now we have a chance to go ahead with speci…

Deposit gush:-CA Institute Bats for Special Audit