Inter Corporate Loans
Inter Corporate Loans
Inter Corporate Loans
Though the law in enforce had shifted from the Companies Act’56 to
the Companies act of 2013 with effect from 1 st April 2014 with the
initiation of a new Financial Year, the significant changes with respect
to the topic has been discussed below.
Board of Directors:
If any term loan obtained from a PFI subsists a loan, the company, only
with the prior approval of the PFI, can make investment, guarantee or
security subject to the following exceptions:
The company and every officer of the company who is in default shall
be punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years or a fine up to Rs.
50,000. However, if the loan is paid in full, no imprisonment shall be
imposed, and where the loan is repaid in part, the imprisonment shall
be proportionately reduced.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES:
Restriction on layers[3]: Firstly this section prohibits investment
through more than 2 layers of investment companies. However this
restriction is not applicable for investment in company incorporated
outside India which has investment subsidiaries beyond two layers as
per laws of that country.
Limits: The limits are same as of 1956 act but these limits not only
covers the transactions with bodies corporate but also transactions
with any person.
Penalty: The fine for violation of Section 186 has been increased. Fine
levied can be any sum between Rs.25,000 to 05 lakhs on defaulting
company and every defaulting officer can be punished with
imprisonment for a term up to 2 years besides the fine ranging from
Rs.25,000 to 1.00 lakh.
It is to be kept in mind that a company can give any loan or give any
guarantee or provide security and acquire securities of any Body
corporate through Board resolution up to 60% of its paid up capital,
free reserves and security premium account or 100% of its free
reserves and security premium whichever is more.
File the copy of special resolution in Form No. MGT-14 along with the
fee as provided in Companies (Registration of offices and fees) Rules,
2014 with the Registrar within 30 days of passing the resolution.
Necessary documents are required to be attached as per the
requirements of the form.
Cairn India granted a loan of $1.25 billion to its parent Vedanta for a
term of two years as a part of Cairn’s treasury operations. Cairn had
committed $800 million loan in the first quarter of 2014-15. As per the
loan agreement, Cairn India will be getting the interest of 300 basis
points above the benchmark London Interbank offered Rate. The
reason for this quoted by the company officials is that the company
had a cash surplus and therefore it decided to extend loan to its
parent company. The only problem it suffered was that the
shareholders’ approval wasn’t taken (as they were required to take
under Clause 49 of Listing Agreement).
First Sesa Goa is offering to buy minimum 20% from public. Then
based on the response, Vedanta will buy 40-51% from Cairn India Ltd.
Then in this case Vedanta holds only 60% shares in Cairn India. If we
suppose that they buy 51% from cairn and then float minimum 20%
public buy tender, and they get more than 20%, they will end up
holding more than 70% which is may be out of reach of Vedanta
Resources.
The gravity of the Deal was so huge that it saw a rare move by Mr.
James Cameron, Prime Minister of United Kingdom who wrote to Mr.
Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, specifically addressing the
deadlock that the Deal encountered. Mr. Cameron highlighted the need
for greater transparency and predictability in India’s policy
environment to enhance trade and investment.
CONCLUSION
“The new Act is now operational, having wide and far ranging impacts.
It significantly raises the bar on governance. Companies have to start
aligning their systems and processes to comply with the new Act. The
final Rules have made some very significant changes and it is
heartening to note that the ministry has taken into account several of
the recommendations made by the corporate sector in finalizing these
Rules, keeping in mind the practical difficulties that would have been
faced by the corporate sector in implementation.”[4]
The changes in the final Rules address the concerns and genuine
hardship that companies faced in financing their subsidiaries. The new
requirement provides safe harbor with respect to both loans and
guarantees given by a holding company to its wholly owned
subsidiaries.