Recent revelations have shed light on potential irregularities within the insolvency proceedings of HNGIL, raising concerns about the conduct of Resolution Professional (RP) Girish Juneja. Through an examination of confidential documents, questions have arisen regarding the fairness of the process, particularly in relation to the selection of AGI Greenpac as the resolution applicant.
Key findings suggest that RP Girish Juneja may have made unilateral decisions to relax mandatory requirements for resolution applicants, potentially favoring AGI Greenpac. While these actions were not explicitly approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), they have raised concerns about transparency and adherence to established procedures.
Further scrutiny reveals that Juneja may have overlooked directives from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata, regarding compliance with regulatory frameworks. This oversight has prompted inquiries into whether proper procedures were followed in the submission of AGI Greenpac’s resolution plan.
CoC’s Role:
The role of the CoC has also come under scrutiny, particularly regarding the evaluation process of resolution applicants. Instances of score alterations and revisions have raised questions about the integrity of the proceedings, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability.
AGI Greenpac’s Position:
Concerns have been raised about potential discrepancies in AGI Greenpac’s representations to regulatory bodies such as the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and judicial entities like the NCLT and NCLAT. While further investigation is needed to ascertain the accuracy of these claims, they underscore the importance of thorough scrutiny in insolvency proceedings.
The significant increase in the value of AGI’s shares following CCI’s conditional approval is evidence of potential material information suppression. Sources indicate that a formal complaint has been lodged with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), alleging suppression of material information, raising questions about transparency and fair market practices.
Amidst these developments, stakeholders, including employees and creditors of HNGIL, remain apprehensive about the fairness of the process. Calls for greater transparency and adherence to established procedures have grown louder, highlighting the need for reforms to ensure a more equitable resolution for all involved parties.
The emerging allegations surrounding RP Girish Juneja’s handling of the insolvency proceedings and the selection of AGI Greenpac as the resolution applicant raise important questions about the integrity of the process. As investigations continue, it is essential to maintain a commitment to transparency and fairness to uphold the principles of insolvency resolution in the interest of all stakeholders involved.
CCI approval to AGI Greenpac for acquisition of HNGIL:
It is pertinent to note that AGI Greenpac’s FORM 1(green channel approval) was rejected by CCI by terming it as “Not Valid” on 22nd Oct 2022 and was asked to file application under FORM 2 which requires detailed investigation.
Having exclusive access to documents it seems that applicant AGI Greenpac has grossly misrepresented commission by giving incorrect data of operational capacity of corporate Debtor HNGIL which has its effects on the derivation of market concentration, market share and ultimately Appreciable adverse impact on competition (AAEC).
Further it is understood from these documents that AGI Greenpac attempted to misled commission on voluntary modification offered by AGI in response to SCN issued to AGI Greenpac on prima facie findings of AAEC. It raises serious questions on commission’s findings that how divesting Rishikesh plant of corporate debtor HNGIL will remedy findings of AAEC.
It seems that Such misrepresentation by applicant went unchecked by commission and it appears that approval for this transaction was carried out with connivance of some officials in CCI and therefore this case requires a thorough re-investigation by the new regime of CCI. The earlier regime of CCI did not fully investigate the matter and this case was too hastily decided solely basis inputs given by applicant.
