Regulation

Understanding Invoice Discounting: Legal Framework, Transaction Dynamics, and Implications under the IBC, 2016

[By Nakshatra Gujrati] The author is a student of National Law University Odisha.   Introduction In the dynamic realm of financial transactions, invoice discounting has emerged as a pivotal tool for businesses seeking to optimize their working capital. Invoice Discounting, also known as Bill Discounting, entails three key participants: the seller, the customer (who is also the debtor to the financier), and the financier, commonly referred to as the factor. The financier provides this short-term relief in exchange for a predetermined commission and discount rate, forming the core dynamics of the transaction.  This article explores the complexities of invoice discounting and its intersection with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). Governed by the Factoring Regulation Act, 2011, (“Act”) the examination commences by delineating the fundamental process of invoice discounting and elucidating the roles assumed by the seller, customer, and financier. The article examines the dynamics of transactions between the financer and the customer, as well as between the financer and the seller. It scrutinizes the decisions rendered by tribunals, offering insights into the classification of customers as financial debtors and classification of sellers as operational debtors.  What is Invoice Discounting   Invoice Discounting, also known as Bill Discounting in trade circles, is a process where an entity can transfer its invoices (receivables) to a third-party financier, such as a bank or another financial institution. This financial entity, referred to as the “financer”, offers a bank discounting facility, providing short-term assistance in fulfilling the working capital needs of the entity that sold the outstanding bill. In return, the financer levies a designated commission and discount rate for their services.  The Factoring Regulation Act, 2011 (“Act”) regulates the practice of invoice discounting, and businesses engaged in this activity are referred to as “factoring businesses”. This Act aims to validate contracts related to the assignment of receivables. The party to whom the receivable is transferred is known as the assignee, while the entity owning the receivable is termed the assignor.  Invoice discounting typically involves three participants; the seller (sold goods and services to customer), the customer (also debtor of the financer) and the financier (commonly referred to as the factor). In this process the business sells its invoices to the financier, who provides cash. Afterwards when it comes time, for payment the customer pays the amount, to the financier.  Invoice Discounting and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016  The section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) defines financial debt as “debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money”, including “receivables sold or discounted other than any receivables sold on non-recourse basis” as per section 5(8)(e) of the Code.   Nature of transaction between the Financer and the Customer.  The customer enlists the services of a financer to enhance their cash flow, facilitating timely bill payments with reduced risk and increased flexibility, given that such arrangements don’t necessitate collateral. However, a dilemma arises when the customer fails to fulfil payment obligations to the financer. The tribunal is confronted with the inquiry of categorizing the customer as either a financial creditor or an operational creditor of the financer.  In the case of M/s Shree Jaya Laboratories Private Limited,(“Jaya Laboratories”)  it was ruled that “an application under section 7 of the code may be maintained against the customer”.   In the instant case the financer extended its services to the customer on a recourse basis. The Master Direction- Reserve Bank of India (Financial Services provided by Banks) Directions, 2016 classifies the factoring services into three categories. These include (i) non-recourse factoring, where the financer has no recourse against the customer except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or failure to fulfill obligations; (ii) recourse factoring, wherein the customer remains liable to the financer; and (iii) limited recourse factoring, allowing the customer and financer to establish conditions for recourse through a contractual agreement. As per section 5(8)(e) of the code, financial debt includes receivables sold or discounted other than non-recourse basis. Hence, the relationship between the financer and customer is of financial creditor and financial debtor and thus an application u/s 7 of the code is maintainable against customer.   Nature of Transaction between the Financer and the Seller  In the recent judgment of NCLAT in Minions Ventures Pvt Ltd vs Tdt Copper Limited (“Minions Ventures”) it was held that “while discounting the invoice of sellers the financers enter into shoes of seller to become operational creditors”. It was observed that in this transaction, no funds were disbursed, let alone for the time value as a financial debt to the seller. Instead, it constituted an operational debt, as the seller provided goods and services to the customer, defining the nature of the debt between the two as operational.   Similarly, this view was taken in Jaya Laboratories while dismissing application of financer against seller under section 7 of the code.  Conclusion  The practice of Invoice Discounting, also known as Bill Discounting, plays a crucial role in facilitating working capital needs for businesses by allowing them to convert their receivables into immediate cash through third-party financiers. The Factoring Regulation Act of 2011 regulates this financial activity, defining the roles of factoring businesses, assignors, and assignees in the process.  Examining the intersection of Invoice Discounting with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016, it becomes evident that the nature of the transaction between the financer and the customer is one of a financial creditor and financial debtor. This is especially true when the services are provided on a recourse basis, as outlined in the Master Direction of the Reserve Bank of India. The application of Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the customer is deemed maintainable under these circumstances.  In the context of the relationship between the financer and the seller, recent judgments, such as the one in Minions Ventures, suggest that when discounting invoices, financers assume the role of operational creditors. In these cases, where no funds are disbursed as financial debt, but rather the transaction revolves

Understanding Invoice Discounting: Legal Framework, Transaction Dynamics, and Implications under the IBC, 2016 Read More »

Navigating SEBI’s Directive on MITC: Simplifying Broker-Client Relationships

[By Subhasish Pamegam & Hrishikesh Goswami] The authors are students of Gujarat National Law University.   Introduction  While advertisements regularly encourage retail investors to ‘read all investment related documents carefully’ prior to investments in the securities markets, reading through voluminous documents and making sense of the complex legalities discussed in them is nearly impossible for an uninitiated individual. Wouldn’t it be simpler if there were a set of terms and conditions that were declared as the most important ones? Keeping these concerns in mind, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), through its November 13, 2023 circular, declared that the Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) shall be notified by competent authorities in order to simplify the following documents which were declared to be crucial in formalizing the broker-client relationship-  i. Account opening form ii. Rights and obligations iii. Risk disclosure documents   iv. Guidance note v. Policies and procedures vi. Tariff sheet This circular revises the Master Circular for Stock Brokers and marks a pivotal shift in the broker-client relationship within the Indian securities market. This also represents the initiation of a concerted effort to streamline and enhance transparency in the often complex and voluminous documentation governing these relationships to make sure clients understand the important terms and conditions associated with the investments they make. Additionally, SEBI has set strict timelines for brokers to intimate both new and existing clients about the MITC guidelines. This was done after considering the readiness of the market participants with the an intention to allow a smooth transition to the new regime. The authors in the present article attempt to analyze the dynamics of broker-client relationships and the implications of MITC on these relationships. This article also examines SEBI’s role in protecting investor’s interests and MITC’s conformity with this function.  Additionally, this paper aims to explore the potential challenges that might arise out of this circular and suggest appropriate measures to mitigate them.    Broker-Client Relationship A broker is legally defined as a ‘member of the stock exchange’ who is duly certified by SEBI. However, for a layman, a stock-broker is a person who acts as an intermediary and assists retail investors in buying and selling securities from registered stock exchanges.   Brokers in India are bound by a code of conduct which specifies standards of professional conduct and holds brokers responsible for faithfully executing orders on behalf of investors without discriminating based on the volume of business involved. This code further rests a responsibility on brokers to refrain from engaging in malpractices that can prove detrimental to the interest of investors and also requires them to fairly disclose details, including conflicts of interest, while also holding that brokers shouldn’t provide investment advice to investors.   SEBI, over the years has expressly recognized the fact that the securities markets often fall prey to fraudulent activities, which endanger the interests of retail investors, who are often unfamiliar with the technical intricacies involved. In recognition of this threat, Mr. U.K Sinha, ex-chairman of SEBI, stated that the protection of retail investors from such exploitation is one of the key objectives of the regulator.  MITC as a Solution to Voluminous Documentation:  When considering MITC as a solution to voluminous documentation, it is crucial to acknowledge the challenges SEBI faces in effectively regulating intermediaries like stock brokers. Brokers form the backbone of the capital market, yet instances of technical glitches caused by errors on the part of these intermediaries have inflicted significant losses upon investors. These documents often distract investors from noticing critical aspects of their relationship with brokers due to their complex and voluminous nature. This surplus of information tends to obscure the essential terms and conditions, making it difficult for investors to discern the crucial elements, which exposes them to risk. MITC emerges as a focused solution to mitigate this issue by streamlining the extensive and complex documents governing these broker-client relationships. By providing the most critical terms and conditions in a standardized format, MITC will provide investors with clearer and more comprehensible information. This focused approach not only simplifies the information overload but also provides a shield against potential misinterpretation or manipulation by stock brokers.   In Reliance Securities Ltd vs Vivek Sharma, the stock brokers were made liable for losses incurred by investors due to technical glitches and lack of understanding of their online trading platform. This case highlighted the responsibility of brokers to protect investors from losses due to technical shortcomings.  The complexity and volume of documentation often exacerbate these technical issues. MITC’s implementation would also solve such issues by formalizing the broker-client relationship with clearer terms. SEBI’s Role in Protecting the Rights of Investors In Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Bhavesh Pabari, the Court underscored the objective of the SEBI Act to establish a board for protecting the interests of the investors in the securities market. SEBI mandates that stockbrokers safeguard the investors by ensuring protection regarding dividends, bonus shares and similar rights related to transactions. They are obligated to reconcile accounts, issue detailed contract notes promptly after trades and ensure swift payout of funds or securities within prescribed timelines, thereby securing the interests of the investors/clients. The mandate upon stockbrokers under Schedule II of the SEBI (Stock Brokers And Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, to act in the interests of the investors and ensure fairness to their clients is in line with the role of MITC to ensure transparency and simplifying the broker-client relationship. In line with SEBI’s mandate to protect investors, MITC focuses on critical aspects and empowers investors to make informed decisions, which aligns with SEBI’s commitment to promote transparency and investor awareness through initiatives like the Investor Charter. This charter ensures that investors have access to standardized and understandable documentation, fostering trust, confidence and informed decision-making in the market. But the real challenge for SEBI will lie in ensuring compliance to these standards across the vast spectrum of brokers and investors, thereby raising concerns about uniformity and consistent adherence to MITC. This will impose a new obligation on

Navigating SEBI’s Directive on MITC: Simplifying Broker-Client Relationships Read More »

Scroll to Top