In the world of business and finance, personal guarantees have emerged as a controversial and sensitive topic, especially when they intersect with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Entrepreneurs who pledge their personal assets as collateral against loans for their companies are finding themselves caught in a web of complexity, uncertainty, and reputational damage. This article delves into the challenges entrepreneurs face under the IBC due to personal guarantees and sheds light on the flawed valuation process that compounds their plight.
Personal Guarantees and IBC: A Complex Web of Struggles
The concept of personal guarantees seems straightforward: entrepreneurs vouch for their company’s loan repayment. However, when the company faces insolvency and enters the jurisdiction of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), these personal guarantees morph into a nightmare. Most companies undergoing insolvency proceedings are labeled as fraudulent by banks, leading to legal action against entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs are then put under intense scrutiny, often having to account for financial decisions made years ago.
Despite the Supreme Court of India overturning some of these declarations, the damage to entrepreneurs’ reputation is often irreparable. The ongoing legal disputes, coupled with reputational erosion, force entrepreneurs into a corner with limited options. The consequences are vast, affecting not only the entrepreneurs but also employees, suppliers, and the overall business ecosystem.
The Veil over Valuation: Entrepreneurs’ Exclusion and Flawed Process
The valuation process under the IBC is a crucial determinant of a company’s fate during insolvency. However, entrepreneurs who have nurtured and built their businesses are excluded from this process, as the company’s assets are handed over to new entities for evaluation. This exclusion contradicts the principles of natural justice and transparency.
The IBC introduces two types of valuations: the going concern value and the liquidation value. The disparity between these values and the actual sale price is evident in cases like Su-kam, where a company valued at Rs300 Crore was sold at a mere 49Cr. The process raises pertinent questions about the fairness and effectiveness of these valuations.
Entrepreneurial Plight and Future Prospects
Entrepreneurs, who are often the driving force behind a company’s success, find themselves marginalized during the insolvency process. This treatment contrasts sharply with the more balanced approach taken towards investors who acquire distressed companies. Entrepreneurs are treated as criminals, leading to depression, personal struggles, and even tragic outcomes.
The IBC’s approach to ‘interest’ burdens further exacerbates the situation. Entrepreneurs are burdened with interest payments even when they no longer have control over the company. The continuous accrual of interest, often out of their control, hampers their ability to resolve financial matters and move forward.
Conclusion: A Call for Reform and Empathy
The personal guarantee saga under the IBC raises profound ethical and systemic questions. Entrepreneurs who have invested their lives, energy, and resources into building businesses are left battling legal complexities, financial woes, and reputational damage. The valuation process, skewed and lacking transparency, further compounds their struggles.
It is imperative to create an environment that respects entrepreneurs’ contributions and provides them with a fair chance to rebuild and recover. Reforms to the IBC should focus on balanced valuations, empathetic treatment, and a more supportive ecosystem for entrepreneurs. As society, we must recognize that entrepreneurial journeys are not just about profits and losses but about innovation, growth, and economic progress.
By sharing the untold stories of entrepreneurs like these, we open the door to a more nuanced and compassionate discussion surrounding personal guarantees, insolvency, and the overall business landscape.
Leave a Reply