Top StoriesSupreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To Reinstate Cyrus Mistry As Chairman LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK25 March 2021 11:02 PMShare This – xIn a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.The Court allowed the appeal of Tata Sons, answering all questions of law framed in the case in its favour, and set aside the NCLAT order. The appeals filed by Shapoorji Pallonji group and…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.The Court allowed the appeal of Tata Sons, answering all questions of law framed in the case in its favour, and set aside the NCLAT order. The appeals filed by Shapoorji Pallonji group and Cyrus Mistry were dismissed.The Top Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their separation terms. The reasoning of the bench will be know when the full copy of the judgment is released.A 3- judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian pronounced the judgment. It was on December 17 last year that the bench reserved judgment in the case after hearing a battery of Senior Advocates including Harish Salve, Shyam Divan, CA Sundaram, Dr AM Singhvi, Janak Dwarakadas, Mohan Parasaran etc.The NCLAT, in its order passed on December 18, 2019, had quashed the decision taken by the Board of Tata Sons in October 2016 to remove Mistry as the Chairman and had directed to restore Mistry.The present legal battle has its genesis in the company petitions filed by Shapoorji Pallonji Group under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 alleging oppression and mismanagement in Tata Sons. These petitions were filed in the wake of Mistry’s removal. The NCLT Mumbai bench dismissed the petitions, against which appeals were filed in NCLAT. On December 18, 2019, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. Allowing Mistry’s appeal, the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the judgment of Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had upheld the appointment of N Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. The said NCLAT order was stayed by the Apex Court in January 2020 whereas the judgment was reserved on 17th December 2020. Tatas v Cyrus Mistry : 15 Grounds Of Challenge Against NCLAT OrderQuestions of Law FramedThe Supreme Court framed the following questions of law :(i)Whether the formation of opinion by the Appellate Tribunal that the company’s affairs have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial and oppressive to some members and that the facts otherwise justify the winding up of the company on just and equitable ground,is in tune with the well settled principles and parameters,especially in the light of the fact that the findings of NCLT on facts were not individually and specifically overturned by the Appellate Tribunal ?(ii)Whether the reliefs granted and the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal, including the reinstatement of CPM into the Board of Tata Sons and other Tata companies, are in consonance with the pleadings made, the reliefs sought and the powers available under Subsection (2) of Section 242(Companies Act 2013) ?(iii)Whether the Appellate Tribunal could have, in law,muted the power of the Company under Article 75 of the Articles of Association, to demand any member to transfer his ordinary shares, by simply injuncting the company from exercising such a right without setting aside the Article ? iv)Whether the characterisation by the Tribunal, of the affirmative voting rights available under Article 121 to the Directors nominated by the Trusts in terms of Article104B, as oppressive and prejudicial, is justified especially after the challenge to these Articles have been given up expressly and whether the Tribunal could have granted a direction to RNT and the Nominee Directors virtually nullifying the effect of these Articles ?(v)whether the reconversion of Tata Sons from a public company into a private company, required the necessary approval under section 14 of the Companies Act, 2013 or at least an action under section 43A(4) of the Companies Act,1956 during the period from 2000 (when Act 53 of 2000came into force) to 2013 (when the 2013 Act was enacted)as held by NCLAT?All questions of law were answered in favour of the Tata Group.Stand of Tata Sons Calling the NCLAT direction to reinstate Cyrus Mistry as Chairman to undermine the principles of corporate democracy, it was the case of Tata Sons group that NCLAT lacked jurisdiction for such restoration especially when such a relief was not sought. According to Tata Sons, NCLAT lacked jurisdiction to declare it as a “Public Company” when it is a “Private Company” under sec. 2(68) of the Companies Act 2013.During the course of hearing in the matter, it was submitted by Harish Salve that “It has always been a private company. The curious thing which has happened in the case is that there is a provision in Tata Son’s Articles which restricts the transfer of shares. It also has a remarkable feature that the Board could direct a shareholder to sell shares. The NCLAT overlooked the fact that the primary contract between the shareholders and the company is the Articles of Association”. Furthermore, Tata Sons in its appeal submitted that NCLAT’s direction to Tata Sons for consulting Shapoorji Pallonji Group for appointments of Executive Chairman and Directors in future was contrary to the Articles of Association. “Pallonji Mistry, Cyrus Mistry’s father was included in Tata Sons as non-executive Director in 1980. Cyrus Mistry joined Tata Sons in 2006. Mistry’s appointment as Executive Chairman would have ended in March 2017. It was not a life long appointment. He was removed in October 2016. After March 2017, he had no right to seek re-appointment. Corporate democracies must have its places. ” Salve submitted in the Court. Coming to the aspect of legal tests under sec. 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, it was the case of Tata Sons that the NCLAT failed to explain how the actions of the Board constituted any prejudice and oppression. It was also their case that orders under sec. 242 of the Act can be passed only if there are facts which show that the winding up of the company is otherwise necessary which was not discussed by the NCLAT. “The power under sections 241 and 242 is available as the alternative power, only in case the court concludes that it is otherwise just and equitable that the company be wound up. The English courts developed it as an equitable relief and we incorporated it as a statutory relief. Say, in case of a deadlock, where two directors are not speaking to each other. In such cases, it may be just and equitable to wind up the company but if it would cause unnecessary prejudice to the shareholders or to the company, the tribunal would instead grant relief of oppression.” Salve argued in the Court. Stand of Cyrus Mistry Shyam Divan appearing for Mistry submitted during the course of hearings that the essence of the legal battle rests on the concept of corporate governance and how law has evolved from corporate majority to corporate democracy to a higher set of values and a higher standard ensuring transparency. According to Divan, the process of removal of Cyrus Mistry went against the concept of Corporate Democracy. In view of this, he called the removal procedure as prescribed under the AoA as an “express black letter provision”.According to his arguments, Mr. Ratan Tata exercised an overriding authority on the decisions of the Board of Directors. He informed the Court that the communications between the year 2013 to 2016 show that there was a complete confusion in the Board. All the decisions were taken by Ratan Tata himself. “On 28th June 2016, the Board didn’t have any grievance from Cyrus Mistry. The board noted that Mistry in fact worked in the welfare of the company and the Board applauded his contribution. There is no agenda of removal of his termination. No reasons for removal of Mistry were recorded. One of the directors was a nominee of Tata Trust. Other 2 were appointed as personal nomination by Ratan Tata. Other 2 who voted for his removal had just 4 months prior to the removal praised his work. No reason was given by them on their vote.” He argued. Furthermore it was submitted that “Mr. Ratan Tata is not the member of the board on 18 Dec 2012. He didn’t attend any meeting until 2016 October. He is not subject to the discipline of sec. 166 of Companies Act. Mr. Subedar, company secretary informed the board that while the meeting was in process, Ratan Tata sent 2 letters while in the position of shareholder requesting other Directors namely Shrinivasan and Piramal to take necessary actions. Mr. Cyrus Mistry was the Executive Chairman on this date.” It was Mr. Divan’s argument that it was agreed in the meeting that Mr. Mistry must be removed from the post of Executive Chairman as the trust lost confidence in him due to some reason. “While there were different agendas for the meeting to be convened, the voting was done on agendas over which no prior information was given to anyone. Article 105A and Article 118 requires that before the removal of a Chairperson, removal has to be considered by a selection committee and a notice of removal as to be furnished. These conditions were not fulfilled in this case. This is violation of AoA.” he argued. According to Mr. Divan, on 1 August 2012, a resolution was passed by General Body appointing Mr. Mistry as Executive Chairman. He suggested that if one wants to go against the appointment of chairperson, the appropriate way is to approach the General Body which is supported by requirement of Article 105. He also suggested that no prior information or notice was accorded to Mr. Mistry on his removal which goes against the statutory requirement of both AoA and Companies Act, 2013.Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. was represented by Mr. Harish N. Salve and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advs. and briefed by a team from Karanjawala & Co. Advocates. The Karanjawala & Co. team comprised of Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Senior Partner, Ms. Tahira Karanjawala, Principal Associate, Senior Associates – Mr. Anupm Prakash, Mr. Arjun Sharma & Mr. Shravan Sahny, and Associates – Mr. Ashutosh P. Shukla & Mr. Utkarsh Maria. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Rohan Batra & Ms. Reena Choudhary, Advs. also appeared for Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd.Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. S.N. Mookerjee, Sr. Advs. appeared for Mr. Ratan N. Tata.Case DetailsTitle : Tata Sons Ltd v Cyrus Mistry and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 184Click here to read/download the judgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York A 73-year-old Patchogue man was killed in a two-vehicle crash early Wednesday morning.Suffolk County police said Anthony Baldassarre was driving his Toyota westbound on Vehslage Street when his car collided with a northbound Chevrolet pickup truck at the corner of North Ocean Avenue in North Patchogue shortly after 5 a.m.The victim was taken to Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center in East Patchogue, where he was pronounced dead.The other driver, 22-year-old Christopher Young of Bay Shore, was taken to the same hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.Fifth Squad detectives impounded both vehicles, are continuing the investigation and ask anyone who may have witnessed this crash to call them at 631-854-8552.
SharePrint RelatedThe Santa Fe National Historic Trail GeoTourAugust 9, 2014In “Geocaching Info”Want a Reward for Finding Geocaches? Keep Reading…March 2, 2015In “Community”Wisconsin’s West Bend Four Seasons GeoTour (GT40)August 23, 2018In “Community” Share with your Friends:More Giddy-up geocachers, a new journey awaits!From 1821 to 1880, traders hauled manufactured goods from Missouri all the way to Santa Fe. There they traded these goods for silver coins, pelts, and mules. Known as the Santa Fe Trail, this trek spanned five states and nearly 900 miles (1,400 km) of challenging terrain—the early pioneers sure didn’t have it easy. You too can walk the Santa Fe Trail—luckily for you, there are now paved roads, National Park Service historical markers, over 1000 Favorite points, and 73 geocaches to discover, and on the Santa Fe National Historic Trail GeoTour!You’ll crow for joy when you find GC4YXVK, right in the middle of historical Santa Fe! Photo by LoveYour geocaching adventure along this National Historic Trail will show you rich history, a varied and stunning landscape, pristine natural and historical resources, and well preserved historic sites. This beautifully maintained GeoTour is hosted with the help and support of the Santa Fe Trail Association and the National Park Service and celebrates its sixth birthday this year!Live your wild west fantasies on the Santa Fe Trail GeoTour (GT34) Yee haw! Photo by LitJoe77The GeoTour takes you through five states (Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) of stunning wilderness, as well as urban areas such as Kansas City and, you guessed it, Santa Fe. “It’s clean and green and pretty, and they went and built a city out of clay.” Photo by ancognitoYou can keep track of your smileys on an eye-catching and extensive passport or simply pick the caches that suit your fancy. When you log all of the caches, you earn a collectible souvenir to display proudly on your Geocaching profile.If you’re tired of “micros in the woods,” this is the GeoTour for you—leave those searches behind and trade them out for some “regulars on the plains,” instead—69 out of 73 of these caches are regular sized!Git along, little doggie! Photo by CordovaBucksBut don’t just take our word for it:. . . This has been a remarkable journey. We have seen things and learned things that are beyond fantastic! We have had more ohhhs and ahaas than the 4th of July. Thank you for this experience!” —Smokie StoverWithout this series I doubt many of us would know about the role some of these places played in our country’s history.” —mamajhkSo saddle up your palomino, and move ‘em on out for a GeoTour filled with adventure, discovery, history and, most importantly, some first-rate geocaching.
ESPN/SmithESPN personality Stephen A. Smith is in a bit of hot water again, this time for a perceived sexist comment he made on SportsCenter Thursday night. Smith, while doing a highlight of the Women’s World Cup, commented that Germany’s defenders didn’t want to “mess their hair up” while defending a free kick (which leveled the game) against Norway. Smith’s choice of words, which don’t even make sense given the replay, offended a number of people, including some of his ESPN colleagues.Here’s video, if you haven’t seen it:Kate Fagan, ESPNW writer, was among those who weren’t thrilled. There were others too.What happens when you’re uneducated about something, don’t get educated, but talk about it anyway? –> http://t.co/ZthyoQHhts— Kate Fagan (@katefagan3) June 12, 2015Smith has since apologized for his comments in a four-part Twitter message. 1-of-3: Folks, as usual, something I’ve said is gaining steam so let me address this right now: on @SportsCenter, doing highlights, I made a— Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) June 12, 2015Flip comment in fun about a women’s soccer team not wanting to mess up their hair. Obviously, my comments were in poor taste. I have nothing— Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) June 12, 2015But the utmost respect for athletes of all genders — Especially since most are better than I’ll ever be — so please KNOW I’m very sorry.— Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) June 12, 2015I apologize. It certainly was not my intent to offend anyone.— Stephen A Smith (@stephenasmith) June 12, 2015It remains to be seen as to whether ESPN will suspend Smith. It wouldn’t be the first time.[The Big Lead]
Big 12.The Big 12 dropped some interesting news Friday, announcing that starting in 2017, the league will bring back a conference championship game, despite the fact that it is staying at 10 schools. It was also announced by commissioner Bob Bowlsby that the league is considering moving to two five-team divisions and keeping its round robin scheduling. If you’re thinking that doesn’t make a ton of sense – you aren’t alone. College football fans and analysts are mocking the league for what seems like a pointless exercise. Why have divisions if you already play every other team? Couldn’t that potentially leave the league without its two best teams in the title game?What’s the point of divisions if doing round-robin? The Big 12 is clueless https://t.co/En2GE7PZ9D— Jason Brown (@JasonBrown96) June 3, 2016“two five team divisions”One one hand, that’s dumb.On the other hand, the Big 12 East featuring WVU, ISU, Kansas, KSU, and someone.— Smoking Musket (@SmokingMusket) June 3, 2016So the Big 12 is going to five-team divisions. What is the point if the league is still playing a round-robin schedule?— Bobby La Gesse (@BobbyLaGesse) June 3, 2016If the Big 12 is going to have divisions, here’s how I recommend splitting the teams. pic.twitter.com/AYwXG73eeE— Tom Fornelli (@TomFornelli) June 3, 2016“Sorry, TCU, we know you and OU both finished 8-1 in our round robin, but 6-3 WVU is going to the title game b/c they’re further north.”— Bill Connelly (@SBN_BillC) June 3, 2016Entire idea of a championship game was because all teams did not play each other in bloated leagues..— Doug Gottlieb (@GottliebShow) June 3, 2016Love that the Big 12 is switching from round robin to two 5-team divisions with 5 crossover games.— Ben Swain (@TheBenSwain) June 3, 2016The only thing that will make the Big 12’s potential 5-team divisions better is to name them Leaders and Legends— Matt Brown (@MattBrownCFB) June 3, [email protected] axis and allies— Eric Edholm (@Eric_Edholm) June 3, 2016We’ll see if the Big 12 changes its mind. This likely isn’t the last we hear on this topic.
EDMONTON – It’s closing time for Alberta’s homegrown subsidy designed to help its beer brewers.Finance Minister Joe Ceci says the province is changing the program after an appeal panel ruled it contravenes the Agreement on Internal Trade.Ceci says that doesn’t mean the government will stop supporting Alberta’s brewers, who he said face stiff protectionist measures when they try to expand into other provinces.“We will run a program that continues to have the backs of Alberta brewers,” Ceci said Monday while touring an Edmonton craft brewery.An appeal panel under the Agreement on Internal Trade upheld an earlier decision that provincial grants to assist Alberta craft brewers are unfair and violate interprovincial free trade rules.“By tying the grant explicitly to certain levels of production and sales of beer produced in Alberta, the (grant) program encourages the production and sale of Alberta beer and provides a competitive advantage … over beer produced in other provinces,” wrote the appeal panel.Ceci suggested the province may go on the legal offensive.“We will also look at the restrictive policies in place in other provinces.”He said Alberta brewers face lengthy and costly applications, restrictions on shelf space outside Alberta and other barriers that don’t exist in his province.Ceci declined to give details or a timeline for the changes, but has to ditch the current grants some time in the next five months.“I will tell you that we’re going to have a brewers development program. I’m not telling you what exactly what will be in it.”All brewers in Alberta pay the same $1.25 tax per litre on beer, but Ceci introduced grants in 2016 to help small Alberta producers expand their businesses.Calgary-based Artisan Ales, which sells imported beer, filed a complaint with the internal trade panel, saying the grants effectively tilted the playing field against those bringing in beer from outside.An original hearing panel found the tax and grant program constituted unfair trade. The appeal panel said the tax was fine but agreed the grant program was still offside under free-trade rules.Artisan Ales owner Mike Tessier said the program has severely undercut his business and added that the panel ruling is a victory for common sense.“We were right the first time,” Tessier said in an interview.The dispute drew in Saskatchewan, which also argued the program was unfair. It became a bone of contention late last year when Saskatchewan threatened to ban Alberta licence plates from its job sites in retaliation.“We are very pleased with the decision which confirms that Alberta’s beer-market-distorting policies unfairly discriminate against Saskatchewan and Canadian brewers,” Saskatchewan Trade Minister Jeremy Harrison said in a news release Monday.“We call on the government of Alberta to immediately comply with this ruling, as they have promised, ensuring that brewers from our province and the rest of Canada can compete fairly with Alberta-based brewers.”Neil Herbst, head of the Alberta Small Brewers Association, said his group will talk to Ceci about a new program and called the trade panel decision frustrating.“I don’t think there is one brewery that exports beer out of Alberta,” said Herbst. “It’s not because we haven’t tried. It’s because there are barriers all over the place, mostly non-tariff barriers.”Opposition Leader Jason Kenney said the ruling was predictable and suggested the NDP government needs a consistent trade policy.“If we want to champion free trade in the movement of our oil, we have to champion free trade on everything,” Kenney said in Calgary.“Let’s free the beer.”— With files from Bill Graveland in Calgary
VICTORIA, B.C. – B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer, Keith Archer, has submitted a report to the Legislative Assembly recommending changes to the Election Act.Archer says his recommendations are aimed at increasing the accessibility and efficiency of the electoral process in the province. The most prominent of the main recommendations in the report are to allow 16- and 17-year-olds who will become eligible to vote to pre-register, so that they will be added to the voters list automatically when they turn 18.Archer is also recommending that Elections BC be provided with greater access to information held by public bodies to help maintain the provincial voters list, and using technology to modernize voting and counting administration while maintaining paper ballots. In addition, he suggests making the election period longer during a snap general election to allow more time for candidate nominations, material distribution, staffing, and communicating with voters. Archer’s report also proposes a new administrative model for counting votes, which he says could be implemented under any form of electoral system. The model would maintain most facets of the current administrative model while eliminating the need for the final count of absentee ballots, which under current legislation takes place 13 days after General Voting Day.Finally, Archer recommends establishing a legislative committee to work towards implementing the proposed administrative model over the next three to six years.Archer’s full report can be read here: http://elections.bc.ca/docs/rpt/2018-CEO-Recommendations.pdf
Srinagar: A 28-year-old school teacher, who was arrested in connection with a terror case, died in police custody here, triggering protests at his town in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district on Tuesday, police said.The state government has ordered a magisterial inquiry to ascertain the cause and circumstances that led to Rizwan Pandit’s death, they said. Pandit a resident of Awantipora in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pulwama district, died during the intervening night of Monday and Tuesday, a senior police officer said. Also Read – Uddhav bats for ‘Sena CM’He was a teacher at a private school and was picked up by security agencies three days ago in connection with a terror case, the officer said. The civil administration, following a request by the police department, has ordered a magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to ascertain the cause and circumstances leading to Pandit’s death, the officer said. The CrPC section pertains to inquiry by a magistrate into cause of death, including when any person dies while in the custody of police. Also Read – Farooq demands unconditional release of all detainees in J&KA police spokesman said a separate investigation has also been ordered into the incident. In Awantipora, clashes broke out as soon as news of Pandit’s death reached, police officials said. They said angry protestors pelted stones at law enforcing personnel, who fired tear gas shells to bring the situation under control. The clashes between the protestors and security personnel were going on when reports last came in, the officials said, adding that no casualty has been reported. The teacher’s death in police custody was condemned by several politicians who demanded a time-bound probe into the matter and punishment to the guilty. “I had hoped custodial deaths were a thing of our dark past. This is an unacceptable development & must be investigated in a transparent, time bound manner. “Exemplary punishment must be handed out to the killers of this young man,” National Conference vice president Omar Abdullah tweeted. He also hit out at the previous PDP-BJP coalition government in the state and the Centre for the present situation. “Midnight raids, crackdowns, rampant arrests, custodial murders, denial of democratic right to choose a government. Kashmir continues to suffer the fallout of the disastrous PDP-BJP alliance and from the Modi government’s muscular approach to J&K,” the NC leader said. PDP president Mehbooba Mufti also hit out at the Centre saying its “repressive approach” has left young educated men vulnerable. “Innocent men hauled up from their homes for interrogation return home only in coffins now. GoI’s repressive approach leaves young educated men vulnerable who are forced to take up arms…,” she said.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s order quashing the RBI’s February 12 circular will give the government discretionary power to issue direction to the apex bank for referring a defaulting company to the NCLT on case by case basis in public interest, official sources said. The Supreme Court Tuesday quashed the RBI circular of last year that pertains to the provisions for referring the defaulter to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) even on a one-day overdue. Also Read – Thermal coal import may surpass 200 MT this fiscalHowever, the SC had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, which empowers the Centre to act, either directly or by directing RBI to take action against defaulters. Section 35AA empowers the central government to authorise the RBI to issue directions to any banking company or banking companies to initiate insolvency resolution process in respect of a default under the provisions of the IBC. Sections 35AA and 35AB were introduced by an amendment to the Banking Regulation Act in May 2017. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had on February 12, 2018 issued the circular saying that lenders have to provide for resolution plan within 180 days in case of large account of Rs 2,000 crore and above. Also Read – Food grain output seen at 140.57 mt in current fiscal on monsoon boostAccording to sources, the Supreme Court order on the RBI’s circular does not limit government powers to give directions to PSU banks in resolving non-performing assets. Prior to February 12 circular, the resolution mechanism available to banks were CDR, Scheme for Sustainable Structuring of Stressed Assets (S4A), and JLF. Following Tuesday’s SC order restructuring schemes like S4A may come back. Revised framework for resolution of stressed assets issued on February 12, 2018 invited criticism from various quarters like a parliamentary panel. The RBI substituted the previous guidelines with a harmonised and simplified generic framework for resolution of stressed assets in view of the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. “Although the new guidelines have been termed as harmonized and simplified generic framework, yet they are far from being so,” Standing Committee on Energy in its report tabled in Parliament last year said.
UPDATE (Sept. 3, 10:45 a.m.): Sure, Tom Brady can play a full season again after a judge reversed the league’s four-game suspension. But the Patriots still lost a first-round draft pick in the Deflategate fracas. In May, Neil Paine wrote that the draft pick was the real penalty for the Patriots. We originally published this article after the punishment was first announced. In the wake of the NFL’s Deflategate report, the league announced late Monday that it would fine the New England Patriots $1 million, suspend quarterback Tom Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season, and strip New England of two draft picks — a first-round pick in 2016 and a fourth-rounder in 2017.After news of the disciplinary action broke, much of the coverage has centered around the loss of Brady and how his absence will affect the Patriots next season. Certainly questions abound in that department; chief among them is whether backup QB Jimmy Garoppolo can steer the ship while Brady sits. In response to the punishment, sportsbooks in Las Vegas downgraded New England’s line by 4 points in their opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers and have scratched half a win off the team’s 10.5-win opening over/under (now it’s 10.0, according to Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook).1A half-win may seem like a somewhat modest amendment — after all, whenever a future Hall of Fame quarterback is lost, there’s always the concern that the team will completely fall apart without him — but even an extra half-loss could have big implications for New England’s Super Bowl odds.Lost amid the hand-wringing over Brady’s suspension, though, is the value of the lost draft picks. Teams with New England’s 2014 Simple Rating System (SRS) score tend to pick 22nd in the first round of the draft two years later and 21st in the fourth round (or 117th overall) the year after that. Those numbers probably understate the quality of the picks, since without four games of Brady, the Pats may fare worse than the average 10.9-SRS team. But they serve as a good gauge of what the Patriots were stripped of in Monday’s decision.Turning to Chase Stuart’s invaluable research on the value of draft picks, those two picks are worth 19.2 points of marginal Approximate Value (AV) over the first five years of the draftees’ careers. Brady himself has averaged 15.7 AV per season over the past three years, and a replacement-level QB produces about 8.5 AV per 16 games, so Brady’s marginal value in the first four games of the 2015 season figured to be somewhere between 1.5 and 2 points of AV.In other words, according to AV, the cost of New England’s two lost draft picks dwarfs the cost of Brady’s four-game suspension (assuming its original length is upheld after appeals). While the latter will cause a glaring hole in the Patriots lineup on opening day, the former is a long-term disadvantage that may ultimately prove more damaging.