The Bombay High Court had ordered a status quo on a matter related with fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) pledged as collateral by IndiaNivesh Securities Pvt Ltd with Edelweiss Custodial Services Ltd. The HC stated that no party should ask HDFC Bank Ltd, which has issued the FDRs, to liquidate the instrument, valued at Rs100 crore. However, market experts are intrigued at the developments. The market regulator, the National Stock Exchange and the NSE Clearing Corporation are silent about the deal. Since the matter is now under arbitration, nothing will be heard on the issue for at least six months. 

 

Meanwhile, experts are perplexed at implications of the court order as well. Does this mean that all fixed deposit receipts will be treated as negotiable instruments, asks one market expert. "An FD denotes cash in a bank and can only be pledged to the issuing bank, who can adjust it. A third party cannot have any rights on the FD or FDR," he says adding, "Just because it was a commercial practice to accept these FDRs as security or pledge, it does not make the instrument negotiable."

 

IndiaNivesh, a brokerage firm that has been in business for 14 years voluntarily closed all its businesses, almost overnight in early April after suffering serious losses when stock prices crashed after the first Covid related lockdown. Its exit has left a controversial Rs100 crore hole in the books of Edelweiss Custodial Services, which was its clearing brokerage firm with the trail leading to HDFC bank, which had apparently “funded” a so-called fixed-deposit shown as margin to the NSE clearing house. (Read: How Serious Is the Issue of Fake Fixed Deposits or Funded Collateral in the Market?)

 

On 29 April 2020, Edelweiss Custodial Services filed a case in the Bombay High Court to claim outstanding dues by IndiaNivesh Securities, which has closed its business. HDFC Bank is understood to have issued these FDRs as collateral offered by IndiaNivesh and has reportedly refused to pay. Edelweiss Custodial Services claims that these FDRs, worth Rs100 crore, were pledged with it as collateral by the brokerage. 

 

At that time, in a regulatory filing, IndiaNivesh Securities had stated, "During all this turmoil, there has been mark-to-market losses, which have been funded by Edelweiss Custodial Services and Edelweiss Custodial Services was covered with short term loans (STL), which was available for the credit balances of the clients.” It also asked for all its collaterals, including short term loans available with the exchange and the clearing member to be frozen. 

 

HDFC Bank reportedly declined to honour the FDRs issued by it as IndiaNivesh’s collateral pledged with Edelweiss, which was acting as the clearing member.

 

A report from the Mint says, "Edelweiss claimed that the FDRs issued by HDFC Bank were pledged by IndiaNivesh as collateral for the entire trade, while HDFC Bank claimed that these were meant only as margin and not for mark-to-market or M2M losses."

 

While this matter is sub-judice and the HC has asked for a status quo, there are some instances where FDRs would have possibly been used as pledge or collateral. 

 

As reported by Moneylife earlier, market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had been questioning clearing houses about these collaterals. 

 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also sought SEBI’s cooperation in conducting a specific reconciliation exercise of the margins in the form of lien-marked fixed deposit receipts, bank guarantees, and ‘unfunded fixed deposits’. 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has lifted the restriction regarding the remuneration of Bandhan Bank's MD and CEO after the promoter shareholding was brought down to 40% in line with the central bank's norms.

 

In September 2018, the RBI, among other restrictions, said that the remuneration of the MD and CEO of Bandhan Bank stands frozen at the existing level in view of non-compliance with RBI's licensing norms for new private sector banks.

 

As per the licensing guidelines, the non-operative financial holding company (NOFHC) was required to bring its excess shareholding to 40% of the paid-up voting equity capital of the bank.

 

In a regulatory filing on Monday, the bank said: "The RBI vide its communication dated 17 August 2020 has lifted the other regulatory restriction 'the remuneration of the MD and CEO of the Bank stands frozen, at the existing level'."

 

The bank noted that post the latest decision of the central bank, all the regulatory restrictions imposed by the RBI through the letter dated 19 September 2018 on the bank are now withdrawn.

 

The development comes a fortnight after Bandhan Financial Holdings Limited lowered its stake in the by 20.95% through a block deal earlier this month.

 

Post the deal, the holding company's stake in the bank is at 40%.

 

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

The Central government has extended the Partial Credit Guarantee Scheme 2.0 (PCGS) for non-banking financial companies (NBFC) by three months and has allowed more flexibility to build up the portfolio, an official statement said on Monday.

 

"Additional 3 months have been granted to build up the portfolio. At the end of six months, i.e. by 19.11.2020, the portfolio shall be crystallised, based on actual amount disbursed, for the guarantee to come into effect," a Finance Ministry statement said.

 

Further, allowing more flexibility, the government has decided that the 'AA' and 'AA-' investment sub-portfolio under the scheme should not exceed 50 per cent, instead of the 25 per cent stipulated earlier, of the total portfolio of bonds or commercial papers purchased by public sector banks under the scheme.

 

The PCGS 2.0, launched under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat economic package aimed to provide portfolio guarantee for purchase of bonds or commercial papers (CPs) with a rating of AA and below issued by NBFCs, HFCs and MFIs by public sector banks.

 

It was envisaged to purchase bonds or commercial papers of Rs 45,000 crore under PCGS 2.0, of which the maximum headroom permissible for purchase of bonds or commercial papers rated 'AA/AA-' was 25 per cent of the total portfolio, or Rs. 11,250 crore.

 

Under PCGS 2.0, PSBs have approved purchase of securities rated 'AA/AA-' issued by 28 entities and securities rated below 'AA-' issued by 62 entities, amounting to Rs 21,262 crore overall.

 

The ministry noted that the average ticket size of bonds and commercial papers rated below 'AA-' is significantly lower than the average ticket size of those rated 'AA/AA-'.

 

The statement said that the government has made the latest decisions, keeping in view the progress under the scheme and the fact that the stipulated limit for 'AA/AA-' rated securities has been nearly reached, while the appetite for lower rated securities is nearing saturation, considering their lower ticket size.  

 

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.