Yüksek Mahkeme, Yes Bank AT1 bonolarının yazımını iptal eden kararı onadı ve yatırımcı güvenini etkiledi

Kısaca

Yes Bank AT1 yazımıyla ilgili kararın iptaline ilişkin oranı ₹8.415 crore ifadesi korunuyor. Yargı süreci altı yıl sürdü; karar onaylandı. Piyasalarda volatilite ve yatırımcı davranışında belirsizlik izlenebilir; dikkatle izlenecek noktalar: regülasyon ve sermaye yapılandırmaları.

Ana mesele

Yüksek mahkeme AT1 yazım kararını onadı.

Ne değişti?

Karar, AT1 bonolarının yazı düşürülmesinin yapılandırma kapsamında olmadığını netleştirdi.

Beni nasıl etkiler?

Yatırımcı güveni ve bankacılık reglasyonu konusunda netlik kazandı.

Ne oldu?

Yüksek Mahkeme, Bombay Yüksek Mahkemesi’nin AT1 bonolarının yazımının iptali kararını destekledi.

Neden şimdi?

Altı yıllık yasal süreç, kapsamlı bir yeniden yapılandırma bağlamında sonuçlandı.

Neden önemli?

AT1 bonoları sermaye tamponlarının en riskli araçlar arasında; karar yatırımcı güvenine ve bankacılık regülasyonlarına dair farkındalığı artırır.

Kimler etkileniyor?

• AT1 bonosu sahipleri
• banka yatırımcıları

Sektör ve piyasa etkisi

Uluslararası piyasalarda kredibilite ve regülasyon güveni etkilenebilir.

Riskler

• piyasa volatilitesi artabilir
• yatırımcı güveni azalabilir
• benzer yapılar için belirsizlik yükselebilir

Takip edilmesi gerekenler

• başkaca AT1 yazımları için mahkeme kararları
• regülasyonların uygulanması ve bankaların cevap politikaları

Haberin tamamı

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday upheld the Bombay High Court's decision quashing Yes Bank's write-off of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds worth ₹8,415 crore during the struggling lender's 2020 restructuring, dealing a blow to the bank in which Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp (SMBC) is now the largest shareholder.The ruling concludes a six-year legal dispute that began when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) assembled strong lenders such as State Bank of India (SBI) and Kotak Mahindra to bail out the sinking Yes Bank and wrote down its AT1 bonds as part of the revival package.

Yes Bank shares tumbled 14.53% Thursday to ₹18.12 apiece after the ruling, while the broader market surged nearly 2%.Also Read: Fairfax gets 15 years to reduce stake in IDBI Bank to 26%The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, held that the Bombay High Court was right in ruling the administrator did not have the powers to write down the bonds that were not part of the restructuring scheme, and questioned whether the RBI was not aware of it.

Was the RBI, the regulator, not aware of the consequences of not retaining the write-down clause in the reconstruction scheme? Was the RBI and the administrator appointed by the RBI not aware as to who had the authority to write down the AT1 bonds?'' the bench asked, while ruling in favour of the bondholders.134976568Risky securitiesAT1 bonds are the riskiest among fixed-income securities, but holders are rewarded with high returns.

These bonds came into being after the 2008 global financial crisis. They are perpetual in nature, and these instruments are converted into equity or written off when the issuing bank's capital is eroded.Also Read: Money is going into data centres and AI in US...

now India will be on everyone’s list: Prem WatsaAT1 bonds have come under the judicial lens in multiple geographies after the Swiss authorities wrote down about $17 billion of Credit Suisse bonds to facilitate the collapsed bank's takeover by the UBS Group three years ago.The banking regulator in March 2020 orchestrated the largest bank bailout in Indian history after Yes Bank teetered amid charges of malfeasance, fraud and wrongdoing.

It assembled a bunch of banks such as SBI to invest equity into Yes Bank. As part of the restructuring, an administrator wrote down the risky AT1 bonds, which had provisions for such an act.An administrator appointed under the Banking Regulation Act acts as a substitute for the Board of Directors, to run the company.

Any act performed by the administrator beyond the powers clothed upon him would be wholly illegal and void and he could not have assumed the regulatory role of the RBI and exercise a power which it did not have at all to write down AT1 bonds, the court said in its ruling. It is a settled legal principle that a power not specifically conferred cannot be implicitly vested through a general, omnibus savings clause.

To that extent, we rule against Yes Bank and the administrator, the apex court said.'Retail' bondholdersThe ruling comes as a major relief to Yes Bank's AT-1 bondholders, who had argued that the bonds were mis-sold to them.and could not be written off post the finalisation of the restructuring plan. Now, the private lender is liable to pay the AT-1 bonds liability of Rs 8,415 crore plus interest to the bondholders.

Kaynaklar

• Economic Times - Markets