Friends what i think happened was : Most bankers and everybody is of the view that section 29a prohibits anyone with a NPA to bid for stressed assets, by definition anyone who has just acquired a stressed assets automatically becomes ineligible to bid for any other assets. A request has already been made to the government to allow any company a relaxed period of 3 years from the date of acceptance of resolution in NCLT, during these 3 years NPA attach with its newly acquired business wont make the entity ineligible for bidding other assets in future, as the section hasn`t been amended yet so the earlier definition is in practice . What must have happened with ABG is, they invited bids and negotiated with amtek, and when ABG COC met on monday the news of liberty`s resolution plan being submitted to was out in public. As last date for amtek is 19 apr and for ABG it is 27 Apr, so by the time ABG plan would have been submitted to NCLT for approval Liberty would have already acquired amtek on 19th apr. So by the current definition of Sec 29a liberty will be a promoter of a company with NPA and thus it`s resolution plan for ABG would stand in conflict with sec 29a of IBC. As the specific details on which liberty is found ineligible is not available in public domain, and some lenders are common in ABG and amtek, so the IRP and lenders are meeting to brief each other on the same, and discuss the specifics on which liberty was disqualified for ABG, they just want to make sure there isn`t any fact that has escaped them.
