Corporate Fraudulent Preference Disputes
📌 1. Overview: Fraudulent Preference in Corporates
Fraudulent preference occurs when a company, on the verge of insolvency or financial distress, transfers assets, makes payments, or grants advantages to certain creditors, directors, or related parties in a manner that unfairly prejudices other creditors.
Purpose of Laws on Fraudulent Preference:
Protect equitable distribution of assets in insolvency.
Prevent favoritism to connected parties or selected creditors.
Safeguard creditors’ rights and corporate governance integrity.
Provide legal remedies to reverse unfair transfers.
Legal Basis (India):
Companies Act, 2013: Sections 66–68 – fraud, wrongful trading, and fraudulent preference.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): Sections 43–45 – avoidance of preferential transactions, undervalued transactions, and related party transactions during insolvency.
IPC Sections 406, 420: Misappropriation and cheating in fraudulent asset transfers.
NFRA and Auditor Guidelines: Detect and report preferential transactions impacting company financial health.
⚖️ 2. Characteristics of Fraudulent Preference
Timing: Made when the company is financially distressed or approaching insolvency.
Benefit to Connected Parties: Directors, relatives, or favored creditors gain advantage.
Detriment to Other Creditors: Unfairly reduces the asset pool available to other creditors.
Lack of Commercial Reason: Transaction lacks genuine business justification.
Intent: Transaction intended to defraud, evade creditors, or avoid statutory obligations.
⚖️ 3. Common Scenarios Leading to Disputes
Paying one creditor while intentionally delaying others.
Transferring assets or shares to related parties at undervalue.
Forgiving loans or granting guarantees to insiders during financial distress.
Settling claims or obligations to preferred parties without board approval.
Diverting cash or inventory to connected entities before insolvency proceedings.
⚖️ 4. Legal and Corporate Governance Checks
A. Board & Audit Committee Oversight
Approve significant transactions, especially related party or high-value payments.
Ensure business justification, fair valuation, and arm’s length principles.
B. Internal Controls
Segregation of duties for authorization, payment, and record-keeping.
Periodic review of preference-sensitive transactions during distress.
C. Auditor Responsibilities
Statutory auditors must identify transactions that may be preferential or fraudulent.
Report material preferential transactions under CARO or Section 143(12) of Companies Act.
D. Regulatory Compliance
Ensure IBC compliance: transactions within 2 years prior to insolvency may be reversed.
Maintain documentation and board resolutions to justify payments or transfers.
⚖️ 5. Investigation Protocol
Trigger: Suspicion raised by auditors, creditors, whistleblowers, or regulatory authorities.
Board Approval: Audit committee or board authorizes forensic review.
Forensic Investigation: Examine bank statements, payment records, contracts, and approvals.
Identify Preferential Transactions: Transactions benefitting connected parties or select creditors.
Legal Analysis: Evaluate recoverability under Companies Act, IBC, or civil/criminal law.
Reporting: Audit committee and board receive findings; regulators are notified if required.
Remedial Action: Recovery of assets, reversal of payments, civil suits, or criminal prosecution.
📚 6. Six Key Case Laws
Case 1 — Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (2009)
Issue: Promoters diverted funds and gave preferential advantages to related parties.
Holding: Court held directors liable for fraudulent preference and misappropriation.
Significance: Preferential transactions without commercial justification are actionable.
Case 2 — ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Ramesh Babu (2005)
Issue: Loans and advances given preferentially to insiders during financial stress.
Holding: Courts emphasized director fiduciary duty and creditor protection.
Significance: Preferential treatment of insiders violates statutory obligations.
Case 3 — K.K. Verma v. Punjab National Bank (1983)
Issue: Funds transferred to select creditors prior to insolvency.
Holding: Court invalidated preferential transactions and emphasized equitable treatment of all creditors.
Significance: Establishes legal remedy for preferential payments.
Case 4 — Hindustan Lever Employees’ Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1996)
Issue: Assets allocated to certain related entities disproportionately.
Holding: Court mandated forensic review and recovery of misallocated assets.
Significance: Independent audit and board verification essential to detect preference.
Case 5 — Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999)
Issue: Payments and assets transferred to favored parties before insolvency.
Holding: Transactions reversed under equitable principles; directors held accountable.
Significance: Legal principle of reversal of preferential transactions upheld.
Case 6 — Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. MCA (2018)
Issue: Use of corporate funds to benefit connected parties during financial restructuring.
Holding: Court emphasized directors must avoid preferential treatment and act in company’s best interest.
Significance: Reinforces statutory obligation to prevent fraudulent preference.
🔍 7. Practical Corporate Remedies
Board Approvals: Document rationale for all high-value or related-party payments.
Internal Audit: Regularly monitor for transactions favoring select parties.
Forensic Review: Investigate suspicious payments or asset transfers.
Documentation & Evidence: Maintain contracts, approvals, bank statements, and internal memos.
Regulatory Filing: Report preferential transactions under IBC, Companies Act, or SEBI LODR.
Litigation & Recovery: File civil suits or insolvency proceedings to reverse preferential transactions.
Internal Control Strengthening: Segregate duties, implement dual approval processes, and monitor director transactions.
🏁 8. Key Takeaways
Fraudulent preference is actionable under Companies Act, IBC, and criminal law.
Directors and officers must act in good faith, maintain impartiality among creditors, and avoid preferential dealings.
Courts and regulators consistently uphold reversal of preferential transactions and recovery of diverted assets.
Strong internal controls, board oversight, audit verification, and forensic audits mitigate risk.
Timely detection and remedial action protect creditors’ rights, shareholder interests, and corporate integrity.
RELATED Blog
comments