Digitizing records correctly isn’t as easy as it sounds. Special equipment and staff trained in indexing and metadata tagging best practices. If you want the job done right, outsourcing to a vendor is your best bet.
The benefits of small businesses from outsourcing digitization are
1. Use Experts, Get Expert Results
Digital records are easier to search and faster to find, but that’s only true if they have been indexed and tagged accurately using metadata. To ensure every scanned record has the correct metadata, you need a knowledgeable digitization specialist dedicated to meticulous detail.
2. Avoid A Capital Investment
Not all scanners are built the same. If you want high-definition scans of your most valuable assets, there are few options for spending a lot of money and time. Purchasing professional-grade scanning equipment and software are expensive. Imaging documents is time-consuming and draws your resources away from their core work. Outsourcing makes digitization fast and more economical.
3. Avoid Missing of Records
Any time a team digitizes in-house, with multiple people handling documents and moving
between locations, there’s always the chance of records getting lost. An outsourced solution mitigates sensitive document risks through a single, secure chain of custody.
4. Ensure Information Governance and Regulatory Compliance
It’s difficult for in-house teams to keep up with changing retention, content classification, and privacy laws. Outsourcing can add the specialized expertise you need to keep your governance policies and practices within bounds and avoid costly mistakes.
5. Right-size your project
Digitization isn’t an all-or-nothing endeavor. There are different levels for different digitization projects. Choose a vendor that can scale the scope of digitization to your small business needs.
Kayman is a records management company that provides digitization services to clients across industries. Kayman is equipped with trained people and a state-of-the-art facility that can digitize documents from organizations of any size. If you want to know more about digitization services, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Any document that is generated in an organization has a life cycle. Managing the document from its creation to disposition requires planning. One of the significant components in the planning is the “Retention and Shredding Schedule.” This schedule lets the organization know the documents to be kept, the period for which they should be kept, and when they should be destroyed. Industries like Banking, Healthcare, and law firms have regulatory constraints they should adhere to. Stringent regulations like GDPR in the EU have elevated the need for retention schedules.
· Mitigate non-compliance risks
· Increase productivity by reducing the time in searching records
· Have control over documents
· Prevent misuse after the end of life
Kayman vaults assist organizations with industry-specific retention and shredding schedules and ensure better compliance. With competency in records management and shredding, Kayman has served organizations across industries with such retention schedules. It also has a state-of-the-art facility for storing and shredding records. Kayman develops the retention and shredding schedules with industrial, state, and central laws in mind. Once the client approves the schedule, Kayman will shred or pick the documents giving you peace of mind. If your organization needs retention/shredding, contact us at email@example.com.
Most businesses don’t realize that records shredding is a serious exercise. They simply allocate few internal staff members to get it over with. However, the risks and cost implications of these in-house shredding processes may be significantly higher than originally understood.
Let’s look at some reasons on why onsite or in-house document shredding is riskier and not preferred.
Cost implications of In-House Shredding
On the outset, it may look as if records shredding internally using few spare resources might look cheaper. It may be right to some extent if the volume of records you maintain is very low. Beyond a point it is definitely not recommended as the actual cost of shredding is more than it appears to be.
Businesses don’t calculate the useful and other productive tasks those shredding team members could have done. The next dependency is to have someone to monitor and moderate the exercise. The cost of this person with a higher responsibility needs to be accounted for.
Risk of Identity Theft
In-house records shredding may not have required resources allocated to monitor through the whole shredding exercise. This leaves space for misuse of the information especially if your business maintains consumer data. Anyone can simply start impersonating others when they get control over sensitive contact and other personal details. Worst nightmare in this situation is that this cannot be controlled.
A well planned and monitored process of shredding at an exclusive offshore records storage facility will guarantee accountability and integrity to the desired data security standards.
Risks of Information Leaks
In an unmonitored records shredding process there are high chances of Information leaks. This is serious as it can compromise important details that may disrupt other businesses or stall your business operations. Whether it is accidental or intentional the risks associated with such poorly planned records shredding process is completely yours. If a competitor or an individual gets hold of this leaked information the chances of them using this against the goodwill of your business is very high. It can attract bad PR, Penal Actions, Lawsuits and even losing clients.
Maintaining records and Shredding unwanted records is a legal requirement for any business. While doing so there are specific certification processes to be followed. In-house records shredding will not help in getting an authenticated certificate of records destruction. Not only the outcome, but also the systematic way in which records shredding projects are executed may be understood. Any records keeping audit from the regulatory bodies will bring these details into light and it may attract legal complications.
Understanding all the above cost implications and business risks associated with records-shredding businesses need to take an informed decision of whether they are deciding on in-house shredding or offsite records shredding.
Advantages of offsite records shredding
Outsourcing such a sensitive responsibility to a dedicated records shredding services provider will be a good choice as they possess experience, maintains confidentiality, gives you confidence of meeting records shredding compliance the right way. KAYMAN Records Management is a trusted records digitization company in Chennai, India who have helped lots of industry businesses with their documents shredding needs. They do have a sophisticated records storage facility in Chennai where you can consider storing and shredding your physical files in a secure manner.
The NCLAT has dismissed the plea of Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd to initiate insolvency proceedings against its creditor Fly Express Logistics. A three-member bench of the appellate tribunal upheld the earlier orders of the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had on April 5, 2022, rejected the plea of Hinduja Leyland Finance.
The NCLT had said the date of default was December 24, 2022 which falls within prohibition period mentioned in Section 10 A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and no petition can ever be filed for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for a default occurring in such period. This was challenged by the Hinduja Group firm before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) contending that December 24, 2022 was wrongly mentioned as the date of default in the petition before NCLT. It wanted to file an amendment application but since the petition was dismissed by NCLT on the first day of the hearing, it could not do so, contended Hinduja Leyland Finance.
However, the appellate tribunal also rejected the petition of Hinduja Leyland Finance after observing that December 24, 2022 was clearly mentioned as the date of default. "We have perused the Section 7 Application 'date of default' is clearly mentioned in Part-IV as 24.12.2022 hence the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) is not in error in rejecting the Application, thus we do not find any ground to entertain the Appeal," said the bench headed by Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan.
However, it also said Hinduja Leyland Finance was at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 7 on appropriate materials in accordance with the law. Under Section 7 of the IBC, a financial creditor can get insolvency proceedings initiated against the corporate debtor concerned.
Incorporated on November 12, 2008 Hinduja Leyland Finance provides loans for the purchase of commercial and personal vehicles in the primary as well as the secondary market of used vehicles.
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
In this case, the National Company Law Tribunal rejected the application filed by the State Bank of India under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on the ground of limitation. It held that a statement contained in the balance sheet cannot be treated as an acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While upholding this order, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that recourse to Section 18 of the Limitation Act [Effect of acknowledgment in writing] was not available.
While considering the appeals filed against these orders, the Apex court bench noted that the judgments relied on by the NCLT/NCLAT has been specifically overruled by the Supreme Court. Referring to Laxmi Pat Surana v Union Bank of India (2021) 8 SCC 481, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v Bishal Jaiswal (2021) 6 SCC 366, Sesh Nath Singh v Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 313 and other judgments , the bench observed:
Therefore, the bench allowed the appeal and restored the proceedings back to the NCLT for fresh adjudication. Case details State Bank of India vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497 | CA 910 of 2021 | 18 April 2022
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant Counsel: Sr. Adv Niranjan Reddy for appellant, Sr. Adv Shyam Divan for respondent
Supreme Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra held that the NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (IBC/Code)
The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the appeal filed by NOIDA against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) wherein NCLAT held that the NOIDA is an operational Creditor under IBC and cannot be considered as a Financial Creditor
of the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of the Code.
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Bench IV, New Delhi while adjudicating an application filed by NOIDA held that the NOIDA is an operational creditor as there is no financial lease executed between NOIDA and the Corporate Debtor as per the Indian accounting standards and the same was affirmed by NCLAT vide order dated 16.04.2021 whereas the NCLT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in another case held that the NOIDA is a Financial Creditor and the order was stayed by NCLAT.
NOIDA filed an appeal against both these orders passed by NCLAT and a question was framed by the Supreme Court as to "Whether the appellant is entitled to be treated as a financial creditor within the meaning of the IBC"
Whether NOIDA Is A Financial Creditor Under Section 5(8)(D) Of IBC.
NOIDA contended before the Supreme Court that the lease deed executed between the NOIDA and Corporate Debtor is a financial lease as per the Indian Accounting Standard and therefore by the virtue of Section 5(8)d) of IBC, NOIDA qualifies as a Financial Creditor.
Section 5(8)(d) read as follows; "Section 5(8)(d)- "the amount of any liability in respect of any lease or hire purchase contract which is deemed as a finance or capital lease under the Indian Accounting Standards or such other accounting standards as may be prescribed;"
The Supreme Court made a roving inquiry into the various rules of the Indian Accounting Standards which define the characteristics of a financial Lease. Supreme Court referred to Rule 63 of the IAS which states that a lease will be a financial lease if the term of the lease is for the major part of the economic life of the underlying assets, even if the title is not transferred. The Supreme Court held that the lease in question is for a period of ninety years and the principle of the economic life of the underlying asset which is the "land" is inapposite in the present case. "…The economic life of land is not limited. The principle in the said situation is predicated with reference to measuring the economic life of an asset. More importantly, it speaks of the major part of the economic life of the asset. Both these concepts are inapposite and even inapplicable with regard to land. Land does not depreciate with the passage of time. Ordinarily, the price of land would only increase, unlike other assets"
The Supreme Court further held that; "…It may not be possible to hold that the lease is for the major part of the economic life of the land. It cannot be said that at the expiry of 90 years the land will cease to be economically usable. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the appellant that after 90 years appellant would not get the empty parcel of land and the land would not be of any commercial use to the appellant after the expiry of the lease."
Thereafter, the Supreme Court examined the contention of NOIDA based on Rule 62 and 65 of IAS which states that a lease may be classified as a financial lease if it transfers substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to the ownership of the underlying asset and held that all rewards incidental to the ownership are not transferred to the lessee by NOIDA and thus the conditions of Rule 62 and 65 do not meet in the present scenario and therefore, NOIDA cannot be considered as a Financial Creditor under Section 5(8)(d) of IBC.
However, Supreme Court made an interesting observation hinting toward a prospective amendment by the Central Government to classify NOIDA as a Financial Creditor and held that;
"Therefore, we would find on the whole that the appellant is not the financial lessor under section 5(8)(d) of the IBC. No doubt we would observe that we have arrived at the findings based on the prevailing statutory regime. Needless to say, there is always power to amend the provisions which essentially consist of the Indian Accounting Standards in the absence of any rules prescribed under Section 5(8)(d) of the IBC by the Central Government"
Financial creditors are clearly feeling the heat of pandemic-induced slowdown in insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings, inordinate delays in resolution process and the waning appetite of potential investors to acquire stressed assets in India.
This was revealed by the latest IBBI data which showed that financial creditors’ realisation as a percentage of their admitted claims in January-March 2022 quarter hit a record low of 10.21 per cent, much lower than the 13.4 per cent in previous December quarter.
In January-March 2022, as many as 29 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) yielded resolution plans with different degree of realisation compared to the liquidation value.
As against the admitted claims of financial creditors of ₹12,610 crore for January-March 2022, the amount realisable by such creditors stood at ₹ 1,288 crore — which is about 10.21 per cent.
In fact, the worrying part is that for the first time ever, the quarterly realisation of ₹1,288 crore in January-March was lower than the liquidation value of ₹1,316 crore.
Till end March 2022 ,since the launch of IBC, the cumulative recovery for lenders where resolution took place dropped to 32.9 per cent against 35.9 per cent upto September 31, 2021. In absolute terms, the realisation for financial creditors till end March 2022 stood at ₹2,25,294 crore — much higher than liquidation value of ₹1,31,448 crore. The cumulative admitted claims of financial creditors till end March 2022 was ₹6,84,901 crore.
Sushmita Gandhi, Partner, IndusLaw, said the recoverability through resolution plans being snubbed to below the asset liquidation value is indeed a cause for concern, as it goes against the basic tenet that the value maximisation of the assets of a debtor under the code is only possible if the same is revived as a going concern rather than being stripped for parts and liquidated.
However, the reasons for lenders opting for such approach are not far to see. The appetite of potential investors to acquire stressed assets in India has been on a gradual decline, she said.
Various factors are being attributed to lower resolution rates under the IBC regime, starting from Covid- induced shadow cast on the revival of a company to delays in resolution and liquidation process. Due to the difficulty in providing turnaround roadmaps, the interest of potential buyers is often reduced, consequently resulting in lower recovery rate, Gandhi added.
Given the other alternative of liquidation process, the timelines are even blurred due to contesting priorities, lack of potential buyers, fluctuating market values, etc making haircuts on resolution plan come out as the lesser of the two evils for lenders.
Tahira Karanjawala, Principal Associate, Karanjawala & Co, said the aftermath of the global pandemic and the resultant economic slowdown has also had its effect on the insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings across the country. The reduced appetite of corporates to take over distressed assets coupled with the inordinate delays caused by protracted legal battles before the NCLT and the NCLAT have effectively resulted in increasingly poor recoveries of debts owed to financial creditors, she added.
The Covid-19 lockdowns have also affected the smooth functioning of the courts resulting in a huge pendency of court cases. This has resulted in the corporate insolvency resolution process losing steam, Karanjawala said.
Yogendra Aldak, Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, said that some of the key factors that have contributed to a plummeted recovery under IBC is delay in the process of insolvency. The prime reasons for delay are non-filling of vacancies at the Tribunal, rise in the backlog of cases before the Tribunal, insufficient knowledge and training of the stakeholders, etc. “The Government must take immediate actions to respond to these issues before the situation becomes alarming and IBC fails to serve its purpose”, Aldak said.
Kumar Saurabh Singh, Partner, Khaitan & Co, said that low recoveries in IBC recently is a reflection of slowing down of the NCLT process and delays in resolution. Longer the process takes, it creates uncertainty for all stakeholders resulting in low interest for the asset and consequently lower recovery, he said.
“Considering that vacancies in NCLT is not fully filled up yet, naturally there is delay in disposal of multitude of litigations which are faced in any resolution. There is a clear requirement to develop a robust pre-insolvency resolution framework like pre-pack for large corporates which can help curtail delays and thereby preserving value”, Singh said.
“While approval by NCLT to a resolution is the preferred option for all stakeholders, finding a way to cut down time being taken in the process even while ensuring competition/ transparency is the clear need of the hour”, he added.
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench comprising of Justice S. Ramathilagam and Mr. Anil Kumar B (Technical Member) in the Case of N Kumar v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. held that the project wise Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a real estate company is outside the purview of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). Brief Facts CIRP of Sheltrex Developers Pvt. Ltd (Sheltrex) was initiated by NCLT Chennai vide its order dated vide its order dated 10.12.2019 and Mr. N Kumar was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and later confirmed as Resolution Professional.
Sheltrex had launched two real estate projects namely Appur Village, Oragadam, Chennai consisting of 296 homes and Nammavedu at Coimbatore consisting of 110 homes. The Resolution Professional of Sheltrex filed an application under Section 60(5) of IBC seeking permission to constitute project-based Committee of Creditors and conduct project wise CIRP of Sheltrex.
It was contended by Resolution Professional that the only business of Sheltrex is promoting real estate project and in particular affordable housing. Each project of Sheltrex have different type of creditors which are not related to each other.
The Resolution Professional further relied upon the judgement of NCLAT in the case of Flat Buyers Association versus Umang Realtech Pvt. ltd. which allowed the project-based insolvency of a real estate company.
Contention of Financial Creditor
Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd opposed the relief prayed by the Resolution Professional and it was contended by Tata Capital that it holds 17% voting rights in COC and the application filed by the RP is not maintainable as neither the IBC, 2016 nor any regulations stipulate the project wise CIRP.
It was further contended by Tata Capital that CIRP regulations mandates a resolution plan for the entire business of the Corporate Debtor and not project wise and therefore, the application of the Resolution Professional is against the provisions of IBC.
Decision/Analysis By NCLT NCLT observed that there is no concept of limited CIRP or CIRP for specific projects anywhere in the IBC, 2016 or regulations made thereunder. NCLT further noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. versus Union of India held that IBC is a beneficial legislation which can be trigged to put the whole corporate Debtor back on its feet.
NCLT held that the judgment of Umang Realtech is not applicable to the present case as the mechanism adopted by NCLAT was too peculiar to the facts and circumstances of that case and cannot be used as a precedent in the present scenario.
NCLT dismissed the application filed by Resolution Professional and held that the reliefs sought by Resolution Professional is outside the purview of IBC, 2016 and thus not maintainable.
Case title: N Kumar v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd
Counsel for Applicant: Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Jerin Asher Sojan, Vikram Veerasamy
It is quite hard to imagine the amount of information a business owns and how they plan to manage that with keeping security and compliance in mind. With an information management policy, you can clearly lay out what kind of information should be maintained, how they must be preserved and when they should be disposed. Here is a framework for setting up your information management policy.
1. Understand your Business-Specific Record-keeping Compliance
Before we do anything about setting up an information management policy, it’s good to understand the latest record-keeping compliance from your regulatory and statutory bodies. The amount of rules, regulations, acts and geographical boundaries of these regulatory bodies also differs. They continue to update their policies frequently that it becomes very difficult for businesses to keep pace with the change. Once we know what is needed to be maintained to meet the compliance, the rest becomes easier.
2. Take Inventory of existing Information
Establish a baseline to find out what is that you are protecting. Sources of information, their original point of creation through its end of the journey. This will help shortening the horizon. Also understand how the information has been handled and stored so far. What percentage of information is stored in a physical manner, how much of them in Digital media and what is the gap? Take an inventory of existing storage in the form of paper files stored on-site and off-site. The maximum you can do here will help you assess the support you require.
3. Itemize records for Retention
This is a highly subjective topic for your industry and the type of specific business you are into. However, you will still need to determine what rules apply to your company. Usually records that should be retained fall within one of these four categories:
Form a committee of executives from different business functions within your company so that they bring their perspectives that truly represents your business. Still make sure it is being discussed and agreed unanimously by the top leadership of the organization. Make sure to bring in the expertise of auditors and legal counsel to assist with this process.
5. Deploy & Monitor the Information Management Policy
Ensure detailed processes, comprehensive records management governance policies and more importantly introduce unbiased audits. Establish timelines for each business unit and department for cleaning up their records – for both electronic and paper files. Make this exercise with moderation and as a group activity in a systematic manner so that learning can be passed on easily.
6. Protect Data from unauthorized removal or archiving
Before rolling out the information policy, ensure you have implemented lots of precautions to protect the data in all formats, stored in a centralized place or in a decentralized manner, that users are not able to easily manipulate, make copies, steal information and lose information purposefully. Also make sure to frequently take backups of users who are on the go or working remotely. Ensure every endpoint is protected from copying or transferring information without prior permission. Work closely with the IT Teams to make sure both physical and digital records are preserved in an integral manner.
7. Strictly monitor WFH and BYOD policy
The pandemic has certainly altered the dynamics and businesses need a whole new level of preparedness to ensure business continuity in case of any eventuality. It has become essential that organizations now allow employees to bring their own computers to work. This has serious implications in maintaining a systematic information management because it creates crossover between data that is controlled by an individual versus the company. Consult with Information Technology Teams to effectively pen out meaningful information management policy with these new dynamics being introduced.
Like we said initially it is very difficult to quantify the value of information. At least we can make a sincere attempt on it by starting to take care of the abundance of information – which become KNOWLEDGE, that is so proprietary to the business. Start your efforts in preserving the collective knowledge of your business by establishing a sound information management policy.
Should you need any assistance, consult records and information management professionals (RIM). They are familiar and experts in framing a personalized information management policy for your business. KAYMAN Records Management is one of the Records and Information Management companies in Chennai, India that helps multiple leading businesses manage their information effectively and efficiently.
Digitization is the way forward. Though one cannot discount the importance of Physical Records as they are required from both a compliance and backup perspective. Document scanning services is definitely the initial step in the digitization journey. But when it comes to scanning your entire business records it is not an easy project as it might have appeared.
When you have heaps of documents to be scanned and you are not sure on how to systematically approach, here is a logical flow of how you can approach the records / document scanning.
1. Take an inventory of your records
Knowing exactly what records you have and how much you have is the best place to start. Establish a baseline to find out what information you are about to preserve. What are different types and formats of records you maintain and you are supposed to maintain. What percentage of information is stored in a physical manner, how much of them in Digital media and what is the gap? Take an inventory of existing storage in the form of digital files stored on-site and off-site.
2. Establish & Apply a Records retention policy
Now that you know what records you have, it is time to determine what you do or do not need to keep. This is done by implementing a retention schedule or policy. Finding a policy that is specific to your business is an important step, and should be taken carefully. If you do not have a retention policy, the best advice is to consult with your legal team to ensure you have the right one selected so as remain in compliance. Don’t assume things and cues from blog posts on the internet as they may not apply to your business or location, and could put your business at legal risk.
3. Engage with a document scanning professional
Once you know exactly what you want to scan, start working with a professional resource and document scanning services partner like KAYMAN Records Management in Chennai. They can work with you to understand your records and develop a strategy to digitize them. There are many options for how records can be scanned. They can help your business save on records scanning costs, introduce automation to provide further savings, with a keen eye on quality control.
4. Deploy the retention policy to your records
Consult, brainstorm and implement a records retention policy to your digital records inventory in consultation with business leaders. The file indexing system will be helpful in matching records in your inventory and corresponding records retention timelines. The column for the retention period, you have in the file indexing system will help in a great manner.
4. Destroy records that are Not required to be maintained
After following above steps you will now know exactly what records you have and what records you maintain and for how long you need to store them. Balance records are unnecessary to maintain anymore and hence are eligible for destruction. While disposing records make sure you get certified and possess “Certificate of Destruction” from an authorized records management company. By disposing off unnecessary records, you not only gain some valuable office space back, but it also helps eliminating the risk associated in maintaining them.
Digitization is the Way Forward
The benefits of going paperless and digitizing your documents are many. However, knowing exactly how and where to start digitization may be challenging. KAYMAN Records Management can help by guiding your business every step of the way in digitizing your documents. Our years of expertise in information management, industry specific compliance and cycles of records will address your specific needs and helps in your transition to a paperless office.