Aug 13, 2023
Insolvency refers to a financial situation where an individual, business or entity, such as a fund, is unable to meet their financial obligations or settle their debts as they become due. In most cases, the state of insolvency occurs due to an increase in business expenses, poor cash management, law suits, poor budgeting, fraud, business expansion, or a reduction in sales. In Kenya, insolvency proceedings are primarily governed by the Insolvency Act of 2015. The act provides for how insolvent companies can be assisted to service creditors obligations and protect the interests of all stakeholders. The options available for such an insolvent company include Administration, Receivership, voluntary arrangements, and liquidation. Previously, we covered the following topics on insolvency:
In this week’s Focus, we found it timely to reiterate the topic and we shall undertake this by looking into the following;
Section I: Introduction
Insolvency refers to a financial situation whereby an individual or business is unable to meet its financial obligations or settle its debts as they become due. In most cases, the state of insolvency occurs due to an increase in business expenses, poor cash management, law suits, poor budgeting, fraud, business expansion, or a reduction in sales. Consequently, these situations may lead to:
In Kenya, insolvency proceedings are primarily governed by the Insolvency Act of 2015. This act provides for various mechanisms to address insolvency situations, including bankruptcy for individuals and winding up for companies. It aims to promote the efficient and fair resolution of insolvency cases while at the same time protecting the rights of creditors and debtors.
Prior to the enactment of the Insolvency Act in 2015, insolvency proceedings of both corporate entities and individuals were dealt with under the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act and the Bankruptcy Act. For corporations, the resolution of insolvency proceedings often involved the commencement of a winding-up proceeding, which involved the liquidation of the company under financial distress and paying the firm’s creditors. This effectively meant that creditors and other stakeholders in firms ran the risk of failing to recover total amounts of interest, especially in the event the company’s assets failed to cover the total amounts due. Thus, in an attempt to remedy this, the Insolvency Act was enacted in 2015. The Act consolidated the insolvency proceedings for both incorporated and unincorporated companies, previously under the Companies Act, and those of individuals, previously under the Bankruptcy Act, into one document. The Act focuses more on assisting insolvent corporate bodies whose financial position is deemed redeemable to continue operating as going concerns so that they may be able to meet their financial obligations to the satisfaction of their creditors.
According to the latest statistics by the Kenya’s State Receiver’s office, the total number of petitions for liquidation of companies by courts has been increasing on average by 33 every year. Additionally, on average, the total number of companies under administration, companies under receivership, and companies under voluntary liquidation during each year is 7, 3, and 8, respectively. This situation is partly attributable to the increase in Gross non-performing loans, with the banking sector recording a 5-year CAGR growth of 13.5% to Kshs 540.8 bn in March 2023 from Kshs 287.2 bn in March 2018. Additionally, the tough business operating environment characterized by elevated inflationary pressures and persistent depreciation of the Kenya shilling against the dollar has led to a significant increase in business operating expenses, which has affected the profitability of the business. The graph below shows the trend in the number of applications for insolvency during each year:
Source: Office of the Official Receiver
Section II: The Insolvency Act of 2015
The Insolvency Act was assented into law in September 2015 and came in to assist insolvent companies in strategizing on the best possible solution to bring the company back to financial stability rather than liquidation, with a view to preserving businesses, jobs and tax base as much as possible . Prior to 2015, stakeholders faced the possibility of losing a significant amount, especially in the event that the company’s liability value was higher than the total assets held. The Insolvency Act of 2015 seeks to create a more robust and effective insolvency framework in Kenya by:
Some of the key features and provisions in the act include:
Section III: Financial health of a company and warning signs
Assessing the financial health of a company is crucial for investors, creditors, and other stakeholders to understand the company’s ability to meet its financial obligations, manage risks, and sustain long term operations. It helps in identifying warning signs of potential financial distress and allows stakeholders to take corrective actions before the situation worsens. There are a number of indicators that are used in accessing the financial health of a company, which include:
These indicators provide a comprehensive view of a company's financial health. However, they only give relevant insight about the company when compared with the indicators of companies within the same industry or compared to the historical indicator values of the company. The analysis of the financial health of the company is crucial in identifying potential risks and enabling one to take the appropriate actions to address those risks. Some of the warning signs of Insolvency include:
It's important to note that while these indicators and warning signs can provide insights into a company's financial health and potential risk of insolvency, a comprehensive assessment should consider the company's industry, competitive landscape, and overall economic conditions. However, experiencing one or a few of these warning signs does not necessarily mean a company is insolvent. A combination of these indicators, especially if they persist over time, warrants careful analysis and consideration by stakeholders. In the event the company becomes insolvent, the Insolvency Act contains provisions for corporate rescue mechanisms to help financially troubled businesses restructure and avoid liquidation. The advantages of these provisions include:
Key to note is that the overall success of a restructuring process depends on various factors, including the severity of the financial distress, the willingness of stakeholders to cooperate, the expertise of the professionals involved, and the overall economic environment.
Section IV: Business Restructuring options under the Insolvency Act
Business restructuring for an insolvent company involves a series of strategic and operational changes aimed at improving the company's financial health, addressing its insolvency, and ensuring its long-term viability. The goal of a restructuring is to reorganize the company's operations, debt, and assets in a way that enables it to overcome financial challenges and continue its business activities. In Kenya, insolvency proceedings are primarily governed by the Insolvency Act of 2015. The act provides for how insolvent companies can be assisted to service creditor’s obligations and protect the interests of all stakeholders. The options available for such an insolvent company include;
During the insolvency process, the debts of a company are paid out in order of priority. The purpose of prioritization is to ensure that essential debts are settled before other claims are addressed. Under the Insolvency Act, the priority of payment for preferential creditors in Kenya is as follows:
After preferential creditors have been paid, any remaining assets are used to settle the claims of secured creditors (those with collateral) and then the claims of unsecured creditors (those without collateral). Shareholders and equity holders are usually at the bottom of the priority list and are often the last to receive any remaining funds, if there are any left after satisfying higher-ranking claims.
Section V: Case studies
Kaluworks was set up in 1929 and was one of Kenya’s leading aluminium products such as utensils and roofing sheets, before the country started to see an influx of imports of similar materials. This came at a time when Kaluworks was on an aggressive expansion drive and had invested Kshs 1.8 bn to upgrade its factory in Mariakani Mombasa, both initiatives largely funded through debt from Commercial banks. This was also followed by interruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a slowdown in building activities in the country. In a gazette notice dated 18th June 2021, one of the main creditors, placed Kaluworks under receivership on May 27th 2021 by virtue of being holders of a qualifying floating charge. The creditors include NCBA Banks which was owed Kshs 4.3 bn, Cooperative Bank, which was owed Kshs 4.8 bn, while other unsecured lenders such as I&M Bank, commercial paper holders such as Sanlam Kenya held a combined of Kshs 3.5 bn. Pongangipalli Rao was appointed an insolvency practitioner in a bid to recover the amounts owed to them. On 25th August 2022, the High Court of Kenya in Nairobi, consented to the termination of administration of Kaluworks Limited under the Company Voluntary Agreement between Kaluwork’s and the secured creditors, with Orlando Mario da Costa-Luis appointed as the supervisor in the gazette notice dated 16th September 2022, effective 26th August 2022. NCBA Group and Cooperative Bank agreed with the administrator and Kaluworks Limited to write off a total Kshs 6.4 bn out of the total Kshs 9.1 bn owed to them, equating to a 70.0% haircut. In the agreement, NCBA was to receive Kshs 580.0 mn while Cooperative bank received Kshs 680.4 mn. In the tabled agreement, Kaluworks shareholders agreed to a Kshs 1.2 bn capital injection, with a section paid to the secured lenders as is in the schedule below:
Cytonn Report: Kaluworks’ Limited Disbursement to Creditors |
|||||
Lender |
Amount owed (Kshs bn) |
Amount paid (Kshs bn) |
Unpaid amount (Kshs bn) |
Amount written off (Kshs bn) |
Haircut |
NCBA Bank |
4.3 |
0.5 |
3.8 |
3.8 |
88.0% |
Cooperative Bank |
4.8 |
2.2 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
55.0% |
Other Creditors |
3.5 |
-* |
-* |
-* |
100.0%* |
Total |
12.6 |
2.7 |
6.4 |
6.4 |
78.6% |
*Not disclosed |
Source: Administrator’s filings
In our view, the Insolvency act gave Kaluworks Limited a fighting chance, which may not have been achieved through liquidation given that the company owed a total of Kshs 12.6 bn against its realizable assets worth Kshs 1.3 bn. Additionally, the restructuring plan gives the other unsecured creditors future hope of realizing the amounts once the company is back on its feet. Key to note, its successful exit from administration highlights how collaborative efforts from all stakeholder are crucial in saving a business.
ARM is a Kenyan manufacturing company listed at the Nairobi Securities Exchange, with operations in Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda. The firm specializes in the production of cement, fertilizers, quicklime, and other industrial minerals. ARM cement, once a stable company, started experiencing difficulty in 2016, as the firm’s revenue lines started decreasing. Revenues declined by 32.0% from Kshs 12.8 bn in FY’2016 to Kshs 8.7 bn in FY’2017 while operating expenses rose by 34.8% to Kshs 3.1 bn from Kshs 2.3 bn in FY’2016. This saw the operating loss widen to Kshs 4.2 bn in FY’2017 from Kshs 0.3 bn in FY’2016, and consequently the loss after tax widened by 87.5% to Kshs 7.5 bn in FY’2017 from Kshs 4.0 bn in FY’2016. The shrinking revenue lines were largely attributed to stiff competition in the cement industry both in Kenya and Tanzania, the company’s main revenue contributors. The declining performance pushed the company into a negative working capital position, further exacerbating the poor performance, thereby rendering the company unable to service its debt obligations to various creditors, such as African Finance Corporation (AFC), Stanbic Bank of Kenya and UBA Bank of Kenya of Kshs 4.6 bn, Kshs 3.2 bn and Kshs 0.5 bn respectively.
The company was then placed under administration in August 2018, with PwC’s Muniu Thoithi and George Weru appointed as the administrators. The administrators, having full control held a creditor’s meeting in October 2018, where creditors voted to give the administrators up to September 2019, to revive the company. The creditors also approved the sale of some or even all of the company’s assets, and capital injections from strategic investors as part of the strategies to revive the company. The administrators wrote off the Kshs 21.3 bn in loans advanced to its Tanzanian Subsidiary, due to alleged misrepresentation of the loan given that it had been non-performing for several years and that the subsidiary was deemed unable to repay the loan. As such, the company slipped to a negative equity position of Kshs 2.4 bn, effectively meaning a complete write-off for shareholders in the event of a liquidation, and that only secured lenders could be fully covered by the then Kshs 14.2 bn asset base. Proposed moves to look for a strategic investor such as several major companies like Dangote Cement and Oman Based Raylat limited did not bear fruit
Despite the Insolvency Act enabling the company to remain operational as it undertook the turnaround strategy, ARM failed to revive and the administrators only option was to sell the salvageable assets in an attempt to return value to the creditors and shareholders. In October 2019, National Cement, owned by the Devki Group, acquired all cement and non-cement assets and businesses of ARM Cement at a cost of Kshs 5.0 bn. However, this was still a drop in the ocean with the listed Cement manufacturer owing its creditors in upwards of Kshs 28.4 bn. In May 2020, ARM sold its Tanzania subsidiary Maweni Limestone Limited to a Chinese firm Huaxin Cement, in a deal priced at Kshs 11.9 bn. When it was clear that all creditors and shareholders’ demands could not be met, the administrators in April 2021 advised liquidation and subsequent delisting from the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE).
Disclosures made by PwC’s Muniu Thoithi and George Weru as at 31st July 2022 revealed that following liquidation, the net amount available for distribution to secured, preferential and unsecured creditors of ARM stood at USD 52.0 mn (Kshs 6.2 bn), with the creditors having suffered a combined shortfall in upwards of USD 100.0 mn (Kshs 11.9 bn). As a result, there would be no disbursement to shareholders. The disbursement is summarized in the table below;
Cytonn Report: ARM Cement Distribution to Creditors |
||||
Item |
Amount (Kshs bn) |
|||
Net realized amount from liquidation |
6.2 |
|||
Utilization of Funds |
||||
Item |
Amount Owed (Kshs bn) |
Amount Paid (Kshs bn) |
Amount Lost (Kshs bn) |
Haircut |
Preferential creditors |
0.3 |
0.3 |
- |
- |
Secured creditors |
8.3 |
5.5 |
2.8 |
33.7% |
Unsecured creditors |
9.0 |
0.7 |
8.3 |
92.2% |
Shareholders |
5.3* |
0 |
5.3 |
100.0% |
*Based on last traded price of Kshs 5.5 |
Source: Administrator’s filings
In our view, had ARM gotten into administration earlier enough, shareholders value would not have been completely wiped out. This further emphasizes the need to rehabilitate a company rather that option for the liquidation option so as to ensure favourable outcomes to all the stake holders
Nakumatt Holdings is a Kenyan supermarket chain. Until February 2017, Nakumatt was regarded as the largest Kenyan retailer, with 62 branches across the region, (45 in Kenya, 9 in Uganda, 5 in Tanzania and 3 in Rwanda) and a gross turnover of Kshs 52.2 bn. However, what was fueling Nakumatt’s rapid expansion was funded through debt. This included short-term borrowings, bank loans and letters of credit to its numerous suppliers. Following the collapse of Imperial Bank, the Commercial Paper market, which Nakumatt had been relying on, dried up and Nakumatt started experiencing serious cash-flow difficulties in 2016. The retailer was therefore unable to meet its financial obligations to landlords, its suppliers and employees. It was for these reasons that the administrator was appointed by an order of the court pursuant to an application filed by unsecured creditors, and Nakumatt Holdings was placed under administration in January 2018.
Following the assessment of Nakumatt’s financial position, the administrator, PKF Consulting Limited (PKF) determined that if a liquidation route was used, then out of the total creditors with amounts worth Kshs 35.8 bn, Kshs 30.6 bn was unlikely to be paid. This represented a significant 85.0% potential loss to the creditors. In essence, all unsecured creditors, namely Trade Creditors, Commercial Paper Holders and Short Term Noteholders, as well as private placement loan providers would suffer the maximum 100% loss of their debt amounts, as the available assets would first pay off secured creditors. Since Nakumatt’s business model could support a better outcome for all the creditors as compared to a liquidation scenario, the Administrator set out to come up with a restructuring proposal to achieve this outcome based on the company remaining a going concern. Nakumatt’s administrator came back to creditors with proposals that the creditors were supposed to take a vote on. The creditors rejected the proposal which entailed a debt waiver and restructuring into equity in order to ease the debt burden for the company and turn the business around. The plan would have seen bank debt, Kenya Revenue Authority and Employee liabilities were treated as preferential creditors; thus exempting them from the 25.0% waiver that non-preferential creditors took on their debt, as well as the 75.0% debt to equity mandatory conversion.
In our view, he best-case scenario for all creditors was a debt to equity conversion of their creditor claims, as liquidation was not in the best interest of anyone. This should have included even the banks who had taken preferential debt. Case in point being, the recent restructuring of Kenya Airways. In the case of Kenya Airways’ restructuring, the Government and several banks converted their debt into equity to the tune of Kshs 59.0 bn. The Government’s stake in Kenya Airways rose to 46.5% from 29.8% before the debt to equity conversion, while the bank’s consortium (KQ Lenders Co.) ended up owning 35.7% of the company. Ordinary shareholders who did not inject additional equity were diluted by 95.0%.
Hashi Energy started off as a Kerosene distributor for Chevron Kenya to supply Kerosene to Rwanda and DRC markets. In 2008, the company rebranded itself to Hashi Energy Ltd, with the core business being importation, distribution, and marketing of petroleum products through imports, exports, bulk trading, petroleum depots, distribution networks, and service stations. Hashi Energy’s operations extends from Kenya to Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia, Southern Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritius and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2017, Hashi Energy sold off its petrol stations to Lake Oil, a company incorporate in Tanzania. The move came after Hashi Energy inked a deal with a Dubai conglomerate worth USD 140 mn, to supply food and fuel military personnel’s and non-governmental organizations in Democratic republic of Congo. The company has been under financial distress and on the gazette dated 10th March 2023, the company issued a notice to its creditors inviting them to a meeting to consider and pass a resolution for the company to be wound up voluntarily. The resolution was passed and KVSK Sastry was appointed as the liquidator to implement the resolution from its meeting. From the information available, the company owes Ecobank a total of USD 5.0 bn (Kshs 7.2 bn), with the bank seeking to sell off the company’s assets to recover is debt.
In our view, the appointed liquidator should work on resolving disputes arising between the company and Eco bank through open and constructive negotiation and mediation so as to streamline the voluntary liquidation process that had been initiated by the company on March 2023. This will ensure the planned auction does not interfere with the intended goal of the company meeting its objective. Additionally, the sale of the company’s properties through auction, may results in realizing less amount than intended in the event of lack of competitive bids
Summary of Various Insolvencies:
The table below shows a summary table of various insolvencies in Kenya;
Cytonn Report: Data on Various Insolvencies |
|||||||
Company |
Amount Owed (Kshs bn) |
Amount Recovered (Kshs bn) |
Recovery % |
Total Haircut |
|||
Secured |
Unsecured |
Secured |
Unsecured |
Secured |
Unsecured |
||
Kaluworks |
9.1 |
3.5 |
2.7 |
* |
29.7% |
* |
78.6% |
ARM Cement |
8.3 |
9.0 |
5.5 |
0.7 |
66.3% |
7.8% |
64.2% |
Nakumatt |
5.2 |
30.6 |
5.2 |
0.0 |
100.0% |
0.0% |
85.5% |
Tuskys |
* |
19.6 |
* |
6.7 |
* |
34.2% |
65.8% |
Chase Bank bond |
|
4.8 |
|
0.0 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
Imperial Bank bond |
|
2.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
Britania Foods |
1.3 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Average |
|
82.3% |
|||||
*Not disclosed |
Source: Cytonn Research
Section VI: Challenges facing insolvency practice
While insolvency practitioners play an important role in rehabilitation and maximizing the value of the debtor’s assets, the practice involve a number of challenges such as:
Section VII: Recommendations and Conclusions
Improving insolvency practice involves addressing various aspects of the process to enhance efficiency, transparency, stakeholder cooperation, and overall effectiveness. This include:
In conclusion, the Insolvency Act of 2015 seeks to create a more robust and effective insolvency framework in Kenya, foster a conducive business environment, and protect the interests of all stakeholders involved in the insolvency process. It provides a mechanism to restructure debts, reduce financial pressures, and maintain business continuity. However, the success of a restructuring process depends on the company's ability to adhere to the repayment plan, gain creditor support, and effectively implement its restructuring efforts.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the writers where particulars are not warranted. This publication, which is in compliance with Section 2 of the Capital Markets Authority Act Cap 485A, is meant for general information only and is not a warranty, representation, advice or solicitation of any nature. Readers are advised in all circumstances to seek the advice of a registered investment advisor.