YES Bank Breaks Silence After Market Hours On ₹8,415 Crore AT1 Bond Case, Says Reviewing Supreme Court Judgment

Mumbai-based YES Bank informed stock exchanges after the market closed on Thursday about its examination of the Supreme Court's judgment pertaining to the write-off of Additional Tier-1 (AT1) bonds amounting to ₹8,415 crore. The revelation came as the bank's shares plummeted during Thursday's trading due to rumors about the Supreme Court's decision.

In its filing to the Bombay Exchange dated October 15, YES Bank stated that the case relates to AT1 bonds set aside in March 2020 according to contractual and regulatory guidelines. The bank provided this clarification after BSE requested an explanation concerning a CNBC-TV18 report that showcased a 10% decline in its share price following the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court's judgment was under scrutiny, as the bank confirmed that it pronounced its decision on October 15, following the Bombay High Court's January 2023 ruling. Promoter Rakesh Wadhawan of HDIL had filed an appeal in the EOW, accusing YES Bank of illegally transferring a ₹600-crore loan to Suraksha ARC. The bank assured that it was thoroughly reviewing the final judgment to comprehend its consequences and would disclose any necessary information in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Earlier, in March 2020, YES Bank had written down AT1 bonds worth ₹8,415 crore during its financial restructuring. The bondholders opposed the decision before the Bombay High Court, which reversed the write-down on January 20, 2023. However, the ruling was lifted, and the Supreme Court was consulted. The Supreme Court extended the stay until it delivered its final decision in March 2023.

YES Bank insisted that it had notified stock exchanges about the legal proceedings at the appropriate times and was unaware of any undisclosed information that could have influenced the sharp movement in its shares. The bank reiterated its dedication to providing timely disclosures, but the financial consequences of the judgment remained uncertain until the bank finished its review of the final order.