US firms filing for bankruptcy at fastest pace since 2013: Report

US companies were filing for bankruptcy at the fastest pace since 2013 as the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ripple through the country, a media report said.
Citing data from legal services group Epiq, The Financial Times report said on Tuesday that a total of 3,427 companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US this year, close to the 3,491 filings during the first half of 2008, reported China's Xinhua news agency.

"The data stand in contrast to an improving economic backdrop following hefty central bank support across the globe and economies starting to reopen," the report said, noting the pain already inflicted by the global pandemic is too much for some companies to recover from.
"It is very difficult for these companies to operate in a near zero-revenue environment," Sudeep Kesh, head of credit market research at S&P Global Ratings, was quoted as saying in the report.
"They are facing a lot of pressure."
During the last financial crisis, there were 8,614 company bankruptcies in the US in 2008, and the number rose to 12,644 in 2009, according to the report.
The report came as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a US government aid program intended to help small businesses retain their employees during the COVID-19 crisis, was set to close on Tuesday with more than $130 billion left unused.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's administration supports legislation to repurpose the remaining funds in the PPP.
"I've already had conversations with the SBA (Small Business Administration) committee in the Senate about repurpose that 135 billion dollars, and think that should be done, and look forward to working with both the House and the Senate so that we can pass legislation by the end of July," Mnuchin said at a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee.
The aim should be "extending it to businesses that are most hard hit, that had a requirement that their revenues have dropped significantly, things like restaurants and hotels and others where it is critical to get people back to work", he added.
The PPP was conceived as a lifeline to small businesses shuttered by the pandemic, but it also faced criticism as some big publicly traded companies secured millions of dollars of loans.
Amid mounting pressure from lawmakers and the public, the Treasury Department and the SBA said earlier this month that they would disclose information about businesses that take PPP loans of $150,000 or more.

Govt to amend IBC to ring-fence buyers of stressed assets from prosecution

The government plans to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to provide immunity to companies taking over stressed assets from prosecution for financial crimes committed by erstwhile promoters.
This will help make the insolvency process more attractive for the bidders and instil confidence in them, sources said.

The government may move an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 during the current Winter Session of Parliament.
The amendment comes after several companies that are vying for assets being auctioned under IBC expressed concern regarding getting into legal trouble over the cases against previous promoters.
In many of the cases under insolvency, the promoters are under investigation by various agencies, the sources said.
"We are working out a mechanism where the resolution applicant, who through this entire court supervised process is acquiring a stressed asset as a going concern, will not be encumbered by the criminal liability relating to the company which has been caused by the previous management," an official said.
A clear direction on this will not allow occurrence of cases like Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL).
Last month, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had attached BPSL's land, buildings, plant and machinery in Odisha worth more than Rs 4,000 crore in a case related to alleged diversion of bank funds, delaying the resolution process under which JSW Steel was set to take over the company.
Following the development, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) asked the ED and the corporate affairs ministry to reach a consensus on the issue of attachment of assets of BPSL.
While the ED is of the opinion that it can attach the property of BPSL under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the ministry has been maintaining that the agency cannot do so as proceedings under the IBC are on.

Govt considers special window for resolution of stressed NBFCs under IBC

The government is mulling a special window for resolution of stressed non-banking finance companies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a senior government official said.
A special window, is certainly something which is being examined closely, the official said.

The move also comes against the backdrop of financial sector players like Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) facing troubles.
Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank is also grappling with financial woes.
The effort is to come out with some mechanism to deal with financial service providers which require some resolution under an alternative framework pending the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill or some specific provision coming in place, the official said.
A notification in this regard will be issued soon, the official added.
Currently, resolution of stressed financial institutions cannot take place under the IBC.
According to the official, government is working out a way to ensure that new promoter is not liable for criminal liability of previous management while buying stressed assets through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) process.

Insolvency procedure benefits creditors, but concerns remain, say lenders

Even as the implementation of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code has changed not only the economic scenario but also the outlook of both creditors and the debtors, there are certain concerns that have to be addressed including the delay in admission of cases, lack of bidders, and disparity in valuation, say bankers. In a workshop organised by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 'Committee of Creditors - An Institution of Public Trust', these issues were highlighted.
Padmaja Chunduru, MD & CEO, Indian Bank raised concerns over delays in admission of cases, the minimum default amount of Rs 1 lakh which remains to be enhanced, primacy of secured creditors over others, maximisation of value of assets, and the balancing of interests of all stakeholders. She asked for trusts/societies to be brought within the ambit of the IBC for the resolution of defaulting educational institutions. The mere threat of being referred to the National Companies Law Tribunal (NCLT) is bringing defaulters to negotiation table, she added.

Another issue that came up in the discussions was that in some cases, even if all the conditions were fulfilled, the application was still dismissed by looking at the company's balance sheets. In some instances, other motives were ascribed behind moving an application. This is an issue that needs to be addressed and it was suggested that the NCLT should consider limiting its roile. The issue of out-of-court settlement between creditors and debtors was also discussed. Under the present insolvency regime, a settlement can be carried out only after making an application of withdrawal under Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules), 2016 before the admission of the application by the adjudicating authority.
A spree of amendments shows that the system and procedures for the effective resolution of a debt-ridden company evolves continuously. Several orders and judgements, including the Supreme Court's, have paved the way for a near satisfactory implementation of the Code.
M S Sahoo, chairperson, IBBI said that companies which are viable should be rescued and an effective resolution plan must be put in place thatbenefits all stakeholders. He said that 30 new judicial members have been appointed for the speedy disposal of pending cases.
It was agreed that the NCLT experience has been more or less smooth. Creditors said they realise that the insolvency process it is not just a recovery legislation for lenders unlike SARFAESI Act or the Recovery of Debts Act, but an effective resolution mechanism for corporate debtors.
They said that 30 per cent of the cases that were undergoing resolution, as on September 2018, have already exceeded the 270-day time limit and their resolution is still underway, contrary to the legal mandate that a company's liquidation should commence on exceeding the deadline.

IBC Bill amendment passed, puts homebuyers at par with financial creditors

A bill to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016, allowing home buyers to be treated as financial creditors and seeking to set up a special dispensation for small sector enterprises, was passed by Parliament on Friday.
The bill, which was passed in Lok Sabha on July 31, was approved in the Rajya Sabha by a voice vote.
The legislation seeks to replace the June 6 ordinance that sought to put these amendments into force to aid quick resolution of several bankrupt firms.
Replying to the debate on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second amendment) 2018 in the Upper House, Finance Minister Piyush Goyal said its objective was to provide resolution to small bankrupt firms and, at the same time, take stringent action against big bankrupt businesses.
He said the bill aims to ensure that all cases are led to resolution instead of liquidation.
"We want faster resolution of cases. ....We don't want liquidation. Insolvency will not help the country. Assets worth crores should put to use," he said.
The Minister said the Insolvency Law Committee, which was set up in November 2017, had submitted the report on May 26 this year and every recommendations of the panel has been accepted and incorporated in the amendments.
On the approval of a resolution plan, the Minister said the report said it should be approved by a panel of creditors by a vote of not less than 66 per cent of the voting share of financial creditors. For routine decisions, it should be 51 per cent vote requirement.
Goyal said the government is trying to increase the strength of NCLAT to address the pendency of cases. "The number of courts, judicial members and technical members are being increased," he said.
Besides, a group has been set up to see speedy resolution of about 40,000 cases in NCLAT that are simple in nature and can be resolved by imposing non-discretionary penalty, he added.
ALSO READ: Nothing called partial defaulters, IBC must apply equally to all: RBI
On a member's query regarding less recovery of assets through the resolution process, Goyal said "there is a good recovery. ...If you look at the cases so far, 32 cases are resolved through resolution and up to 55 per cent have been recovered."
Earlier, it used to take an average of three years to resolve a matter, it has now come down to one year. Earlier the cost of resolution used be higher at 9 per cent, now it has come down to one per cent, he said.
He also stated that the NCLAT was an independent body and the government does not interfere in its functioning.
The minister said it is not that in all cases, the promoters are wiful defaulters. Wherever promoters are wilful defaulters, the action should be taken strictly.
ALSO READ: Homebuyers treatment as financial creditor: Builder loans may get costlier
"Now there is fear among big borrowers that they have to repay their loans. Earlier, there was a responsibility to repay loans was on small borrowers. Big players used think it is not our problem, banks have to recover the loan. This equation has changed today," he noted.
Opposing the bill, D Raja (CPI) said that frequent changes to the law is being done to help defaulters and the government wants to bail out the defaulters.
In the Bhushan Steel case, he alleged that the banks lost Rs 210 billion but a corporate house gained this amount. He sought to know why the government has a "soft corner towards the corporates."

"The government should bail out the poor and not the corporates. The voting requirement is reduced to 66 per cent from 75 per cent to help one corporate," he alleged.
Neeraj Shekhar (SP), S R Balasubramaniyan (AIADMK), Kahkashan Perween (JD-U), P Battacharya (Cong) were among others who supported the bill, but expressed concern over the government taking the ordinance route to amend various laws.

Lok Sabha clears IBC Bill, Goyal says ordinance not to favour any corporate

The government on Tuesday rejected the opposition's charge that it has come out with an ordinance to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to favour a big corporate house.
Replying to a debate on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Bill 2018, Finance Minister Piyush Goyal said the govermment brought the ordinance to ensure speedy resolution of stressed assets and for the benefit of homebuyers and the MSME sector.

The bill was approved by the Lok Sabha by a voice vote, after the opposition walked out in protest alleging that the minister had not given a proper reply to the issues raised by them.
Leader of the Congress Mallikarjun Kharge and several others alleged that the ordinace was brought to facilitate the acquisition of Alok Industries by Reliance Industries.
"People want the government to respond immediately and that is what is appreciated," he said, adding "we want resolution and not liquidation" of ailing companies.
Goyal said all provisions of the bill were prospective and not retrospective to benefit any company and it was the NCLT, which in its wisdom, had decided to refer back the issue of acquisition to the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
The minister said that he was not competent to discuss the conduct of the NCLT.
The amendments propose to reduce the minimum voting threshold for the CoC to 66 per cent, from the existing 75 per cent for key decisions -- a provision which the opposition said was aimed at benefiting one corporate house.
The bill also aims at giving relief to the homebuyers by recognising their status as financial creditors, thus giving them due representation in the CoC and making them an integral part of the decision-making process.
Goyal said the government would come out with regulations and evaluation matrix which will help CoC to decide on insolvency issues.
He said that under the previous regime of SARFAESI and BIFR, the resolution cost was 9 per cent and recovery was 25 per cent after taking into account 4-6 years.
In the IBC regime, he said, the cost was less than one per cent and the recovery was over 55 per cent. Moreover, the changes brought about in the IBC were based on a parliamentary committee's recommendations.
The minister also said that certain exceptions in the code have been made to help speedier resolution of stressed assets in the MSME sector.
He assured the House that the government will not denationalise the public sector banks, while on the other hand, do everything to strengthen them.
ALSO READ: Stressed assets: Govt wants IBC relief for a dozen power projects
Kharge alleged that the ordinance was brought by the government to help the Reliance Industries to acquire Alok Industries.
"You brought this ordinance in haste. You do not respond with such alacrity during floods. The minister's reply is not proper. We protest and walk out," he said while leading the walkout.
Earlier, several opposition members demanded that the bill may be referred to a Standing Committee.
Participating in the debate on the measure, Congress member Veerappa Moily said the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had become "an instrument for siphoning off funds" of the treasury as banks were taking huge haircuts and corporates were buying out insolvent companies for paltry sums.
"Be fair and refer the bill to the Standing Committee. Because you got stuck up in the NCLT, you brought in the bill. The Ordinance is tainted and sending it to the Standing Committee will remove the taint," he said, adding that the "greed" behind bringing the bill is to "loot the banks".
Moily, a former Corporate Affairs Minister, said if the bill was referred to the Standing Committee, then it would submit its report within 15 days. Moily is now the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance.
N K Premachandran (RSP) said the promulgation of the IBC (Amendment) Ordinace was a "clear case of crony capitalism", saying it intended to benefit a particulate industrial house.
"Alok Industries owed Rs 300 crores to banks, Reliance Industries bought it in Rs 50 billion, banks loss was Rs 250 billion," he asserted, while alleging that undue haste was shown by the government in bringing the bill.
Questioning the government's urgency in bringing the IBC Ordinance when the Monsoon Session was just a month away, P Venugopal (AIADMK) said a perception was being built that the government has brought in the amendment bill to facilitate one corporate house.
ALSO READ: India betting on GST and IBC to improve ease of doing business rank
"The IBC is being amended in haste to allow Reliance Industries to take over Alok Industries.... In the name of NPA clean-up, the government should not be seen as supporting crony capitalism," Venugopal said.
Saugata Ray (TMC) said the government was leading the country to a 'blind alley' and the IBC should not be seen as a panacea for all illness.
"Mr Goyal, our caretaker Finance Minister, we can't see the banking sector collapse... I support the Congress demand of referring the bill to the Standing Committee," Ray said.
He said under the resolution process, banks were taking huge haircuts and the IBC is leading to "crony capitalism".
Citing the resolution process of the Alok Industries, Ray said the Reliance Industries could not acquire the company at the first instance since the resolution plan got less than the required 75 per cent vote.
"The IBC amendment bill brought by the government lowers the minimum vote requirement for passing the resolution to 66 per cent from 75 per cent in the original act. Just for 66 per cent vote, you can acquire a company. Just for Reliance Industries, Government has brought an Ordinance," Ray said.
The TMC member said in case of Bhushan Steel takeover by Tata Steel, the banks had taken 40 per cent haircut and lost Rs 210 billion. In case of Vedanta buying Electrosteel, the haircut was 60 per cent and the banks lost Rs 84 billion.
As regards Alok Industries, banks have taken 83 per cent haircut and the loss is to the tune of Rs 250 billion, he claimed in the House.
The other members who participated in the debate included Subhash Baheria (BJP), P S Chandumajra (SAD), J P Narayan (RJD) and Dushyant Chaoutala (INLD).

IBC not being used to full extent; lenders need to do more: IBBI chief

The objective of the bankruptcy law is to resolve an insolvency and revive an asset for the collective good and not to maximise value for a chosen few, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India chairman M S Sahoo said on Friday, urging committee of creditors to do more for all stakeholders.
The head of the regulatory oversight board for the nascent Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), rued that we are not making the best use of the code.

"CoC is (committee of creditor) in a custodian and trustee position. It has higher responsibility to look at the interest of all the stakeholders. The objective is to work in unison to resolve an insolvency through a process," Sahoo said at an event organised by industry lobby Ficci here.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
The CoC, which includes both financial as well as operational creditors of a company, should be "proactive" to create value in an asset, Sahoo said, underlining that the primary priority should be to ensure that the going concern continues to being in business and not to liquidate.
"The objective of a CoC is to generate competitive resolution plans, and then approve that plan which maximises the value for everybody, in contrast to recovery which maximises the value only for one set of people. There is a lot of facilitation in the law for making it happen. The objective is to revive if viable, or close it (the asset), if not viable. You can't directly go to liquidation," Sahoo said.
"We are not making the optimal use of the law, we are after maximising value because the code says so. But the code (also) says that it is for the maximisation of the value of the assets of the corporate debtor and not for a stakeholder, or set of stakeholders," Sahoo added.
He said there is a lot of scope in the law to make resolutions happen, asserting that with the introduction of the IBC, we have moved away from recovery.
"Probably we are not making the best use of the code (IBC). The code is a much more powerful thing, it can be used for much more higher purposes so that the resolution is sustainable. If the objective was just to discover a price, get a big value, perhaps we could have had gone to the stock market," Sahoo said.
"The code offers much more potential that is not being realised. It can look at changing the management, technology, product portfolio. A resolution plan allows you do much more than what is happening today," he added.
The CoC, he said, has a "special responsibility" to ensure such resolutions happen, Sahoo said, adding that it has financial creditors who have the understanding of a business and the financial ability to continue with a resolution.
"This is the set of people (financial creditors) who have the ability to take a business decision and take the risk of postponing the recovery," he said, adding that they have the "stamina to wait for a while, turnaround a company and recover from the performance of the company."
The government passed the IBC in 2016, which was followed with an ordinance barring some promoters from bidding for the assets. The Cabinet cleared further amendments earlier this week equating home buyers with operational creditors, among others, which is yet to be passed.
Sahoo said 800 cases have been admitted to the 12 National Company Law Tribunal benches, up to 2,500 have been rejected, while there have been 200 voluntary insolvency cases which have also been filed. There are over 100 cases are resolved, he said.
The IBBI chairman said he is broadly satisfied with the progress done under the insolvency law, even though there have been some setbacks which will serve as a learning.
He also sought to dismiss notions that the 270-day timeline is not being adhered to, underlining that a maximum number of cases have been resolved within the timeframe. It can be noted that most of the cases that are making media headlines have not adhered the timelines and have seen frequent legal challenges at multiple stages.
"When we are doing something for the first time, everyone is learning. There will be some issues which will require time to sort out. We have to go through this process. Once the issues are sorted out, we will be with the timeline on every case," Sahoo told reporters on the sidelines.
He also defended the call to treat the micro, small and medium enterprises differently, saying it is a "rational" approach followed all across the world and will help ensure that small businesses flourish.
Sahoo, however, did not comment about the cabinet decision on Wednesday, saying he has not yet seen the detailed contours of it, which will be known only once the ordinance is issued.

Cabinet approves ordinance to give homebuyers creditor status under IBC

The Union Cabinet approved, via an Ordinance, amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), giving homebuyers the status of creditors in the insolvency process.
Also in the Ordinance, it appears (Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad would not give details) are provisions for micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs), easing some conditions for the segment.

Assent of the President is required for the Ordinance to take effect.
These changes were part of the recommendations of a committee to review and suggest changes in the IBC . Earlier, on the panel’s suggestion, the government got amended Section 29A clause of the IBC - it lists entities barred from bidding for companies under insolvency. The changes were to ensure wilful defaulters and those whose accounts had been classified as non-performing assets for more than a year, among others, were barred from bidding for stressed assets. This was to ensure promoters of companies undergoing insolvency resolution did not regain control.
As for MSMEs, around 70 per cent of all companies are in this category.
One suggestion of the committee, yet to find acceptance, was to withdraw the fast-track insolvency provision in the IBC.
It had said this did not serve the purpose of simplification of the process for small debtors. Fast-track resolution reduces by half the number of days allowed for a resolution plan.
Also, the panel had recommended that the committee of creditors for a company decide whether an application for insolvency resolution could be withdrawn after being admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal.
India Ratings and Research says the change to treat homebuyers as financial rather than operational creditors could affect the credit rating of lenders top realty developers, while boosting protection for the end-customer.
Sunit Dutt Tyagi, executive partner at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, says: “Homebuyers, who largely belong to the middle income group, will most definitely view this amendment with a sense of relief. They now have a hope of recovering some, if not all, of their investment in failed development projects in the housing sector.”
OTHER CABINET DECISIONS
Installation of 4,072 mobile towers with outlay of Rs 73.3 billion in Naxal-hit states
Waives Rs 10.77 billion penal interest on loans to Paradip Port Trust
Waives Rs 2.51 billion penal interest on loans to Visakhapatnam Port Trust
To restructure balance sheet of loss-making PSU Scooters India
Ex-post facto approval to the MoU between India and Denmark on cooperation in food safety
Okays two separate MoUs with France and Morocco for cooperation in the field of renewable energy
Approves ordinance to set up the country’s first national sports university in Manipur

Insolvency resolution stumbles on 4 key issues raised by prospective buyers

With prospective buyers of stressed assets challenging the interpretation of clauses in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in four key areas, the resolution of many of them would depend on the final decisions of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or through amendments to the IBC by the government.
Experts, however, say the plethora of legal cases being filed is not unusual. They say the new law is superior to a winding-up petition which was filed by creditors under the Companies Act. The key difference is that it wasn't time-bound though an official liquidator was appointed.
A senior lawyer involved in many cases at the NCLT said: "All the decisions made by the committee of creditors (CoC), whether on the winning bid or on eligibility of competing bidders, can be challenged at the NCLT. That is what is happening now. Through these cases we expect the NCLT to clarify the law. And they have to do so within the mandatory nine months." In that case, he said there might not be a need for amendments to the IBC in many areas.
So what are the areas under scrutiny? This week, for instance, UltraTech had everyone stumped when it offered to buy the 98 per cent stake of the promoters of Binani Cement at Rs 72.66 billion, subject to the termination of insolvency proceedings.
The Aditya Birla group has contested the decision of the CoC to offer the company to Dalmia Bharat at the NCLT. It revised its offer higher than what Dalmia Bharat offered.
Experts say while the IBC states that the NCLT alone has the jurisdiction to consider "applications or proceedings by or against the corporate debtor", the preamble also says the objective is to maximise the value of the asset. Also, it does not divest the owner-debtor of its shareholding though the management of the company shifts to the resolution professional (RP).
A lawyer involved in the issue said: "If the owner-debtor is able to find a better value for her asset outside the NCLT through bipartite agreements, there is nothing in the IBC to prohibit such a transaction." Through this offer, Binani can pay off its creditors and still have money left in its balance sheet (its outstanding loan is Rs 38.84 billion).
Some experts, however, point towards a Supreme Court order setting aside NCLT admission in favour of an out-of-court settlement. Other experts say while the offer is valid and helps in maximising value, it still has to be endorsed by the NCLT to ensure that the money is mandatorily paid to the creditors by the promoters. And, there is nothing to stop the Dalmias to make a higher bid at the NCLT, either.
A clause that has come under fire is that a person is not eligible to submit a resolution plan if such a person or anyone acting jointly or in concert with him or her has been convicted for any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more.
Again, another clause says the prohibition holds good if the conviction has taken place even outside India.
Using this clause, Renaissance Steel has challenged at the NCLT the eligibility of both Vedanta and Tata Steel for bidding for Electrosteel Steels. It has said Tata Steel UK, a subsidiary of the Indian steelmaker, is guilty of causing an industrial accident and Vedanta Resources is responsible for environment pollution in Africa. The NCLT Kolkata has asked the resolution professional to place before the CoC all objections filed by Renaissance and the NCLT order.
Lawyers say the clause needs to be clearly defined. "For infrastructure companies such cases are common because of their business and could be misused," a source said.
The third key area of contention has emanated from the clause under which wilful defaulters and defaulting promoters cannot give a resolution plan. In the case of Ruia-promoted Essar Steel, both the bidders, Numetal and ArcelorMittal, have been rejected by the CoC and asked to rebid.
However, Numetal had approached the NCLT a day earlier, apprehending that their proposal might not be considered properly. The NCLT has not stalled CoC proceedings but said the decision of the CoC meeting on Wednesday would be subject to the outcome of Numetal's application in the tribunal.
Experts say, with this move, it is possible that the eligibility criterion will now be decided and clarified by an order of the NCLT.
The fourth issue has been kicked off by Liberty House's late submission of a bid for Bhushan Power and Steel. While the resolution professional rejected the bid because it came after the deadline, Liberty House has challenged that decision in the NCLT.
Lawyers say that if maximising the value of the assets is the main issue, it would be interesting to see whether such a bid will be considered eligible even if it came late. The NCLT Delhi has stayed the insolvency proceedings to consider Liberty's plea first.
For now, as the clocks ticks it's well-nigh impossible to make it happen within the deadline.