印度最高法院裁定 Yes Bank 8.84 亿美元 AT1 债券核销非法，律师称 由 Arpan Chaturvedi 和 Ashwin Manikandan 报道 新德里/孟买，10 月 15 日 - 印度最高法院已裁定 Yes Bank 840 亿印度卢比（8.8437 亿美元）附加一级债券的核销为非法，一名与该案相关的最高法院律师周四表示。
India Supreme Court rules Yes Bank's $884-million AT1 bond write-off illegal, lawyer says By Arpan Chaturvedi and Ashwin Manikandan NEW DELHI/MUMBAI, Oct 15 - India's Supreme Court has ruled the write-off of 84 billion Indian rupees ($884.37 million) of Yes Bank additional tier-1 bonds as illegal, a Supreme Court lawyer related to the matter said on Thursday.
AT-1 债券是一种债务证券，向投资者提供更高回报，但通常也伴随在危机时期被核销或转换为股权的风险。
AT-1 bonds are debt securities that give a higher return to investors but also typically carry a risk of being written off or converted to equity in times of a crisis.
该债务工具在瑞士信贷银行 2023 年有争议的债券清零事件后也受到关注，该事件引发了多个司法管辖区的诉讼。
The debt instrument was also in focus after Credit Suisse's controversial 2023 bond wipeout triggered lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions.
这些 AT-1 债券在 Yes Bank 于 2020 年被宣布为不偿付能力后被核销，而在重组计划中，股权持有人仅需对其总股份的 75% 实行三年锁定期。
These AT-1 bonds were written off after Yes Bank was declared insolvent in 2020, while the equity holders were only subject to a three-year lock-in on 75% of their total shares in the restructuring plan.
“最高法院认为，Yes Bank 管理人对 AT-1 债券的核销是非法和任意的，理由是这违背了印度联盟政府公布的最终重建方案，”代表 Yes Bank AT-1 债券持有人的律师、Edictum Law & Co. 合伙人 Srijan Sinha 表示。周四，受此消息影响，Yes Bank 股价下跌 13%。Yes Bank 未立即回复路透社寻求置邮件。
"The Supreme Court has held the write-off of AT-1 bonds by the Administrator of Yes Bank to be illegal and arbitrary on the ground of it being against the Final Reconstruction Scheme gazetted by the Union of India," said Srijan Sinha, a partner at Edictum Law & Co., the lawyer representing Yes Bank's AT-1 bondholders. Shares of Yes Bank fell 13% on Thursday after the news. Yes Bank did not immediately respond to Reuters' email seeking a comment.
此裁定对 Yes Bank 的 AT-1 债券持有人而言是一种解脱，他们一直在法庭上争辩称，这些债券被误导性地售予他们，且在重组计划最终确定后不应被核销。
The ruling comes as a relief to Yes Bank's AT-1 bondholders, who have argued in courts that the bonds were mis-sold to them and could not be written off post the finalisation of the restructuring plan.
“最高法院的裁决似乎是基于技术性问题，而非该产品的基本条款，”格兰特森顿财务服务风险咨询业务合伙人及全国负责人 Vivek Ramji Iyer 表示。
"Supreme Court decision seems to be on a technicality rather than the underlying terms of the product," said Vivek Ramji Iyer, a partner and national leader for the financial services risk advisory practice at Grant Thornton.
此决定产生了可能影响投资者情绪的监管不确定性。去年5月，日本住友三井银行公司（SMBC）同意收购印度YES银行20%的股份，并于2025年8月额外增持4.99%。
"This decision creates regulatory uncertainty that can have a potential to impact investor sentiment." In May last year, Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) agreed to acquire a 20% stake in Yes Bank, and increased it by an additional 4.99% in August 2025.