In recent times, the debate around safe harbour protection has grabbed media attention on account of the recently notified Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Intermediary Rules”), and the ensuing spat between the Government and social media heavyweights like Twitter.
Continue Reading Safe Harbour Protection for E-Commerce platforms
The legal framework under the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), has not enacted adequate provisions for ‘squeeze-out’ of minority shareholders. Under the circumstances, selective capital reduction has emerged as an interesting and legally viable option for companies that intend to give an exit to the minority shareholders. Selective capital reduction is also very useful for giving an exit option to minority shareholders in specific scenarios, such as to the remaining shareholders, post the completion of delisting process. Many multinational companies, which chose to delist their securities, have adopted this route to give an exit to the remaining minority shareholders, who did not participate in the delisting process. Continue Reading Exit to minority – Is selective reduction of capital a viable option?
Recent amendments to the statutory framework under the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”), have cast focus on the ever-expanding statutory duties of the auditors of a company. The purpose of an audit is to enhance the degree of confidence of users of the financial statements. In this regard, Section 129 of the Act provides that the financial statements prepared by a company should comply with three prime conditions: Continue Reading Is the Audit Profession at Cross-Roads?
In 2008, Bank Atlantic, a Florida based bank, sued a prominent Wall Street analyst over a report on potential bank failures titled “Who’s Next?” The Bank stated that the analyst had defamed the bank by suggesting that it might fail. Bank Atlantic had previously sued ABC over a news report in 1991. In 2009, Hertz Global Holdings Inc., sued an analyst for defamation over a report that Hertz claimed, suggests that the world’s largest car rental company could go bankrupt.
Continue Reading Corporate Defamation: A Perspective on Analyst Reports
An essential principle of criminal law is that the trial of an offence should take place in the presence of the accused. This principle has been embodied in Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), which provides, as a general rule, that all evidence taken in the course of trial shall be taken in presence of the accused. While it cannot be denied that such a rule is mainly for the protection of the interest of the accused, CrPC has provisions allowing courts the discretion, in certain circumstances, to exempt an accused from personal appearance. However, exemption from personal appearance is not available to an accused as a matter of right; and is subject to the discretion of the Court.
1. On June 18, 2021, the Delhi High Court, in proceedings seeking enforcement of arbitral awards against foreign states, has reiterated the principle of restrictive immunity and upheld the basic tenets of International Commercial Arbitration – flexibility, stability, efficiency, and its legally binding nature. The Court held that prior consent of the Central Government under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”), is not required for enforcement of arbitral awards against a foreign state. Importantly, it also held that foreign state cannot claim sovereign immunity for the purpose of stalling enforcement of an arbitral award rendered against it, and which arises out of a commercial transaction.
The SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021 (“2021 Regulations”), were notified on June 10, 2021. The new regulations do not substantially deviate from the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 (“2009 Regulations”). However, certain incremental changes are introduced that further refine and streamline the delisting process. The key changes effected by the 2021 Regulations, with specific reference to voluntary delisting offers, are as follows:
Part II of the article discusses the Indian legal position on attorney-client privilege as well as best practices during internal investigations and for work-from home setups.
Part I discuses the concept of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and the legal position in the US and the UK.
The legal privilege or attorney-client privilege is often regarded as the crown jewel of the legal profession. It provides protection from disclosure of communications between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Continue Reading Legal Privilege and Covid-19 – Part I
Part I of this article explores the current Indian regulatory and legal framework governing the virtual asset industry and recommendations for AML/CFT compliance in respect of virtual asssets.
The virtual asset industry has had a somewhat difficult time in India, with the RBI banning any regulated entities from providing services to any individual or business, dealing in digital currencies, given the risks involved in such transactions. The term ‘services’ included maintaining accounts, registering, trading, settling, clearing, giving loans against virtual tokens, accepting them as collateral, opening accounts of exchanges, dealing with them and transferring or receipt of money in accounts relating to purchase/ sale of VCs or facilitating the same thereof. Continue Reading Into the Web: AML Risks of Virtual Assets? – Part II