SEBI

Analysis of recently attempted Voluntary Delistings

The number of voluntarily delistings seen in the last 1 (one) year has surpassed the number of delistings attempted earlier in a single year. Promoters are choosing to voluntarily delist their companies from the stock exchanges for various reasons including stock market price not being reflective of true value of the company’s stock, having full control over operations (without being required to go for any public vote for critical transactions), restructuring of their group entities, greater flexibility and reducing costs related to numerous regulatory compliances.

Even the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) introduced various amendments (mostly for tightening of procedure) under the new SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021 (2021 Delisting Regulations). The 2021 Delisting Regulations replaced the old SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 (2009 Delisting Regulations). However, the key elements of a delisting process i.e. requirement of super majority of minority shareholder being in favour of the delisting proposal and the bidding process through the reserve book build (RBB) mechanism remain the same even under the new 2021 Delisting Regulations.
Continue Reading Analysis of recently attempted Voluntary Delistings

RPT Regulations

Background

SEBI’s amendments to the regulatory architecture for related party transactions (“RPTs”) under the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”) came into force from April 1, 2022[1] (“RPT Regulations”), bringing about a paradigm shift in the RPT approval and disclosure requirements applicable to listed companies in India.[2]Continue Reading RPT Regulations – Some Suggestions for SEBI’s consideration

SEBI Clarifies Applicability of Portfolio Managers Regulations to an Indian Manager of an Offshore Fund

In an interpretative letter sought under the SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2003 (“Informal Guidance”), the markets regulator has clarified that the investment manager of an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) can provide investment management services to an offshore fund only as a SEBI-licensed  portfolio manager under the SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 2012 (“PM Regulations”). SEBI also reiterated that the investment managers of AIFs are considered to be regulated by SEBI. In this post, we will explore the queries, SEBI’s responses, and implications for the industry.Continue Reading SEBI Clarifies Applicability of Portfolio Managers Regulations to an Indian Manager of an Offshore Fund

ESOP Has SEBI Put an End to ‘Sell All’ Method of Cashless Exercise

Employee stock options are frequently used as an employee incentivisation and retention tool, given the benefit accrued over time. An ESOP-wrapped compensation is attractive because the gains from the shares acquired on exercise of employee stock options are much higher than the exercise price paid for the options. While the maximum or minimum price payable on exercise of the options is not prescribed by the law – which only lays down the requirement for the price to be accounting-standard compliant –  the price typically ranges from the face value of the share to the fair market value of the share.Continue Reading ESOP: Has SEBI Put an End to ‘Sell All’ Method of Cashless Exercise?

Regulatory overload on Audit Committees

Background

The regulatory architecture under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”), and the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”) places significant emphasis on the functioning of various committees of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of a listed company. While all Board committees have been entrusted with important responsibilities, a disproportionate amount of the regulatory burden has been placed on the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has multifarious responsibilities under Section 177 and various other provisions of the Act, the LODR, and the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“PIT Regulations”).Continue Reading Gatekeepers of Governance – Audit Committee

SEBI Operational Guidelines

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) has recently issued the operational guidelines (“Operational Guidelines”)[1] for its circular dated August 13, 2021, on ‘Security and Covenant Monitoring using Distributed Ledger Technology’ (the “DLT Circular”)[2]. This article will examine the key highlights of the Operational Guidelines and analyse their impact.Continue Reading A Technology Driven Approach to Achieving Compliance: SEBI’s Operational Guidelines for Monitoring of Security and Covenants

Revised threshold of Rs. 1000 Crore for ‘material’ RPTs under LODR – Does it pass the Article 14 test

Background

SEBI[1] has recently revised the materiality threshold for obtaining shareholder approval for related party transactions (“RPTs”) under Regulation 23(1) of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”), to cover RPTs that exceed INR 1000 crore or 10% of a listed entity’s annual consolidated turnover (as per the last audited financial statements), whichever is lower.

The revised materiality threshold has come into effect on April 1, 2022, and this change assumes significance, as prior to April 1, 2022, there was no absolute numerical threshold for RPTs that require shareholders’ approval.

This also raises the question as to whether an absolute numerical threshold of INR 1000 crore could potentially be considered as violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

In this post, the authors aim to probe deeper into this constitutional aspect and examine some of the arguments that can be made from both sides of the spectrum.Continue Reading Revised threshold of Rs. 1000 Crore for ‘material’ RPTs under LODR – Does it pass the Article 14 test?

SEBI

Background

In order to provide for an alternative and efficient dispute resolution mechanism for securities law violations, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) introduced the consent mechanism through a circular in 2007[1] (which was partially modified in 2012)[2]. This was subsequently codified through the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014 (“2014 Regulations”), pursuant to the notification of the Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, which expressly empowered SEBI to settle matters with a view to removing any ambiguity over the validity of the settlement process. This regime specifically excluded certain serious violations (e.g. insider trading, fraud) from the purview of the settlement mechanism. Explicit provisions which enabled initiation of settlement proceedings prior to the issuance of show cause notice were also introduced, to reduce administrative burden and cost on SEBI.Continue Reading Amendments to SEBI Settlement Regime – A Snapshot

Flashback 2021

The year 2021 saw 81 tender offers aggregating to INR 43,602 crore for acquisition of shares of publicly traded companies in India under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (Takeover Regulations)[1]. This is higher in terms of both value and number when compared to the pandemic-hit 2020 and the pre-pandemic 2019. During this period, strategic players took centre-stage in driving deal activities, making 78 out of 81 tender offers.Continue Reading Takeover of Publicly Traded Companies: Flashback 2021

Delegated Legislation

Background

Over the last few decades, there has been a trend where only a small fraction of law stems directly from ‘legislations’ passed by the Parliament. In the sphere of corporate law, the tendency of the law makers is to enact ‘bare-bone’ statutes such as the SEBI Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”), and a bulk of the law is enacted by the designated regulators, such as the MCA, SEBI and RBI.Continue Reading The Rise & Rise of Delegated Legislation – Do we need more Safeguards?