Listen to this post

Tender Offers – 2017 The Year that Was

January to December 2017 saw 56[1] tender offers/open offers made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (Takeover Regulations), 41 of which have been completed. This compares to 63 open offers made in the calendar year 2016.

For 2017, the total value of open offers made to the shareholders was Rs. 2,015[2] crores as against Rs. 9,676 crores for 2016. In 2017, no open offers were made by a private equity fund as compared to three made in 2016.[3]

Companies in the non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) space saw a particularly high number of open offers (11 in all). Some of these were open offers for Upasana Finance Limited, Capital India Finance Limited, Dhanvarsha Finvest Limited, Golden Goenka Fincorp Limited, Lark Trading and Finance Limited, Chokhani Securities Limited and TRC Financial Services Limited. However, some of these have not closed, probably due to delays in receiving regulatory approval for change in control of the NBFCs.

Continue Reading Tender Offers – 2017: The Year that Was

The ‘Raja’ & the ‘Praja’ Changing Dynamics in Corporate India

* This piece was first published in the The Economic Times Family Business Forum

Corporate governance has become extremely topical for India Inc. over the last year or so. A few prominent governance and leadership battles contributed to our securities market regulator, SEBI, to convene a senior committee to examine this thorny issue. Interestingly, ‘good’ governance in the Indian context is not a new concept: India had ancient guiding scriptures such as the Arthashastra and the Manusmriti, propounding that the “Raja” (i.e. the King) and his ministers must follow a strict code of discipline which furthers the best interests of their “Praja” (i.e. the subjects). Perhaps history needs to repeat itself.

Today’s competitive and dynamic business environment requires a balanced blend of a sustainable growth model coupled with sound governance. Since the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, Corporate India has accepted this as the “new normal” to survive this period of transition. However, practical reality is far from ideal.

To help fix these governance issues, the Kotak Committee Report on Corporate Governance, released on October 5th, 2017, formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Uday Kotak (“Report”), proposed a slew of far reaching changes, whose impact will be far reaching in the Indian promoter context. This article examines a few changes.

Continue Reading The ‘Raja’ & the ‘Praja’: Changing Dynamics in Corporate India

The Empire Strikes Back Strict Compliance with SEBI AIF Regulations

Taking cue from Yoda, the adjudication officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has ordained “Do or do not, there is no try”. This means there can be no halfway compliance with SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 and circulars issued therein (the AIF Regulations).

The November-end order of the SEBI Adjudicating officer (AO) in the case of the SREI Multiple Investment Trust (the Fund) not only provides an insight into the regulator’s interpretation of the AIF Regulations but it is also the first case of imposition of a monetary penalty for breach of the AIF Regulations. This article critically analyses the AO’s order and summarises the learnings from the same.

Continue Reading The Empire Strikes Back: Strict Compliance with SEBI AIF Regulations

SFIO – Putting Corporate Fraudsters Behind Bars

Introduction

The battle against financial fraud and malpractices has significantly intensified over recent years. Globally, governments are establishing stricter regulatory frameworks and compliance standards to combat fraud in commercial transactions. A manifestation of such heightened awareness and regulatory action in India is evident under the provisions in relation to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) introduced under the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act) and Rules thereunder. These provisions bring with them implications for companies, which need to be fully understood and preventative steps taken to avoid any suspicion of fraud and consequent arrests. In the following paragraphs, we have analysed key aspects of the newly introduced Rules and the steps that must be taken by corporates to avoid any adversity under the same.

Under the provisions of the Act, the SFIO has been established by the Central Government as a multi-disciplinary office consisting of experts from diverse fields. The SFIO has been empowered to investigate serious cases of ‘fraud’, as defined under the Act. Furthermore, under the recently notified Companies (Arrests in Connection with Investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office) Rules, 2017 (the SFIO Rules or Rules), the SFIO has been empowered to arrest any person if believed to be guilty of fraud. The legislative intent behind these provisions and the wide-ranging powers granted to the SFIO is certainly clear. The power of investigation coupled with the power to arrest any person ‘believed to be guilty of fraud’ indeed equips the SFIO with potent powers to combat the menace of corporate fraud, which is deeply entrenched into and plagues our economy.

Continue Reading SFIO – Putting Corporate Fraudsters Behind Bars

Data Protection Framework for India

On 24 August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) declared privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution (Privacy Judgment)[1]. The Supreme Court while holding the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty, and informational privacy as a facet of the right to privacy; highlighted the need for government to examine and enforce a robust regime for data protection.

The Supreme Court suggested balance between data regulation and personal privacy as there are legitimate state concerns (like protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits)on one hand and individual interests in the protection of privacy on the other. Appreciating the complexity of all these issues, the Supreme Court (upon being informed of the constitution of an expert committee chaired by Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of Supreme Court), left the matter for determination by the said expert committee (Expert Committee), which was required to give due regard to what the Supreme Court had held in the Privacy Judgment.

Continue Reading Genesis of (True) Data Protection Framework for India

Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017

Published here is Part II of the blog piece on the Indra Sawhney Case, which examines in-depth, the case of Indra Sawhney, the use of ‘caste’ as a factor in determining backwardness for the purpose of reservation, and the delicate balance between the needs of the society and the constitutional vision.  

We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

II.  The Mandal Commission and the case of Indra Sawhney

A. The Mandal Commission and its Recommendations

In the year 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) was set up which was tasked with, inter alia, determining the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes. After an exhaustive survey, the Mandal Commission identified 52% of the Indian population as “Socially and Economically Backward Classes” (SEBCs). Subsequently, it recommended a 27% reservation for SEBCs in addition to the previously existing 22.5% reservation for SC/STs.

In the year 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced that his government would implement reservations on the basis of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.[1] Two office memoranda, O.M. No. 36012/13/90-Estt (SCT) dated August 13, 1990 as amended by O.M. No. 36012/13/90-Estt(SCT) dated September 25, 1990 sought to enforce these recommendations. The decision sparked widespread controversy and led to thousands of students coming out onto the streets to protest against the decision. There was a complete breakdown of law and order and some students even immolated themselves.[2]

Continue Reading Casteism Much? – An Analysis of Indra Sawhney: Part II

Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017

This is the third blog piece in our series entitled “Those Were the Days”, which is published monthly. 

This is a two-part piece which analyses the Indra Sawhney Case – a case that is famous for both settling several issues and unsettling several others in the great Indian backward-class-reservation jurisprudence. Published here is Part I of the piece, which examines the legal history of affirmative action in India.   

We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

The “Mandal Commission Report” and the controversy that followed it, is etched in the memory of every Indian. By upholding the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the Apex Court judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, established a central role for itself in every debate on the sensitive issue of reservations in India.

One of the avowed objectives of the Indian Constitution is the creation of an egalitarian society, including, and especially, by way of the eradication of caste and the caste system. In support of this objective, several successive governments have devised various affirmative action policies to eradicate caste and support the social mobility of backward classes. These measures typically include reserving seats in representative and educational institutions or public employment for members of certain classes that have been traditionally and historically marginalised. However, over time, these measures have become a tool for populism and to appease certain communities. Therefore, every time such a measure is introduced, it has resulted in dividing public opinion and caused widespread controversy. On some occasions, this divide has escalated into public demonstrations and even riots, for or against reservation.[1]

When these hotly contested measures have come up for adjudication, the judiciary’s role has not been easy; it has to account for social realities, while simultaneously grounding its decision within the sacred framework of the Constitution. One recurrent controversy that has arisen on multiple occasions before the Apex Court is the criteria for determining backwardness in order to qualify for reservation. There have been several cases that directly deal with this question. Of these, the most significant is the 1992 decision of by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217 [2] (Indra Sawhney).

Continue Reading Casteism Much? – An Analysis of Indra Sawhney: Part I

India Makes it into Top 100 in ‘Ease of Doing Business’ Rankings

Three years ago, India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, had expressed his desire to see India amongst the top 50 nations in terms of ease of doing business.

On October 31st, 2017 with the release of the World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2018 (Report), this dream is now racing towards to becoming a reality. After continuous and vigorous legislative overhauling, coupled with regulatory and infrastructural reforms, India surged up 30 places to the 100th rank among 190 countries. The Report lists India as one of the 10 improvers this year. We briefly explore the key reforms which have led to this historic jump in the rankings.

Leaps Across Sectors

The Report is based on how easy it is for companies to do business, and it also takes into account certain regulations based on 10 parameters, which are listed below. India has improved its standing in 6 out of these 10 indicators. These are as follows:

Continue Reading India Makes it into Top 100 in ‘Ease of Doing Business’ Rankings

One Size Fits All Regulating Peer-To-Peer Lending Platforms

Technological innovation is the new normal in the financial services sector. The evolution of every aspect of this industry in the past few years has been truly transformational, whether it is access to funds, demand creation/aggregation or even payment systems. The inception and growth of peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms in India is one such example. P2P platforms effectively function as an online marketplace for lenders and borrowers, for a commission. A need for regulatory oversight was considered by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), given the recent rise in the number of such operators and their integration into the financial services sector.

The RBI outlined its proposal to regulate such platforms in its consultation paper issued last year. Following notification on August 24, 2017 categorising P2P lending platforms as Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), the RBI has finally issued its widely anticipated master directions on October 04, 2017 (Master Directions).

Continue Reading One Size Fits All? Regulating Peer-To-Peer Lending Platforms

Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017

This is the second piece in our series entitled “Those Were the Days”, which is published monthly. We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

This post deals with Securities Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) interpretation of the term “Unpublished Price Sensitive Information” (UPSI) arising from the alleged insider trading by Hindustan Lever Limited (now Hindustan Unilever Limited) (HLL) in its purchase of shares of Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (BBLIL).

While the subject SEBI order employed provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (1992 Regulations), this post also analyses the relevant provisions of the subsequently notified SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (2015 Regulations) in relation the subject case.

Case Analysis: Hindustan Lever Limited v. SEBI[1]

The facts of the case concerned the purchase by HLL of 8 lakh shares of BBLIL from the Unit Trust of India (UTI) on March 25, 1996. This purchase was made barely two weeks prior to a public announcement for a proposed merger of HLL with BBLIL.

Continue Reading Insider Trading: Hindustan Lever Limited v. SEBI