SEBI amends FPI Regulations to permit registration of AIFs in IFSC with resident sponsors managers as FPIs

Previously, RBI had permitted Indian entities to make mandatory sponsor commitment to AIFs in IFSC under the ‘automatic route’

Introduction

Alternative Investment Funds (“AIFs”) set up in an International Financial Services Centre (“IFSC”) are required to register themselves as Foreign Portfolio Investors (“FPIs”), for being able to invest inter alia in securities listed on Indian stock exchanges or in specific listed or unlisted corporate debt securities of Indian companies. Since entities set up in IFSCs are equivalent to ‘non-residents’ for the purposes of Indian foreign exchange regulations, restrictions placed by Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) and the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) on participation of Indian residents in FPIs are, by default, applicable to AIFs in IFSC. Considering that AIFs may be set up by managers/ sponsors who are resident Indian entities and that the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (“AIF Regulations”), require managers/ sponsors of AIFs to make mandatory sponsor commitment[1] to the AIF, it is imperative that the restrictions on residents investing in FPIs do not conflict with the mandatory sponsor commitment requirements under AIF Regulations, as applicable to AIFs in IFSC.

Continue Reading SEBI amends FPI Regulations to permit registration of AIFs in IFSC with resident sponsors/ managers as FPIs

SEBI Prescribes New Registration Requirement

Marking a significant departure from the erstwhile position, SEBI has mandated that Cat I and II AIF managers should procure Portfolio Management license for facilitating Co-investments

Fund managers desirous of facilitating Co-investments for contributors, sponsors or themselves, in connection with their Category I or Category II AIFs (“Cat I and/or II AIFs”), shall be required to register themselves with SEBI as ‘Co-investment Portfolio Manager’ (as defined below) i.e. a new category of portfolio managers under SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 2020 (“SEBI PM Regulations”), effective from December 9, 2021.

Continue Reading SEBI Prescribes New Registration Requirement for Cat I & II AIF Managers Facilitating Co-Investments

Decoding SEBI’s latest amendments to the RPT regime

Background

After a prolonged and anxious wait, on November 9, 2021, SEBI finally notified its far-reaching amendments to the regulatory regime for Related Party Transactions (“RPT”). The amendments[1] to the RPT regulatory regime under the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 (“LODR”), have their genesis in the Report of the Working Group on RPTs (“WG Report”), which was issued by SEBI on January 27, 2020.

Continue Reading Decoding SEBI’s latest amendments to the RPT regime

Arbitral Tribunal

INTRODUCTION

Recently, in the case of Godrej Properties Ltd. v. Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.[i], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot pass ex-parte orders on the mere filing of an Application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court has further distinguished the powers of an arbitral tribunal to pass interim orders under the Act from those enjoyed by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Continue Reading Parties to be Given an Advance Notice of Hearing – The Bombay High Court Sets Aside an Ex-Parte Order Passed by the Arbitral Tribunal

Aircraft Leasing in IFSC

The Government of India (“GOI”) has, in the recent years, realised the importance of aircraft leasing activities in the global market and has made its intentions clear to promote aircraft leasing and financing activities in India’s first International Financial Services Centre (“IFSC”) situated in GIFT City, Gandhinagar. The aim is to bring the aircraft leasing business,  currently being carried out in countries that have established themselves in this sector such as Ireland, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc[1], to the Indian shores. Leasing aircraft from abroad leads to incurring substantial liabilities payable in foreign currencies. Hedging currency fluctuations also becomes an additional cost for Indian airline operating companies. The above reasons highlight cost-inefficiencies and put into perspective how crucial it is to begin aircraft leasing and financing activities in India.

Continue Reading Part III (A): Aircraft Leasing in IFSC – Let’s kick the tires and light the fires!

SEBI Notifies Renewed Process for PPM Filing by AIFs

“PPM filings will now be based on due diligence by merchant bankers

I.  Introduction

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) at its board meeting held on August 6, 2021, announced a wide array of changes to the regulatory regime governing alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) in India. We had analysed the amendments and their effect in a prior regulatory update. Amongst the changes announced was a procedural update. The securities regulator had mandated that all private placement memoranda (“PPM”), the offer document shared with potential investors in an AIF, must be filed with it through a merchant banker.

Continue Reading SEBI Notifies Renewed Process for PPM Filing by AIFs

Interpreting Insurance Contracts: Special Considerations – Part II

In part I of this blog, we have discussed some of the principles of interpretation set and relied upon by Courts whilst construing and interpreting insurance contracts, including that of strict construction, essentials of an insurance contract and the requirement of Uberrimei fidei i.e., good faith. In this part, we will delve into other principles which form the basis for interpretation of insurance contracts, including presumption as to materiality of information sought, effect of misrepresentation and the applicability of the rule of contra proferentem to insurance contracts

Continue Reading Interpreting Insurance Contracts: Special Considerations – Part II

Interpreting Insurance Contracts Special Considerations – Part I

Insurance is the act of providing against a possible loss, by entering into a contract with one who is willing to give assurance — that is, to bind himself to make good such loss should it occur. In this contract, the chances of benefit are equal to the insurer and the insured. The first actually pays a certain sum and the latter undertakes to pay a larger, if an accident should happen. The one renders his property secure; the other receives money with the probability that it is clear gain. The instrument by which the contract is made is called a policy; the stipulated consideration a premium.[i]

Continue Reading Interpreting Insurance Contracts: Special Considerations – Part I

Explaining the rudimentary principles of proving contradictions in a criminal trial

The craft of cross examination is often tested by the ingenuity of a trial lawyer in impeaching the credibility of a witness by extracting contradictions such that his previous testimony becomes unworthy of belief. The art of cross examination has always been deemed the surest test of truth and a better security than oath[1]. The method lies in introducing and proving an otherwise inadmissible evidence, with a masterful knowledge of the underlying laws of evidence. At a macro level, the broad contours of impeaching the credit of a witness is contemplated under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the “Act”), where under inter alia proving contradictions play a formidable part. Superior courts in India have time and again emphasised on the imperativeness of proving contradictions in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 145 the Act. Whilst, in a large measure, Section 145 of the Act is worded to take within its fold the procedure for proving contradictions in both criminal and civil trials by an adverse party, outlined below is an attempt at non-exhaustively analysing the procedure for extracting and proving contradictions in a criminal trial.

Continue Reading Explaining the Rudimentary Principles of Proving Contradictions in a Criminal Trial