SEBI’s Latest Discussion Paper on Insider Trading Regulations

Prosecuting insider trading cases has always been a challenge for the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Primary evidence is difficult to come by, which impacts success rates as well as investigation timelines.

On June 10, 2019, SEBI released a discussion paper (Discussion Paper) proposing amendments to the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (Insider Trading Regulations) to establish systems and processes (both within listed companies, as well as, at SEBI) that incentivise individuals to report insider trading violations, if they come to their knowledge. In terms of the Discussion Paper, the informant may be rewarded up to INR 1 crore (approx. USD 150,000) if SEBI undertakes disgorgement of at least INR 5 crores (approx. USD 0.72 million) as a result of any action taken on the basis of true, credible and original information. Continue Reading Bounty Hunting in Corporate India – Understanding SEBI’s Latest Discussion Paper on the Insider Trading Regulations

 

70% Conundrum - Haryana RERA

There is a requirement under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Act) to keep aside 70% of receivables from allottees in a separate, designated bank account (RERA Account). This has, from the outset, been viewed as a measure of great reform that would prevent siphoning of funds and ensure that money collected for the purpose of a particular project is, in fact, used for that project. However, the manner and method of utilisation and withdrawal of money lying in the RERA Account has always been a matter for considerable discussion and debate.

Illustratively, the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has, in April 2019, directed banks not to adjust interest payments against the money that is required to be deposited in the RERA Account. This issue has recently come to the fore and become a matter of serious deliberation in Haryana.   Continue Reading The 70% Conundrum (Part I) – What Does the Haryana RERA Imply?

RBI FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLUTION OF STRESSED ASSETS BLOG

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019 (“New Framework”) on June 07, 2019[1] in which the RBI has continued the core principles of its circular dated February 12, 2018 (“February 12 Circular”) and has added provisions encouraging both informal and formal restructuring in India. The New Framework creates an enabling framework for restructuring and resolutions outside the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) as well as encourages use of IBC as a restructuring tool. It applies to banks, financial institutions as well as large non-banking financing companies (“NBFCs”) (the February 12 Circular did not apply to NBFCs) and also requires asset reconstruction companies to adhere to the relevant resolution framework under the inter-creditor agreement (see below). Continue Reading BANKS TO LEAD RESOLUTION EFFORTS – THE NEW RBI FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLUTION OF STRESSED ASSETS

 

P2P lending in India Rules and Regulations

Fintech has massively transformed money flow and settlement transactions among millennials. Out of numerous existing fintech models, one is peer to peer (P2P) lending. P2P lending platforms play the role of an intermediary between two individuals, the lender and the borrower. With the upscaling growth rate of such platforms it has become a target for regulatory attention and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) came up with regulation on October 4, 2017, vide the master direction bearing number DNBR(PD) 090/0.10.124/2017-18 (Master Direction) on non-banking financial peer-to-peer lending platforms.[1]

The Master Direction covers all prospective and existing P2P platforms (NBFC-P2P), which perform as P2P lending platforms on the fulfilment of certain conditions (one of which includes holding a net-owned fund of INR 2 crore). These registered P2P lending platforms would appear on the RBI list of registered NBFC-P2Ps as and when granted the certificate of registration. As per the last updated list[2], there are 11 NBFC- P2Ps registered while more than 50 still exist and are awaiting clearance from the RBI, Department of Non-Banking Regulation, Mumbai. Continue Reading Peer to Peer Lending in India: A Chinese Lesson Well Learnt!

 

Part I - REIT Management Frameworks

 

*This is the first part of an eight-part series covering the commercial and legal considerations of REIT listings in India

Setting up a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) involves a number of synchronised actions by all parties to the REIT including the Sponsors, Sponsor Group, Trustee, Manager, Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and their respective stakeholders.

Apart from settling the trust, one of the principal obligations of the Sponsors includes contribution of the initial portfolio of assets to the REIT (immediately preceding the closure of the public issue). While the assets may be transferred through various means, the favoured (and tax efficient) option is for the Sponsor to swap its shares in the SPVs housing the portfolio assets in exchange for REIT Units. Thus, the REIT becomes the shareholder and owner of the assets, the Sponsors become Unitholders of the REIT and the REIT Manager (which is typically controlled/ managed by the Sponsors), is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the affairs of the newly acquired assets, through an investment management framework. Continue Reading Part I – REIT Management Frameworks – An Exercise in Navigating Split Allegiances

Listen to this post

SEBI’s Framework for Innovation Sandbox - Fintech

Amidst the fast-paced growth of the fintech industry in India, financial regulators in the country have been swift to recognise each such development and keep pace with the market. One particularly interesting development is the global adoption of regulatory sandboxes.

From 2016, a range of committees constituted by different financial regulators began to advocate adoption of regulatory sandboxes, drawing from success stories in other jurisdictions.[1] But 2019 marks a significant moment, as three of India’s prominent financial regulators have rolled-out either draft or final frameworks on regulatory sandboxes for fintech.[2]

The frameworks seek to spur fintech innovation in India and have been welcomed by all stakeholders alike. The framework released by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) adopts a particularly holistic approach towards regulation of many different aspects of a sandbox. In this post, we seek to critique the ‘Framework for Innovation Sandbox’, released by SEBI on May 20, 2019 (Sandbox Framework). Continue Reading Innovation in the Sands of Time: A Critique of SEBI’s Framework for Innovation Sandbox

US DOJ Guidance Document : Corporate Compliance

On April 30, 2019, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published a guidance document, “The Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (Guidance), aiming to provide greater transparency into its prosecution decisions. While the Guidance is primarily meant for the consumption of prosecutors considering an investigation and/or bringing charges against a corporation, it provides valuable insight for compliance conscious entities that are proactively looking to develop and further strengthen their corporate compliance programme (CCP).

The Guidance complements the principles set out in the Justice Manual, which describes specific factors that prosecutors must take into consideration, including inter alia, the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance programme at the time of both the offence and the charging decision, and the corporation’s remedial efforts to implement an adequate and effective corporate compliance programme or to improve an existing one. Additionally, the US Sentencing Guidelines advise that consideration should be given to whether the corporation had in place at the time of the misconduct an effective compliance programme to calculate the appropriate criminal fine. Continue Reading DOJ’s New Guidance Document: Is it Time to Re–evaluate your Corporate Compliance Programme?

Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments

The past year has witnessed a massive increase in sanctions-related enforcement activity and has indeed caused a stir in the global sanctions landscape. Under the new administration, the US re-imposed all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, culminating in the largest ever single set of sanctions designations to date.

With the heightened global regulatory environment and the aggressive stance of enforcement agencies, it has been made rather clear that sanctions laws can no longer be ignored. Moreover, in an attempt to bring clarity to compliance expectations of the sanctions regime in the US, on May 02, 2019, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published the Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments (Framework). The Framework sets out OFAC’s key considerations for evaluating the efficacy of a sanctions compliance programme (SCP) and in turn determining whether mitigation of civil monetary penalties ought to be granted. Continue Reading Are You Ready to Make a Commitment? A Glimpse into the Newly Introduced OFAC Compliance Commitments

Challenges and Opportunities in the Indian Media and Entertainment Industry - Film Industry

The media and entertainment industry in India enjoyed a stellar performance in 2018, with the film segment expanding by 12.2% to reach an annual revenue of INR 174.5 billion. Of this amount, the domestic film revenues crossed INR 100 billion with Net Box Office Collections for Hindi films at INR 32.5 billion – the highest ever.

The number of Hollywood films released in India fell from 105 in 2017 to 98 in 2018. Hollywood films (consolidated with Indian language dubbed versions) reached Net Box Office Collections of INR 9.21 billion. Thirteen Hindi films reached the INR 100 crore mark in 2018, the highest number the industry has ever seen. Multiplexes added to the total screen count to reach 9,601; however, the number of single screens declined.[1] Continue Reading Challenges and Opportunities in the Indian Film Industry

Listen to this post

Difference between International Investment Arbitrations and International Commercial Arbitrations

A foreign investor’s power to sue a host State plays a vital role in investment protection. Investment arbitration is undertaken to resolve disputes between a foreign investor and the host State and is also known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and differs from an International Commercial Arbitration (ICA/s) dispute due to the nature of the claim and the parties involved. While the former deals with disputes arising under a public treaty between two contracting States, the latter deals with disputes arising out of a commercial contractual obligation[1].

Under a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT/s), States ensure certain rights and protections to investors from the other contracting State[2]. These include Fair and Equitable Treatment, National Treatment, Most Favoured Nation (MFN), Protection from Expropriation to name a few. Each of these are protections accorded under international law and are usually negotiated upon by the contracting States, such that any derogation from the protections accorded give rise to the investor’s right to initiate an investment arbitration against the host State. Currently, there are 2,344 BITs and around 314 Treaties with Investment Provisions in force globally[3]. Continue Reading International Investment Arbitrations and International Commercial Arbitrations: A Guide to the Differences