BY AAKRITI RIKHI, THIRD YEAR STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU
I. Introduction
On 10th July 2024, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) ordered Religare Enterprises Ltd. (“REL”) to comply with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) order vis-à-vis the open offer by the Burman Group. This was in light of opposition by the board of directors (“Board”) of REL, the target company, to the proposed acquisition. The interim order by SEBI blocks all attempts by the Board to oppose such a takeover, even as the Board may act in the interests of the stakeholders of the company. [GA1] The fundamental problem with this order is SEBI’s notion that the Board is accountable to the shareholders only (when a hostile bid is made) and not to all stakeholders of the company.
This decision in effect, solidifies the Indian position on hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers are allowed as long as there is a compliance with the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers (“SAST”) Regulations[GA2] , 2011. As per these regulations[GA3] , a limited set of responsibility is upon the Board of the target company, which is owed to the shareholders only. Upon a public announcement of an open offer for acquiring shares of the target company, the Board of the target company cannot act on the offer [R24] without the approval of the shareholders. This, I argue, is extremely constraining. Considering the shift towards the stakeholder model as codified by Section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013[GA5] (“the Act”), it has become necessary to bestow some scope to act to the Board in the case of a takeover. The current legal framework has not accounted for this shift and as a result, there is a clear imprint of the shareholder-primacy model.
This post proposes a re-evaluation of the current legal framework to bring it in line with Section 166 the Act. It does so by firstly, highlighting the problematic assumption of the SEBI order in Religare. Secondly, it rebuts this assumption through a brief analysis of the model followed by India vis-à-vis the duties of directors and finally, using this analysis, it argues for empowering directors with the scope to act during hostile takeovers.
II. Analysing the SEBI order: An imprint of the shareholder model
In the case of REL, prior to the public announcement for acquisition of more shares, the acquirers held 21.54% shares of REL. With the proposed acquisition, the shareholding of the acquirer would have increased beyond 25%, triggering an open offer under Regulation 3(1) and 4 of the SAST Regulations, 2011[GA6] . In relation to this open offer, the Board of REL had constituted a Committee of Independent Directors, which had raised objections to the proposed acquisition, on the ground that the acquirers were not ‘fit and proper’ persons for acquiring shares in the target company. There was no evidence provided in support of these allegations.
In its interim order, SEBI held that the refusal of the target company to seek statutory approvals from regulators, which would enable the acquirers to discharge their legal obligations and provide an exit option to shareholders in the open offer, defeats the objects of the law and goes against the established canons of corporate governance. As per SEBI, the management of the target company is a representative of the shareholders and cannot act against their rights and interests.
This ignores the fact that directors owe fiduciary duties to the company and not merely to the shareholders. The fundamental problem with this order is the assumption that shareholders are the only decision-makers of the company. By accounting for only the shareholder’s interests, the order renders the stakeholder model of the present statute otiose and is problematic for the target company.
This is symptomatic of our present legal framework for hostile takeovers as the following section will explain.
III. Duties of Directors during a hostile takeover under the current legal framework
During an acquisition, the management of a listed company is duty bound to act in the interests of its shareholders under broader corporate governance norms, enshrined in the provisions of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. Regulation 4(2) imposes a mandatory duty on the listed company to protect and facilitate the exercise of the rights of shareholders. This is also reflected in the SAST Regulations 2011. As per Regulation 26(2) of SAST Regulations, the Board of the target company cannot take any substantive action without a special resolution of the shareholders. Further, the Board has to constitute a committee of independent directors to provide reasoned recommendations on an open offer. These recommendations have to be provided to the shareholders of the target company. The Board only exercises an advisory role wherein it has no choice but to facilitate the acquirer in the open offer process. This is consistent with the U.K. Takeover Code. This code has enshrined similar provisions on the duty of the Board in case of a takeover. This is termed as the ‘non-frustration rule’. This rule is established to set aside the management when hostile bids are imminent so that the shareholders have the final say on the merits of the bid.
In the Indian context, the rationale for this lies in the structure and organisation of companies. Indian companies typically have concentrated shareholding. They have founding families ‘promoters’ with dominant shareholding positions. This, it has been contended[R27] , blocks against a hostile takeover. As a result, there was no contemplation over promoters not holding large stakes while bringing these regulations. Furthermore, there is an assumption implicit in this rationale that the promoters owe a statutory duty to the company as they are endowed with the scope to act in case of a takeover and not the Board. As the next section establishes, it is ultimately the directors who owe a statutory duty to the company and not the promoters.
IV. Section 166: A codification of the stakeholder model
Section 166 of the Act lays down the duties of directors. This was the first time that India had codified the duties of directors[R28] . Section 166(2) highlights who these duties are owed to. It has been contended that the wording of this provision indicates a concrete shift from the shareholder primacy model to the stakeholder model. The shareholder primacy model is based on the theory that the Board of directors derives its powers from the shareholders and therefore, the role of directors is to promote the interests of the shareholders. The stakeholder model views the company’s activities as affecting the society in genera[R29] l. It emphasizes that the role of a company’s directors is not limited to maximising shareholder value but also to account for the interests of other stakeholders, without prioritising one over the other. Therefore, to summarise, the shareholder-primacy model prioritises the interests of the shareholder at the expense of others in the company. It only recognises the profit-driven stake of the shareholders while the stakeholder model situates the company in the larger society.
Historically, India has fluctuated between these models. During the colonial and the post-Independence period, we adhered to the shareholder model. With the 1960s socialist era, the company was beginning to be seen as having a public character so, we shifted towards the stakeholder model. But, with the 1990s liberalisation policies, we reverted back to the shareholder primacy model. As a result, there was a recognition that directors owe a fiduciary duty to the existing shareholders. This was reflected in the Companies Bill, 2009 [R210] wherein clause 147(2) recognised that directors owed duties to carry on the business of the company “for the benefit of its members as a whole” i.e., the shareholders. This was later amended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which recommended the inclusion of Section 166(2).
The UK on the other hand, followed a different trajectory. Through section 172 of the UK Companies Act, 2006 the enlightened shareholder value model was adopted. This is a variation of the shareholder primacy model where directors are required to have regard to non-shareholder interests as a means of enhancing shareholder value over the long term. So, a hierarchy has been created wherein the shareholder interests are at the top while stakeholder interests remain at the bottom. This interpretation of Section 172 has been upheld recently by the UK Supreme Court as well.
Overall, it can be seen that India casts a positive duty on directors to account for other stakeholders whereas UK considers this to be a secondary consideration (if a consideration at all). In light of this duty, it becomes imperative to empower directors to act against a hostile bid.
V. Why should directors have scope to act against a hostile bid?
India’s shift towards the stakeholder model signifies that a body which is accountable to the company and its stakeholders shall exercise the broader decision-making power of the company. When seen in this context, it is apparent that the rationale of allowing the promoters to act does not necessarily hold water. This is because promoters do not owe any statutory duty to the company. The 2013 Act prescribes only two duties of promoters: duty not to make secret profit and duty to disclose to the company any interest in a transaction.[i] This is quite limited when compared with the duties of directors under Section 166. Further, in the case of a promoter being a majority shareholder, there are only two restrictionsprescribed by the Act: limit on the power to alter the MOA and limiting the power from committing fraud on the minority.
More specifically, in the context of a takeover, there is no mandate imposed on the promoter/shareholder to take into account stakeholder interests. Whereas by reading the duties of directors to include the scope to act in a takeover, there will be a positive duty imposed on them. This becomes significant as a takeover can impact other stakeholders such as employees adversely. For instance, during the Mindtree acquisition by L&T, there was the risk of a cultural mismatch as Mindtree followed an informal culture while L&T followed a command-and-control and top-down management. We can clearly see that by empowering only promoters with control to act in a takeover, there can be severe consequences as they are not bound to account for the interests of other stakeholders.
Therefore, India can no longer afford to continue following the non-frustration rule of the UK Takeover Code. The rule still works for the UK because it has adhered to the shareholder primacy model. It no longer works for India as our understanding of a company is that of an entity having a public character. This is evident from the mandatory CSR obligations under Section 135 of the Act.
VI. Conclusion
The purpose of this post is to prompt a review of our takeover-friendly SAST Regulations. Our present law is located at one end of the spectrum as it completely prohibits any action by directors during a hostile takeover. However, we are at a unique position where we can attain a balanced position by providing some scope to directors to act while formulating a standard of review of directors’ actions under Section 166. If we continue with our current framework, we are likely to run into problems as in the case of Religare wherein the directors have no choice but to delay the inevitable through vague mechanisms.
[i] Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., (1878) LR 3 App Cas. 1218, 1236, Gluckstein v. Barnes (1900) AC 240. Also note that Sections 34 and 35 of the Companies Act impose liability for untrue statements in prospectus and sections 339 and 447 impose liabilities on promoters for fraudulent trading.
The HNLU CCLS Blog 
Leave a comment