The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Author: HNLU CCLS

  • Algorithmic Enforcement and Anti-Competitive Effects: CCI vs. Swiggy and Zomato

    Algorithmic Enforcement and Anti-Competitive Effects: CCI vs. Swiggy and Zomato

    BY VASHMATH POTLURI, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT NALSAR, HYDERABAD

    INTRODUCTION

    The food delivery market in India has been one of the most dynamic and volatile markets, witnessing the quick exit of players like Uber Eats and Food Panda, among others, while being dominated by Zomato and Swiggy with a whopping market share of 58% and 42%, respectively. While there are many factors for such dominance, the recent allegations of Price Parity Clauses (“PPCs”) and exclusive agreements by the National Restaurants Association of India (“NRAI”) against both these platforms shed some light on the reasons for such market share. The findings of the Director General (“DG”), as reported by Reuters, indicate that the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) is proceeding against these platforms under section 3(4)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) based on the presumption that Swiggy and Zomato operate in a vertical framework as intermediaries distinct from their restaurant partners. However, this article challenges this presumption and argues that Swiggy and Zomato’s ownership of cloud kitchens transforms their relationship with restaurants into one of direct competition. As a result, this paper pushes for a reclassification of this case under Section 3(3)(a) and (b), enabling a shift from a ‘rule of reason’ approach to a per se standard. 

    The article advances this argument in a two-fold manner. First, it will analyze the anti-competitive effects of PPCs and exclusivity agreements, particularly in conjunction with Swiggy and Zomato’s cloud kitchens. Second, it will examine the role of dynamic algorithms in furthering these practices, proposing the introduction of the Algorithmic Facilitation Standard (“AFS”) in the Act, to ensure regulatory scrutiny and transparency in the market in line with the approach of the EU. 

    HORIZONTAL PRICE FIXING AND MARKET ALLOCATION

    The allegations by the NRAI that Swiggy and Zomato operate their cloud kitchens and enter into arrangements such as PPCs and exclusivity agreements throw light on the dominance of these platforms through anti-competitive practices. These practices demonstrate that these platforms are not merely intermediaries with restaurants as downstream partners, but competitors operating simultaneously in both the food preparation and delivery markets. This dual role works to the detriment of independent restaurants. 

    In the MakeMyTrip (“MMT-GO”) case, the CCI assessed the anti-competitive effects of wide Price Parity Clauses (“PPCs”) and exclusivity partnerships in a vertical framework between MakeMyTrip, Goibibo, and OYO with their hotel partners. The CCI found that these agreements restricted hotels from offering lower prices or better terms on competing platforms, creating entry barriers and limiting consumer choice. As a result, the CCI held that these agreements resulted in an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (“AAEC”) — a standard under Section 19(3) of the Act, which examines factors such as foreclosure of competition, barriers to entry, and harm to consumer choice. Relying on these findings, this article argues that the anti-competitive practices of Swiggy and Zomato produce identical effects, such as inflated prices and foreclosure of competition, but in a horizontal framework rather than a vertical one. 

    Applying the findings of the MMT-GO on wide PPCs, the PPCs entered into by Swiggy and Zomato are wide because they suppress competition in the market by mandating that restaurants maintain uniform prices across all channels, including their direct platforms and competing delivery services. This eliminates price differentiation and forces restaurants to inflate prices, depriving consumers of competitive pricing or discounts. These clauses also ensure that Swiggy and Zomato’s cloud kitchens are insulated from price competition, as restaurants cannot undercut them even when operating more cost-effectively. On the other hand, exclusivity agreements further suppress competition by restricting restaurants from listing on competing platforms or offering direct delivery services, creating a “lock-in” effect. This limits consumer access to popular restaurants and forecloses rival platforms from competing effectively. 

    These arrangements unfairly establish the dominance of Swiggy and Zomato’s cloud kitchens by allowing them to leverage vast data generated through their platforms. This data provides critical insights into consumer preferences, including popular cuisines, peak ordering times, delivery locations, and pricing trends. Using this information, Swiggy and Zomato can strategically design their cloud kitchen offerings to align with market demand precisely, bypassing the trial-and-error process faced by independent restaurants. They can quickly identify underserved cuisines or delivery zones and establish cloud kitchens to fill these gaps with minimal risk and cost. This data-driven approach grants their cloud kitchens a significant competitive edge over independent restaurants, which lack access to such comprehensive data and must rely on slower, costlier market research methods.

    The combined effects of PPC, exclusivity agreement, and cloud kitchens on a horizontal level, results in the creation of barriers to entry and foreclosure of competition, causing an AAEC under Section 19(3)(a) to (c). Hence, this article argues that the CCI must re-examine this case under Section 3(3)(a) and (b) through a ‘per se’ approach. Taking inspiration from the EU’s Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”), which removed wide PPCs from the regulatory exemption, the CCI could impose cease-and-desist orders and monetary penalties, ensuring a competitive marketplace.

    ALGORITHMIC FACILIATATION STANDARD

    Swiggy and Zomato’s algorithms play a crucial role in enforcing PPCs and exclusivity agreements, amplifying their anti-competitive effects. These platforms use algorithms to monitor pricing across various channels, including restaurants’ direct platforms and competing delivery services, ensuring strict compliance with PPCs. By scanning for pricing discrepancies, the algorithms flag instances where restaurants offer lower prices on alternative channels. Non-compliant restaurants face automated penalties, such as reduced visibility in search results or exclusion from promotional campaigns, discouraging price competition. Similarly, these algorithms enforce exclusivity agreements by tracking restaurants’ activities on competing platforms. Exclusive partners receive preferential treatment, such as enhanced visibility, while restaurants breaching exclusivity face reduced exposure, limiting their ability to attract orders.

    Operating as a “black box,” these algorithms lack transparency, leaving restaurants unaware of the reasons for penalties or visibility changes. This creates a unilateral power dynamic that disproportionately favours Swiggy and Zomato, making it difficult for restaurants to challenge or adapt to platform policies.  In this context, the article proposes that the AFS identify the role of such algorithms and bring them under regulatory scrutiny. Under this, the CCI would be required to follow a two-step inquiry-

    MANDATORY ALGORITHMIC DISCLOSURES: 

    The first step in the proposed AFS is to mandate disclosures by Swiggy and Zomato regarding their algorithmic decision-making. These platforms must provide information about the design, operation, and structure of their algorithms, specifically in relation to penalizing or incentivizing restaurants. Such disclosures should be made to the DG under Section 36(4)(b) of the Act during the investigation stage. This requirement mirrors the EU Platform to business regulations 2019/1150, which mandates transparency in ranking criteria, ensuring that platforms do not manipulate search results based on monetary compensation or preferential treatment.

    EFFECTS BASED OUTCOME ANALYSIS:

    The second step shifts the scrutiny from intent to effects, applying an effects-based outcome analysis to assess whether these algorithms control prices, foreclose competition, or limit consumer choice by restricting visibility or promotions. If these practices result in an AAEC, the burden of disproving their anti-competitive impact should shift onto Swiggy and Zomato, allowing the CCI to order a rollback of such algorithms, if necessary. This aligns with the EU Court of Justice’s ruling in the Google Shopping case which found algorithmic self-preferencing anti-competitive, and rejected short-term efficiency arguments as justifications for long-term market harm. Likewise, under Section 19(3)(d) to (f) of the Act, any efficiency claims by Swiggy and Zomato should be dismissed if they come at the expense of competition.

    WAY FORWARD

    This article proposes that the AFS could be incorporated into the Act in two ways. First, under the ‘Hub-and-Spoke’ model, introduced through the Competition Amendment Act, 2023, wherein, a central entity (hub) can facilitate anti-competitive coordination among independent entities (spokes), even if they do not explicitly collude with each other. In this context, Swiggy and Zomato function as hubs, using algorithms to impose price parity and exclusivity conditions on restaurants (spokes), effectively orchestrating market behavior without direct collusion between restaurants. Second, the liability of Swiggy and Zomato could be invoked under Section 2(b), as part of tacit collusion through algorithmic enforcement. Since intent is irrelevant under ‘per se’ approach, the AFS would impute intent constructively, aligning with the Competition Law Review Committee 2019’s recommendation of a “guilty until proven otherwise” standard in cases involving algorithmic anti-competitive practices.

    CONCLUSION

    While the case is still pending before the CCI, this article has established that Swiggy and Zomato’s anti-competitive practices produce effects similar to horizontal price fixing and market allocation under Section 3(3)(a) & (b). A reclassification accordingly would enable for a shift to ‘per se’ from ‘rule of reason’, under which the entire burden to prove the anti-competitive effects rests on the complainant, and in such situations where these practices are furthered by opaque algorithms, it becomes difficult to hold Swiggy and Zomato responsible for their actions. Thus, under the AFS, the mere presence of algorithms and assessment of their prima-facie effects after due disclosure to the CCI, the burden to disprove AAEC would be heavy on Swiggy and Zomato. This reclassification would represent a significant jurisprudential shift, setting a precedent for addressing algorithm-driven anti-competitive practices and establishing a framework for future actions against quick commerce platforms.

  • Examining the Flaws in SEBI’s Proposed AI & ML Regulations

    Examining the Flaws in SEBI’s Proposed AI & ML Regulations

    BY SACHIN DUBEY AND AJITESH SRIVASTAVA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT NLU, ODISHA AND LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

    INTRODUCTION

    Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) has become an integral part of our daily lives, influencing everything from smart home technology to cutting-edge medical diagnostics. However, it’s most profound influence is perhaps in transforming the landscape of securities market. AI has advanced the efficiency of investor services and compliance operations. This integration empowers stakeholders to make well-informed decisions, playing a pivotal role in market analysis, stock selection, investment planning, and portfolio management for their chosen securities.

    However, despite the advantages, AI poses risks such as algorithmic bias from biased data, lack of transparency in models, cybersecurity threats, and ethical concerns like job displacement and misuse, highlighting the need for strong regulatory oversight. Therefore, Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) vide consultation paper dated 13thNovember, 2024 proposed amendments holding regulated entities (‘REs’) accountable for the use of AI and machine learning (‘ML’) tools.  

    These amendments enable SEBI to take action in the event of any shortcomings in the use of AI/ML systems. SEBI emphasises that these entities are required to safeguard data privacy, be accountable for actions derived from AI outputs, and fulfil their fiduciary responsibility towards investor data, while ensuring compliance with applicable laws.

    In this article, the author emphasises the necessity of the proposed amendments while simultaneously highlighting their potential drawbacks. 

    NEED OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

    The need for proposing amendments holding REs accountable for AI/ML usage has arisen due to various risks associated with its usage. 

    AI relies heavily on customer inputs and datasets fed into them for arriving at its output. The problem is that humans have found it very difficult to understand or explain how AI arrives at its output. This is widely referred to as “black box problem”. In designing machine learning algorithms, programmers set the goals the algorithm needs to achieve but do not prescribe the exact steps it should follow to solve the problem. Instead, the algorithm creates its own model by learning dynamically from the given data, analysing inputs, and integrating new information to address the problem. This opacity surrounding explainibility of AI outputs raises concerns about accountability for AI-generated outcomes within the legal field.

    Further, if just one element in a dataset changes, it can cause the AI to learn and process information differently, potentially leading to outcomes that deviate from the intended use case. Data may contain inherent biases that reinforce flawed decision-making or include inaccuracies that lead the algorithm to underestimate the probability of rare yet significant events. This may lead to jeopardising the interests of customers and promoting discriminatory user biases. 

    Additionally, relying on large datasets for AI functionality poses considerable risks to privacy and confidentiality. AI models may sometimes be trained on datasets containing customers’ private information or insider data. In such situations, it becomes crucial to establish accountability for breaches of privacy and confidentiality. 

    SHORTCOMINGS

    SEBI’s proposal to amend regulations and assign responsibility for the use of AI and machine learning by REs is well-intentioned. However, it could create challenges for both regulated entities and industry players, potentially slowing down the adoption of AI and stifling innovation.

    a. Firstly, SEBI’s proposal to assign responsibility for AI usage adopts a uniform, one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, which may ultimately hinder technological innovation. Effective AI regulation requires greater flexibility, favouring a risk-based framework. This approach classifies AI systems based on their risk levels and applies tailored regulatory measures according to the associated risks. A notable example is the European Union’s AI Act which adopts a proportionate, risk-based approach to AI regulation. This framework introduces a graduated system of requirements and obligations based on the level of risk an AI system poses to health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Act classifies risks into four distinct categories- unacceptable risks, high risks, limited risks and minimal risks. As per the classification, certain AI practices which come under the category of unacceptable risks are completely prohibited while others have been allowed to continue with obligations imposed upon them to ensure transparency.  

    b. Secondly, while SEBI’s regulatory oversight of AI usage by REs is crucial for protecting investor interests, it is equally important to establish an internal management body to oversee the adoption and implementation of AI within these entities. SEBI could draw insights from the International Organization of Securities Commission’s (‘IOSCO’) final report on AI and machine learning in market intermediaries and asset management. The report recommends that regulated entities designate senior management to oversee AI/ML development, deployment, monitoring, and controls. It also advocates for a documented governance framework with clear accountability and assigning a qualified senior individual or team to approve initial deployments and major updates, potentially aligning this role with existing technology or data oversight.

    c. Thirdly, SEBI has entirely placed the responsibility for AI and machine learning usage on REs, neglecting to define the accountability of external stakeholders or third-party providers. REs significantly rely on third parties for AI/ML technologies to ensure smooth operations. Hence, it is vital to clearly outline the responsibilities of these third parties within the AI value chain. 

    d. Fourthly, the Asia Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association (‘ASIFMA’) raised a concern that financial institutions should not be held responsible for client decisions based on AI-generated outputs. It contends that it would be unjustified to hold institutions liable when an AI tool provides precise information, but the client subsequently makes an independent decision. This viewpoint goes against SEBI’s proposed amendments which seemingly endorses broader institutional liability.  

    e. Lastly, SEBI’s proposed amendments and existing regulations remain silent on the standards or requirements for the data sets (input data) utilized by AI/ML systems to carry out their functions. While the amendments imply that REs must ensure AI models are trained using data sets that either do not require consent (e.g., publicly available data) or have obtained appropriate consent, particularly under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), SEBI could have more explicitly define the standards for high-quality data sets suitable for AI/ML functionality particularly crucial when the data protection rules have not seen the light of the day.

    CONCLUSION

    While it is commendable that SEBI, recognizing the growing use of AI/ML tools in the financial sector, proposed amendments to hold REs accountable for their usage, it should have given due consideration to the factors mentioned above. Because it is vital to ensure that any policy introduced is crafted carefully in a way that does not, in any way, discourage innovation and growth in the emerging fields of AI and ML technology. 

  • Extra Cover: The Case for Regulating Sports Agents in Cricket

    Extra Cover: The Case for Regulating Sports Agents in Cricket

    BY SIMONE AVINASH VAIDYA, SECOND-YEAR STUDENT AT MNLU, MUMBAI

    Introduction

    The past two decades have witnessed an unprecedented boom in the commercialisation and commodification of Indian sport. An athlete’s horizon is no longer limited to the playing field, with production sets, brand shoots and promotional appearances routinely featuring as aspects of their professional obligations. It is common for A-list athletes to engage the services of Sports Agents or Agencies to manage their commercial ventures, and it is becoming increasingly prominent for upcoming sportspersons to sign with agents for this purpose. This practice has especially permeated the cricket pitch. This agreement comprises endorsements, team affiliations, compliance with regulatory guidelines and other brand ventures, with the agent essentially becoming the athlete’s manager.

    Indian sports are largely unregulated by the State in the absence of a comprehensive sports law and agency contracts in cricket are especially ad-hoc in their functioning. While other jurisdictions or authorities generally have codified laws or regulations pertaining to sports agents, India and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) do not prescribe comprehensive or even adequate guidelines for the same. Documentation and registration are the first steps in such regulation, and the BCCI has yet to implement even an accreditation system.

    This article seeks to establish the case for the regulation of agency contracts in cricket. While the rationale is applicable to all sports in India, the researcher focuses on the cricket field, shedding light on the virtual free hand given to player agents and managers. This article is structured along the same lines as Aditya Sondhi’s 2010 paper arguing the need for cricket legislation.

    Prognosis

    In the context of the dearth of laws and regulations for such agency relations, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘ICA’) serves as the governing statute. The enforceability of sports agency contracts flows from Chapters I, II and X of the ICA. The foundation of any sports agency contract is the agency-principal relationship, which is governed by Chapter X of the ICA, starting with Section 182. The multi-billion dollar valuation of the industry amplifies the high stakes as cricket agency contracts operate in a league of their own.  The ICA is a general law failing to meet the unique needs of these situations. It is insufficient to address every aspect of cricket agency contracts, and there are multiple reasons for the same.

    Firstly, the fervour around cricket in India is unparalleled, heightening financial and emotional stakes. Given this massive commercial landscape, sports agents wield significant power in managing business deals. With such high stakes, the potential for conflicts of interest becomes a serious concern. Agents often negotiate across multiple interests, including franchises, sponsors, and the athlete’s commercial rights, which may not always align with the player’s best interests. Cricketer Kamran Khan’s story garnered media attention, with reports of his agent demanding 25% of his IPL contract money. This was not the only instance of such exploitative practices coming to light- Zaheer Khan’s legal dispute with Percept D’Markr, a talent management agency, was decided by the Supreme Court in 2006. It was held that the agency’s Right of First Refusal clause was void on the grounds of restraint of trade, under Section 27 of the ICA.

    Similarly, there is a substantial risk of loss and hardship caused due to category locking. This refers to the practice of restricting an athlete’s ability to endorse products from competitors of their existing sponsors. While this practice is common in sports contracts, it can often lead to an unfair restriction on the athlete’s freedom to choose endorsements. This risk is prevalent in the light of an agent’s often unbridled authority to negotiate and enter into brand deals on behalf of the athlete.

    Secondly, the athlete’s personality rights stand the risk of being misused. Personality rights refer to the right of a person to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, likeness, and other personal attributes In India, while there is no dedicated legislation governing personality rights, athletes increasingly face challenges in protecting these rights from unauthorized commercial exploitation. Sports agencies have substantial power in this regard since they facilitate such agreements and transactions.

    Thirdly, the Mudgal Committee, constituted by the Supreme Court after the 2013 IPL Fixing Scandal, acknowledged the nefarious role played by some agents in its 2014 Report. Although the Report didn’t comprise an in-depth investigation of the same, it addressed the unethical conduct of these agents, and how they often serve as the bridge between the athlete and the bookie. This concern was also reiterated in the Lodha Committee Report, wherein the unscrupulous backgrounds of player agents were brought into question. The agent shares a fiduciary relationship with the athlete and is in a position of power while influencing them. This poses the risk of athletes being pressured by agents to engage in illicit and illegal activities, with younger or less experienced sportspersons being especially vulnerable to such influences.

    Furthermore, the culture of nepotism, non-accountability and excessive discretion in the cricket industry makes athletes reluctant to approach the courts for the redressal of their rights. The observation of favouritism at multiple levels of the cricket set-up also exacerbates the disinclination of athletes to speak up against potentially powerful sports agencies. In light of these varied considerations and interwoven complexities, it is evident that unregulated sports agencies are likely to become the malaise of the commercial world of cricket. The ICA is insufficient to meet the needs of such a uniquely dynamic landscape, and there is a pressing need to introduce- legislation for sports law at large, and rules for agency contracts in particular.

    Global Best Practices- France and the US

    France and the United States have enacted statutory regulations for sports agents, recognizing the need to effectively respond to the various challenges and exploitative practices in the industry.

    France has enacted the Code du Sport for this purpose. Sports agents in France must be licensed by the relevant sports federation, such as the Fédération Française de Football (‘FFF’) for football agents. To obtain a license, agents must meet educational and professional criteria, pass an exam, and adhere to ethical standards set by the federations. One of the key features of French sports law is its focus on transparency and athlete protection. Agents are required to have a written contract with the athlete, which must clearly outline their duties and the financial terms. The Code du Sport also imposes limits on the commissions agents can charge, typically capping them at a percentage of the athlete’s earnings. This prevents exploitation and ensures that athletes are not overcharged for agent services. Additionally, French law includes strict provisions on conflicts of interest and agent conduct. Agents cannot represent conflicting parties in the same deal, such as both a player and a club. Violations of these regulations can result in penalties, including fines, suspension, or revocation of an agent’s license.

    In the US, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act of 2004 (‘SPARTA’) and the Uniform Athlete Agents Act of 2015 (‘UAAA’) are in force to protect the duties of student-athletes signing with sports agents, in addition to the various state-specific laws. SPARTA delineates the duties of the agent, revolving around truthfulness and transparency. This creates an additional layer of obligations for sports agents, with unfair or deceptive acts being treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, subject to civil penalties. The UAAA in turn, is a model state law that provides for standardization, registration and certification of agents representing student-athletes. It also mandates express written contracts which include specific clauses, as stipulated under S. 10. Violation of the UAAA results in civil, as well as criminal penalties. However, it is to be noted that the SPARTA and UAAA are solely applicable to student-athletes, thereby excluding other professionals from its purview. There is no doubt that the SPARTA and UAAA suffer from several deficiencies, including their limited applicability. However, it cannot be said that this weakens the case for the regulation of cricket agents in India, which is negligible at present- the flaws in the application of a certain law cannot overshadow the need for regulation in another jurisdiction. 

    The Way Forward and the BCCI’s Prerogative

    Since the need for separate regulation of cricket agents has been clearly established, it is important to devise an effective and sound implementation system. Such a structure must account for accreditation, conflict of interest complications, transparency and ethical conduct. Currently, the BCCI is recognised as a private body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. In BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, the Supreme Court asserted that while the BCCI might be a private body, it discharges public functions with the tacit recognition of the State. The Court also observed that it possesses “complete sway over the game of cricket”, making it incumbent upon the BCCI to operate in the interests of justice and fair play. Therefore, the onus of introducing such regulations is on the Board itself due to its monopoly status in the field and Court-imposed responsibility of transparency and probity. These rules must be in the best interests of cricketers and must include several core regulatory measures. 

    Firstly, agents should be accredited as per the Lodha Report. It would not be unsuitable to prescribe certain qualifications for such agents and require them to pass licensing examinations. Though the BCCI announced an agent accreditation scheme in 2014 to regulate agents in cricket, there is little evidence of its implementation. According to news reports, the BCCI has failed to enforce the scheme effectively, and there is no information available about its actual enforcement, leaving cricketers vulnerable to unregulated agents. A major concern in the sports agent industry is the risk of conflicts of interest. Rules must explicitly prohibit agents from representing multiple parties with conflicting interests in the same transaction. A mandatory code of ethics should govern all accredited sports agents.

    Secondly, incorporating the American and French mandates of express written contracts is also a viable solution to ensure standardisation. The role played by agents in Indian cricket is vastly different from that of American or French agents since negotiations with clubs or franchises generally do not feature as a part of the agent’s functions in Indian cricket. Such global practices are effective when they are adapted to Indian standards. Agency contracts should clearly outline the duties, services, duration and financial terms, including commission rates. This provision would protect both athletes and agents by providing a legal framework for disputes. 

    Thirdly, all financial dealings between agents and athletes should be documented and subject to regular audits by an independent authority such as a Committee constituted by the BCCI for this purpose. A European Commission Report on Sports Agents identified the pressing need to ensure transparency in all financial flows between athletes and their agents. The link between financial crimes such as money laundering, and sports leagues has also been well-established, therefore exacerbating the threat of mismanagement and unscrupulous conduct. External auditing is a suitable mechanism to deter such activities, and this has been pinpointed in a 2021 study that incorporated a law and economics approach. 

    By making such agreements compulsory, athletes, especially young or inexperienced ones, will have a clear understanding of their relationships with agents and avoid exploitation or ambiguous commitments. To ensure compliance, the law must incorporate strict penalties for violations by sports agents, including fines, suspension, and license revocation. The BCCI must also constitute a forum for the investigation and redressal of such complaints and disputes. Encouraging Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms is a more athlete-friendly measure, considering the fiduciary relationship between the principal and agent, as well as the surrounding pressures of the cricket world. 

    Conclusion

    The current reliance on the ICA is insufficient to address the complex and high-stakes nature of agency contracts in cricket. As sports agents wield significant power in managing an athlete’s endorsements, sponsorships, and other commercial ventures, the absence of regulatory safeguards leaves players vulnerable to exploitation, unfair contractual terms, and conflicts of interest. 

    Through proactive regulation, it is possible to safeguard the interests of its cricketers, promote ethical conduct among agents, and elevate the professionalism of sports management. This, in turn, will foster a fairer, more accountable system that protects the rights and careers of athletes, ultimately ensuring that the business of cricket aligns with the values of integrity and fairness.

  • Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism: Sebi’s Move To Shield Investors

    Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism: Sebi’s Move To Shield Investors

    BY SUKRITI GUPTA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT NLU, ODISHA

    INTRODUCTION

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), has recorded around 33,00 registered entities according to its recognised intermediaries data. Amongst these, SEBI has close to 955 registered Investment Advisors (“IA”) and 1381 Research Analysts (“RA”) as of September 2024. 

    In common parlance, an IA is an entity that provides investment advice to the investors and an unregistered IA is simply the one who provides such advisory without having registration from SEBI. Interestingly, around 35% of IA are unregistered in India which entails a violation of the SEBI (Investment Advisers) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020.

    Additionally, RA also plays a pivotal role in preparing research reports by conducting investigations, research, and evaluation of financial assets. They provide advisory to investors to assist them in making decisions regarding investing, buying, or selling off financial securities, and they are administered by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014.

    It was observed by SEBI through several accusations and grievances reported by investors that there is an incremental rise in the misconduct of unregistered analysts who falsely portray themselves as registered IA and RA to facilitate investment services. These entities exploit investors by giving them fake and unrealistic securities advisories to encourage investments. 

    Thus, pursuant to this, SEBI issued a circular dated 13th September 2024 to set in motion a uniform system for fee collection by IA and RA, known as the “Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism”. This initiative, co-drafted by BSE Limited followed rigorous consultations from common people and feedback from several stakeholders.

    The author in this post delves into the significance and objectives of SEBI’s new mechanism by highlighting its broader implications. Furthermore, the author critically inspects the potential concerns and queries related to this initiative. 

    HOW DOES THE CENTRALISED FEE MECHANISM WORK?

    Under this mechanism, SEBI has established a supervisory platform for IA/RA to offer a uniform and centralised fee collection process. It provides a portal through which the investors can pay the fees to registered IA/RA which will be overseen by a recognised Administration and Supervisory Body (“ASB”). Every transaction will be initiated by assigning a virtual account number, with the availability of various modes of payment like UPI, net banking, NEFT etc. For using this facility, there is likely to be a system where IA/RA shall enroll themselves in this platform and provide fee-related details for their clients and the fee collected will then be transferred to these registered entities. It is made optional for both investors and IA and RA. 

    It aims to increase the participation of investors in the securities market by creating a transparent and riskless payment environment to curb the activities of unregistered IA/RA from taking dominance of investors under the guise of regulatory compliance.

    SAFEGUARDING INVESTORS INTERESTS: NEED FOR A CENTRALISED FEE COLLECTION MECHANISM

    By introducing a Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism, SEBI aims to mitigate all possible misleading and fraudulent activities of the unregistered IA/RA. To ensure that the investor’s money is in safe hands, it is imperative to save them from becoming a victim of illegitimate entities. Since many investors may not know how to inspect whether an entity is a registered one or not, therefore, it is the onus of SEBI, being a market regulator, to guard the interests of investors by introducing such an appropriate mechanism. 

    In the author’s view, by providing a centralised platform for payments, SEBI might ensure that the investor’s personal information and data remain fully confidential and safe since there will be a very minute chance of data leakage due to all the services being provided in one designated sphere. Secondly, through various digital payment modes being facilitated, there remains a minimal chance of disruption in the payment mechanism, ensuring a seamless and steady payment. It will also keep a check on the fees charged by these registered entities concerning  SEBI’s guidelines regarding the fees charged by IA, thereby helping to reduce exorbitant charges. Additionally, investors will not be charged any platform fee thus reducing unnecessary expenditure.

    Also, by operationalisation of this centralised payment system, investors will easily identify which entity is a registered entity. This will in turn be beneficial to IA and RA because they will get due recognition as they will be distinguished from unregistered ones. This will help them to attract genuine clients seeking their assistance. Furthermore, it will also help IA/RA who do not have any automated platforms of their own, thereby saving time and reducing burden

    CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE MECHANISM

    To delve deeper into the implications and analysis of the Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism, it is essential to ponder on three major points. Firstly, for what purpose the mechanism is kept optional, Secondly, whether such an initiative enhance investor’s vigilance when hailing services from unregistered entities? Lastly, how will this mechanism ensure the security and privacy of investor’s data?

    Discussing the first point, in the author’s view, it is essential to note that keeping the mechanism optional for users to pay and IA/RA to collect fees, is providing a flexible choice by giving them time to adapt and integrate into the new framework of the mechanism. By not mandating its use, SEBI is trying to ensure that they don’t feel that it is being involuntarily imposed upon them. Rather, they have the discretion to avail it. Additionally, potential shortcomings, challenges and doubts can also be identified for allowing further incorporation of necessary amendments and improvements based on the experience and feedback of the users and entities. 

    Therefore, the main idea behind keeping it optional is to grab the attention and trust of the investors and entities in this platform and make them familiar with the procedures for gradual adoption. This flexibility will enable a smoother transition and necessary adjustments. According to the author, SEBI might eventually make it compulsory in the near future. 

    Gauging on the second point, while this mechanism has significant potential to reduce the number of unregistered entities and heighten investor’s attentiveness, it is crucial to recognise that not all users may be aware of the reforms and regulations brought by the regulator. Thus, according to the author, to attain the full purpose of the mechanism, SEBI needs to prioritise its promotion through advertisements, webinars, awareness activities etc., via authorised channels. If the targeted audience becomes aware of such a facility, the likelihood of success of such an initiative would increase, eventually serving a larger segment of the investing public.

    One concern of IA/RA regarding this mechanism could be the reluctance of investors to provide their personal information while paying fees. Many of them may not be comfortable sharing their details on an online platform like such. To cater to this, SEBI must ensure transparency by rolling out certain procedures for safeguarding investor’s privacy and trust. One approach could be to give a unique identification number to each investor for aid in digital enlisting. E-receipts, payment tracking and reconciliation could also be enabled. SEBI can also launch a portal alongside, which will enable the investors to report any issue encountered by them during transactions. It may operate like a customer care center to deal with and sort out the grievances faced by them. 

    While it appears that this mechanism is viable to ensure adequate safety and privacy of the investors, yet, there is a need for vigorous regulation to fully reassure the investors of their privacy and trust in IA/RA. 

    CONCLUSION

    SEBI’s introduction of Centralised Fee Collection Mechanism is a double-edged sword, safeguarding both investors and entities. By offering a compliant and centralised system for fee collection, it is not only protecting investors from deceitful and unauthorised entities but also fortifying the credibility of registered IA and RA. It also marks a noteworthy step towards establishing a transparent, viable and secured space in security’s advisory sphere. However, for initiatives like this to become successful, it is crucial to focus on its continued promotion, awareness, investor education and robust privacy safeguard standards to entrust confidence in the platform. Eventually, this mechanism aims to build a safer, systematic and coherent environment that benefits both the investors and advisory entities alike. Let us see whether it will be welcomed or feared.  

  • Assessing the Deal Value Threshold: Shortcomings and the Way Forward

    Assessing the Deal Value Threshold: Shortcomings and the Way Forward

    BY DHRUV MEHTA, FIFTH-YEAR STUDENT AT JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL, SONIPAT

    introduction

    Recently, the Parliament passed the Competition Amendment Act, 2023, which makes substantial amendments to the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act‘). Amongst the plethora of amendments, the most prominent amendment is the introduction of the deal value threshold (‘DVT‘). DVT is the additional threshold that requires notification (in the absence of any exemption) of a merger or acquisition with a deal value threshold of INR 2,000 crores (USD 0.24 billion) where either of the party to the deal has ‘substantial business operations in India’ (‘SBOI‘). Through the introduction of the Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2023 (‘Draft Regulations‘), the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI‘) has brought more clarity with respect to the ‘transaction value’ and ‘substantial business operations’ under the DVT framework. Through this blog post, the author examines the limitations in the CCI’s interpretation of the DVT and offers recommendations to enhance its clarity and effectiveness.

    Once the Amendment Act was passed, the onus was now on the CCI to quickly define what constitutes ‘value of transaction’ and ‘substantial business operations’. The CCI has followed the footsteps of Germany and Austria by rightly defining what exactly constitutes ‘value of transaction’ and ‘substantial business operations’. However, there are a few shortcomings as to how transaction value has been interpreted and defined by the CCI.

    Transaction Value: Shortcomings and Recommendations

    a. Incidental Arrangements

    Regulation 4(1)(c) of the Draft Regulations requires the value of a consideration to include ‘incidental arrangements’ for calculating DVT. The definition of ‘incidental arrangement’ is confusing and excessively broad. Examining whether a transaction is notifiable would be difficult if an incidental arrangement is accepted in its current form as it may encompass unconnected transactions that weren’t anticipated by the parties when entering into the main transaction.

    To ensure certainty for parties involved in a transaction and to reduce ambiguity in applying the DVT, the CCI should limit ‘incidental arrangements’ to those arrangements foreseen by the parties when the transaction was initiated. Such arrangements should also be explicitly documented in the transaction records. Furthermore, under Regulations 9(4) and 9(5) respectively, read along with Regulation 4(1)(b), the CCI has the power to review interconnected steps of a single transaction when the transaction meets the test of interconnection. In the past, the CCI has exercised its powers by reviewing interconnected transactions in proceedings against the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and ReNew Power Limited under Section 43A of the Act.  

    This makes the proposed provision unnecessary if ‘incidental arrangements’ are linked to the transaction because the CCI already has the power to look at subsequent transactions that are interconnected. It is recommended that given CCI’s ambit to assess interconnected transactions, it should reconsider the need for incorporating ‘incidental arrangements’  under the value of a transaction. Furthermore, in the event that the CCI decides to retain the said clause, ‘incidental arrangements’ should only include, transactions foreseen by the parties which are included in the transaction documents during execution.

    b. Uncertainty in the Valuation of Non-Compete Clauses

    The draft regulations require that the value of any non-compete clauses be included while calculating the value of a transaction for DVT. There are a few shortcomings with the said requirement.

    Firstly, it is often difficult to attribute value to non-compete clauses. The value of such non-compete clauses is often reflected in the purchase price listed in the transaction documents. When a non-compete clause is not listed in the transaction document, it is often challenging to assign an exact value to such a clause, and assigning an exact value would compromise the DVT’s inherent predictability and clarity. This would be against the ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification and Review Procedures, which highlight how important it is for merger control systems to have clear, transparent rules- especially in light of the growing number of deals happening across several jurisdictions.

    Secondly, the value of the transaction is the value that is attributed to the non-compete provision. If the CCI wants to attribute a separate and distinct value to a non-compete agreement that is separate from the value of a transaction, it should not speculate on assigning the value to the non-compete agreement. Rather, when the board of directors of the acquirer or the seller gives a specific value to the non-compete agreement at the time of the transaction, the CCI should also value the non-compete at the same specific value as given by the board of directors.

    It is recommended that the CCI amend the Draft Regulations to include the value of non-compete clauses and agreements as part of DVT as listed in the transaction documents. It should also be made clear in the Draft Regulations that the CCI can only assign a value to a non-compete agreement if it has been given careful thought and approval by the boards of directors of the target company and the acquiring company.

    c. Valuation of Options and Securities

    According to the Draft Regulations, the whole value of the options and securities to be acquired, along with the assumption that such options would be exercised to the fullest extent possible, must be included in the consideration for the DVT for a transaction.

    It is observed that by including the whole value of options, DVT could be breached or relatively small transactions could also be flagged. Moreover, including the full value of options that could potentially be exercised may lead to an overstatement or understatement of their value, as the price at the time of exercise could differ from the price when the option is initially granted. In the USA, the Hart-Scott-Rodino (‘HSR‘) rules state that valuation reports presented to the board of directors would be used as a point of reference for determining the value of a consideration when the same value is unknown but capable of being estimated. The CCI could adopt the practice as stated by the HSR rules, where it could consider the value of an option not on the basis of assumption but instead based on valuation reports presented to the board of directors.

    In line with the stance in other countries and the CCI’s own decisional practice, it is advised that the whole value of shares received upon exercising an option be considered only if and when the option is exercised. Further, to eliminate any doubt regarding the value of the options, the CCI could only take into account the entire value of the options if they are exercised at the per-share price paid to shareholders (perhaps as a way to assign a portion of the transaction value to particular persons).

    Substantial Business Operations: Shortcomings and Recommedations

    Under the Draft Regulations, SBOI is established if, within the 12 months preceding the transaction, the business demonstrates that 10% or more of either (a) its global user/subscriber/customer/visitor base, (b) global gross merchandise value, or (c) global revenue from all goods and services in the prior financial year, is attributable to India. The author welcomes the CCI’s target-only approach for judging local nexus. However, to ensure that transactions having a limited nexus to the Indian markets are adequately filtered out, the CCI needs to make a few amendments to the SBOI framework in India.

    • Redefining ‘Users, Subscribers, Customers, and Visitors’

    Considering ‘every download’ as a ‘user’ would be an overstatement and therefore the threshold of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ could lead to double counting as the said requirement is extremely expansive. For a single product business, such as a social networking website, there is a possibility to have a different number of subscribers than users or visitors, and these subscribers may not be active users or visitors. Thus, such ‘visitors’ might not contribute towards the economic value of the target enterprise and should be discounted from the threshold.

    Furthermore, the CCI could have taken inspiration from Germany and Austria who have provided adequate guidance on how to compute the user threshold for digital markets. The Digital Markets Act of the EU also includes clear definitions for terms such as ‘active end users’ and ‘active business users‘ tailored to various products and services such as online intermediation services, search engines, social networking platforms, video sharing services, and more. The measurement of such users, subscribers, customers, and visitors should be carried out according to industry standards as providing an exhaustive list is nearly impossible.

    The CCI through a guidance note could narrow down the ambit of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ to that of ‘monthly active users’, ‘unique visitors’ and ‘daily active users’ in the digital markets for assessing SBOI as done by German and Austrian Competition regulators. The CCI could further bring more clarity to its implementation of DVT by referring to the rulings of Meta’s Acquisition of Kustomer and Meta’s acquisition of GIPHY.

    Under the ambit of ‘users’ the CCI could consider both direct and indirect users. Taking inspiration from the aforementioned cases, the CCI could define direct users as those who were paying for the product as well as who are licensed customers. Indirect users would be considered as those who accessed the application, for example, GIPHY library through third-party mediums/applications such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the CCI ought to establish distinct standards for evaluating activities across various sectors, just as the German and Austrian guidelines on transaction value threshold do.

    Thus, the author suggests that the criteria of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ be replaced by ‘active users which consists of daily, monthly, yearly, direct and indirect users, and unique visitors’. Further, as specific definitions are provided in the Digital Markets Act for ‘active business users’ and ‘active end users’ the CCI could provide guidance for the same across various sectors.

    Conclusion

    The CCI is seen to be taking some major strides in regulating competition in new-age deals within the digital sphere. Taking inspiration from Germany and Austria, the Competition Act was amended to introduce the deal value threshold, which effectively provides the CCI the jurisdiction to assess those digital mergers with little or no assets or revenue. The CCI has tried its best to bring more clarity with regard to the interpretation of transaction value and substantial business operations under the DVT framework. However, it remains to be seen as to how the practical implementation of DVT would be undertaken by the CCI. As highlighted, under the ‘substantial business operations’ prong, the CCI should bring more clarity by clearly redefining ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’.  Towards the final step, the CCI also needs to streamline its approach to reviewing interconnected transactions and the valuation of non-compete clauses.

  • The Legal Conundrum: Is A New Mandatory Offer Possible During An Existing One? – II

    The Legal Conundrum: Is A New Mandatory Offer Possible During An Existing One? – II

    BY TANMAY DONERIA, FOURTH YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PATIALA

    This article is published in two parts, this is the Part II of the article.

    Having discussed the key provisions under the Takeover Regulations and the conundrum arising therefrom, the following part delves into the interplay of Regulation 3, Regulation 20 and Regulation 26 of the Takeover Regulations while exploring the possible situations that might arise during such a transaction and suggest recourses available to the third party.

    II. Possible situations arising out of the interplay between regulation 20 and 26. 

    As highlighted earlier, we have two possible situations to examine with respect to the issue at hand. Firstly, when the conversion occurs during the period of 15 days and secondly, when the conversion occurs after the period of 15 days but before the completion of the offer period. Let us analyse these two situations in detail.

    –       When the Conversion Occurs During the Period of 15 Days i.e., 12.10.2024

    We shall assume a situation where the conversion of securities held by XYZ Ltd. occurred on 12.10.2024 i.e., during the 15 days provided for competing offers. If we were to undertake a hyper-technical interpretation of Regulation 20(5), we find that it only creates a bar on the announcement of an open offer after the expiry of 15 days provided for competing offers till the completion of the offer period. It does not take into account a situation wherein the obligation to make an open offer arises during the abovementioned 15 days period. But because the intent behind the provision is to prevent overlapping or simultaneous offers, we find that even in situations where the obligation to make an open offer arises during the 15 day period this restriction would be applicable. Hence, we are arriving at the same question, what should the third party do in such a scenario?

    At this juncture, it is important to appreciate the definition of ‘convertible securities’ under Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Takeover Regulations, which provides that the conversion may occur “with or without the option of the holder”. This is extremely relevant to understand as it will help us in determining whether the third party has breached the threshold under Regulation 3(1) willingly or not. This would further result in two different situations i.e., when the conversion happens without the option of the holder (compulsory conversion) and when the conversion happens with the option of the holder (optional conversion). 

    –       Compulsory Conversion

    • Compulsory conversion may occur in the case of mandatory convertible bonds, compulsorily convertible debentures (‘CCDs’), or preference shares (‘CCPS’). These types of securities get converted at a predetermined time without the option of the holder of such securities. This would mean that the third party had not voluntarily triggered the requirement to make a mandatory open offer under Regulation 3(1).
    • In such a situation, it would be appropriate to allow the third party to fulfil its obligation under Regulation 3(1) without engaging in involuntary competition with the original acquirer regarding offer size and offer price. Such an interpretation would be business-friendly and promote ease of doing business. 
    • In this context, it is suggested that the third party should be given a deference or relaxation and be allowed to make a mandatory open offer after the completion of the offer period. Such relaxation can be given to the third party within the ambit of Regulation 11 of the Takeover Regulations, which provides SEBI with the discretionary authority to exempt or provide relaxation from procedural requirements in the interest of the securities market. Regulation 11(2) specifically allows SEBI to “grant a relaxation from strict compliance with any procedural requirement under Chapter III and Chapter IV” upon the receipt of an application from the third party in terms of Regulation 11(3). Since Regulation 13under Chapter III dictates the time when the announcement for the open offer is to be made for Regulation 3, it is possible to grant such relaxation. The same is evident from the TRAC report which states that “SEBI would also continue to have the discretion to give relaxation from strict compliance with procedural requirements”. 
    • For example, in our situation, if XYZ Ltd. acquires shares on account of compulsory conversion and breaches the threshold limit under Regulation 3(1) it shall make an application under Regulation 11(3) to seek appropriate relaxation under Regulation 11(2).

    –       Optional Conversion

    Optional conversion may occur in the case of optionally convertible debentures (‘OCDs’) or optionally convertible debt instruments and other similar types of securities. These types of securities get converted voluntarily at the option of the holder in pursuance of their express choice and not at any predetermined time. Optional conversion is indicative of the holder’s willingness to trigger the provisions under Regulation 3(1).

    In such a situation, it would be appropriate that the third party who has voluntarily triggered the provisions of a mandatory open offer should be obligated to engage in raising a competing offer and conditions with respect to offer size and offer price should apply accordingly. In other words, the requirement of making a mandatory open offer should be complied with by making a competing offer and conditions concerning offer size and offer price as applicable on a competing offer should also apply to the third party.

    This raises another legal question, whether a mandatory open offer can be considered as a competing offer. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Regulation 20(3) creates a legal fiction that a voluntary open offer made within the 15 day period should be considered a competing offer. The substance of the provision dictates that if an open offer by whatever name it may be called is made voluntarily/willingly within 15 days it should be treated as a competing offer. In furtherance of the same, it is possible to argue that if the requirements of the mandatory open offer are being triggered voluntarily/willingly by the third party on account of optional conversion, the same can be considered within the scope of Regulation 20(3), rendering the mandatory open offer as a competing offer. It is to be noted that in order to accommodate this interpretation appropriate amendments to the Takeover Regulations will be required. 

    Hence, in this context, if XYZ Ltd. acquires shares and breaches the threshold limit under Regulation 3(1) on account of optional conversion, it can be said that XYZ Ltd. had willingly breached the threshold hence, the spirit of the law would dictate that XYZ Ltd. should make a competing offer and conditions with respect to offer size and price shall apply to them accordingly. 

    –       When the conversion occurs after the period of 15 days i.e., 18.10.2024

    If the conversion, whether option or mandatory, occurs after the expiry of 15 days and the obligation to make a mandatory open offer is triggered, the third party who had acquired shares on account of convertible securities cannot make a public announcement for an open offer due to the statutory bar imposed by Regulation 20(5). 

    In such a situation, the third party may take recourse under Regulation 11 as mentioned earlier and make an application to SEBI in accordance with Regulation 11(3) to seek appropriate relaxation and deference in terms of Regulation 11(2) to make the mandatory open offer and comply with Regulation 3 after the completion of the offer period. This will ensure that the third party does not contravene the Takeover Regulations and fulfil their obligation imposed by Regulation 3(1). The same will be consistent with the intent of the provision as it will prevent any overlapping or simultaneous open offers and avoid any unnecessary troubles for the shareholders as well.

    III. Conclusion

    In light of the aforementioned discussion, it can be said that our legal conundrum cannot be expressly solved by simply applying the provisions contained in the Takeover Regulations. But, we can state that the conundrum arising out of the interplay between Regulation 3(1), Regulation 20(5) and Regulation 26(2)(c)(i) can be solved by understanding the underlying intent of the provisions, and applying the rule of contextual interpretation and harmonious construction.

    The interpretation as advanced in the previous sections will accommodate better investor protection, provide exit opportunities to the shareholder and promote ease of doing business in the country by protecting the interests of the acquirer. Currently, such a situation is purely academic in nature but it is not improbable for such a situation to emerge in real-world transactions.

  • The Legal Conundrum: Is A New Mandatory Offer Possible During An Existing One? – I

    The Legal Conundrum: Is A New Mandatory Offer Possible During An Existing One? – I

    BY TANMAY DONERIA, FOURTH YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PATIALA

    This article is published in two parts, this is the Part I of the article.

    I. Introduction: Understanding The Context And Conundrum

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) implemented the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations, 2011 (‘Takeover Regulations’) with the intent to provide exit options for the shareholders of public-listed companies, regulate the acquisition of direct/indirect control in a company and hostile takeovers. These regulations were implemented on the recommendations of the Takeover Regulations Advisory Committee (‘TRAC’). Before delving into the specifics, we need to understand certain provisions.

    –       Understanding Key Provisions

    Regulation 3(1) of the Takeover Regulations, provides that any acquirer who has breached the threshold of 25% voting rights in a public listed company (also known as the target company) shall make a public announcement for an open offer. This is also known as a “mandatory open offer”. The intent behind this provision is to facilitate/mandate the complete acquisition of the target company or allow the acquirer to gain control of the target company. Furthermore, it also provides an exit option for the shareholders, who are granted an opportunity to sell their shares and exit the target company in case they disagree with the acquirer holding a significant stake in the company. It is to be noted that an acquirer may also announce an open offer even before breaching the requisite threshold or even after completing the mandatory open offer, in order to acquire more shares or voting rights. Such an offer is known as a voluntary open offer in terms of Regulation 6. 

    Pursuant to the public announcement due procedure is followed and an open offer is floated in the market. Thereafter, Regulation 20 provides an opportunity for other interested parties to raise competing open offers within 15 days from the date of publication of the open offer. Regulation 20(3), deems any voluntary open offer made within 15 days from the open offer to be a competing offer. The provision for competing offers is beneficial for the shareholders as well as the target company. From the perspective of the shareholders, this process allows them to get the best prices for their shares, and from the perspective of the target company, this allows them to bring in a friendly investor and resist the hostile takeover, also commonly known as the ‘white-knight defence’. Furthermore, to minimize confusion for the shareholders and prevent overlapping or simultaneous open offers in the target company Regulation 20(5), mandates that after the completion of the aforesaid 15 days, no person is “entitled to” make a public announcement for an open offer or “enter into” any transaction that will attract an obligation to make an open offer till the completion of the offer period.

    Lastly, during this entire process Regulation 26, restricts the target company from entering any material transactions during the offer period outside the ordinary course of business without obtaining the consent of the shareholders through a special resolution. This ensures that no impediment arises during the acquisition process and the same is successfully completed. But there also exist certain exceptions that allow the target company to honour their obligations that were entered prior to the initiation of the acquisition process. The exception relevant to our discussion is found in Regulation 26(2)(c)(i), which permits the target company to issue or allot shares upon conversion of convertible securities issued prior to the announcement of the open offer. Having understood the legal provisions let us take a look at the problem being created by the interplay of these provisions.

    –       Illustration of the Conundrum

    Let us consider a situation, where the acquirer (ABC Ltd.), has breached the threshold of 25% of shares of the target company (TC Ltd.) and consequently, published a mandatory open offer under Regulation 3(1) after following the due procedure on 1.10.2024. Now other interested parties have 15 days i.e., time till 16.10.2024 to raise competing offers.

    A third party (XYZ Ltd.) holds 23% of shares and certain convertible security, that was purchased a long time ago, entitling them to 3% of shares. Hence, upon conversion XYZ Ltd. will hold 26% of shares of TC Ltd. Herein, we shall consider, two situations i.e., firstly, when the conversion occurs during the period of 15 days, let’s say on 12.10.2024 and secondly, when the conversion occurs after the period of 15 days but before the completion of the offer period, let’s say on 18.10.2024 (more on these two situations later). In both situations, XYZ Ltd. holds more than 25% of shares, making them liable to announce a mandatory open offer under Regulation 3(1).

    As noted, earlier Regulation 20 only permits competing offers within the period of 15 days when there is a subsisting open offer. Additionally, Regulation 20(3), only deems voluntary open offers as competing offers i.e., mandatory open offers are not covered within the ambit of this provision. Lastly, Regulation 20(5) specifically prohibits any person from making an open offer after the expiry of the 15 days till the completion of the offer period.

    This gives rise to an absurd situation where XYZ Ltd. who is under a statutory obligation (under Regulation 3(1)) to make an open offer cannot fulfil such obligation as at the same time the regulations (under Regulation 20(5)) are themselves barring them from making an open offer. In other words, XYZ Ltd. is being statutorily barred from fulfilling a statutory obligation. Such a situation gives rise to multiple questions such as- is the third party liable to make an open offer, if it does not make an open offer will there be penalties for non-compliance and what are the possible recourses with the third party in such a situation?

  • Revamping Venture Capital: SEBI’s Progressive Amendments for Dynamic Fund Migration

    Revamping Venture Capital: SEBI’s Progressive Amendments for Dynamic Fund Migration

    BY SHRIYANSH SINGHAL, SECOND-YEAR STUDENT AT NLU, ODISA.

    Introduction

    On July 20, 2024 the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) amended SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 significantly. Subsequently, guidelines were released by SEBI to these amendments which are particularly concerning the VCFs which were earlier governed under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996. The change to the Alternative Investment Funds (‘AIF’) Regulations is advantageous to Venture Capital Funds (‘VCF’) as it provides more freedom to the VCFs especially in regard to unliquidated investments at the end of the tenures. The changes are in consonance with SEBI’s intention to amend the legal provisions governing the venture capital funds to suit the current market conditions.

    SEBI has been advancing AIF as an ideal investment vehicle in India which has facilitated all forms of funds including venture capital funds, private equity funds and infrastructure funds. As more investors are investing their money in AIFs, SEBI has also upped its ante to make sure that such funds operate in the most transparent manner and for the benefit of the investors. These amendments are a doctrinal transformation of the existing legal framework, to enable VCFs transition to this new flexibility, which improves operational effectiveness and investors’ safeguards. This way, SEBI modernises the previous regulations, adapting them to the present conditions of the market and presents AIFs as a primary stimulator of innovation and investments in the Indian economy.

    Rationale Behind the New Guidelines

    The rationale for the development of these new guidelines is anchored on shifts that have taken place in the investment climate in India. The VCF Regulations were introduced in 1996 and at that time they were rather innovative. However, the changes in the venture capital industry continue and the regulations have become outdated. The introduction of the AIF Regulations in 2012 was a significant improvement as it offered a more complex and flexible framework for various structures of AIFs including VCFs. However, there were still many VCFs that have been registered under the old regulations but still operated under a structure that was not completely appropriate to the industry’s needs.

    The changes in the amendments are directed to the increase in the demand for the harmonization of the regulations and the flexibility. SEBI has provided these VCFs an opportunity to migrate to the AIF Regulations and therefore, avail the benefits of a relatively modern framework. This has included the improvement of the management of unliquidated investments which is crucial to funds that are in the final stages of their life cycle. Also, the amendments seek to bring all funds as one so as to enhance the protection of investors as it is easily regulated.

    Deciphering the Amendments
    • Migration of VCFs to AIF Regulations

    The essence of the amendments is in the possibility of the VCFs’ transition to the AIF Regulations. This migration is not compulsory but is very advantageous for anyone who decides to migrate. These changes are beneficial as they allow VCFs to operate through a modern, flexible framework, offering longer liquidation periods, better regulatory reporting and increased investor protection which will lead to improved handling of unliquidated investments and transparency overall. This flexibility is accompanied by the migration deadline of July 19, 2025, which provides VCFs with enough time to take decision about the transition.

    The amendments to the AIF Regulation in contiguity with VCF Regulations are expected to have significant effects on India’s venture capital industry. An increase in the regulatory cohesion by SEBI can be enforced by encouraging VCFs to migrate to the AIF framework which will lead to simplification in compliance maintenance by fund managers and clinch all funds under a unified set of regulations.

    • Additional Liquidation Period

    Another significant amendment is the provision for a one-time additional liquidation period. VCFs with schemes whose liquidation period has expired but have not yet wound up their operations can now apply for an additional year to complete the liquidation process. This extension, valid until July 19, 2025, provides much-needed breathing room for fund managers, allowing them to manage their exits more effectively and avoid fire sales that could harm investor returns.

    As for the VCFs with the schemes which have not yet achieved the end of the liquidation period, the migration enables such funds to remain active within the framework of the AIF Regulations. Also, it is important to note that if a fund’s scheme had a defined tenure under the old regulations, such tenure remains frozen on migration. But if no tenure was previously fixed, the fund has to fix a residual tenure with the concurrence of at least three-fourth of the investors. This provision helps to protect the investors and also helps the fund to operate in a very transparent manner.

    • Enhanced Regulatory Reporting in case of non-migration

    In case VCFs do not migrate, SEBI has come up with improved regulatory reporting standards. These funds will be more regulated and if they continue to exist beyond the liquidation period they will face regulatory actions. This aspect of the amendments acts as a form of threat that will compel VCFs which are no longer actively investing to either join the AIF framework or wind up their operations.

    The amendments also specify circumstances under which migration is not possible. VCFs which have no more active investments or have wound up all their schemes are expected to surrender their registration by 31st March 2025. Otherwise, SEBI will proceed to cancel their registration as the latter failed to meet the requirements provided by the former. This provision helps in avoiding the creation of a bureaucratic burden on the regulatory framework by funds that are inactive or dormant, thereby enabling SEBI target active participants in the market.

    The potential of increased fund activity with the option to migrate to a relatively modern regulatory framework, may incentivize VCFs to launch newer schemes or extend the life on present ones. Hence, benefiting both investors and the broader economy by increased activity in the venture capital space. The stipulation for inactive VCFs to surrender their registration will streamline the regulatory landscape. Consequently, ensuring that only active and compliant funds are registered and as a result, reducing administrative burdens and allowing SEBI to focus on more significant regulatory issues.

    • Strict Compliance and Accountability

    Lastly, the amendments impose a great deal of obligation to the managers, trustees, and other personnel of both VCFs and Migrated VCFs. These people are responsible for compliance to the new regulations and they will have to fill and submit the Compliance Test Report to SEBI. This report which is a compliance to the SEBI Master Circular for AIFs is an important mechanism of ensuring that the industry is accountable to the public.

    There can be an enhancement in the investor protection steps taken by SEBI to assure investors that their interests are being safeguarded within a robust regulatory framework. This can be done by necessitating investor approval in ascertaining the tenure of migrated schemes and the insistence on compliance reporting.

    Forging new Horizons

    The modifications carried out to the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 are a welcome change for the enhancement of the venture capital funds in India. In the future, SEBI should focus at giving the required assistance to those VCFs that wish to opt for the AIF structure by issuing appropriate instructions and keeping the concerned parties informed. This will assist VCFs to address the operational and compliance challenges of the migration process appropriately. SEBI could also contemplate on the need to carry out regular audits of the framework with a view of making changes that could help to address some of the problems that may arise after migration as well as to ensure that the regulations are up to par with the best practices in the international markets. Moreover, enhancing the investor awareness and increasing the transparency of the mechanisms will help to increase the confidence in AIFs and therefore the capital will flow into the venture capital more freely. Therefore, SEBI can contribute to the formation of the startup market and the non- traditional type of financial instruments in India due to the formation of a more integrated and adaptable system of regulation.

    Conclusion

    The proposed amendments to the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 are huge in the growth of venture capital industry in India. Thus, SEBI is ensuring that the regulations are relevant and comprehensive by providing VCFs a chance to move from the VCF Regulations to the AIF Regulations. The emphasis on flexibility, investor protection and compliance are very much seen in the SEBI’s attempt to make the investment environment healthy and active. To the fund managers, investors and the market in general, these amendments introduce a new dimension of understanding and certainty which would help foster the future growth and development of the industry. In the long run, the value of the integrated and updated regulation of the industry will be seen as it adapts to the changes that have been identified.

  • The Religare-Burman Saga: A Wakeup Call To Review Our Takeover Code?

    The Religare-Burman Saga: A Wakeup Call To Review Our Takeover Code?

    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. 

  • Rationalizing ‘Connected Persons’: Analyzing SEBI’s Proposed Insider Trading Amendments

    Rationalizing ‘Connected Persons’: Analyzing SEBI’s Proposed Insider Trading Amendments

    BY PRIYA SHARMA AND ARCHISMAN CHATERJEE, Fourth AND third YEAR STUDENTS AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

    I. Introduction 

    Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), in the consultation paper dated 29 July 2024 (‘consultation paper’), proposed amendments to the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’) to rationalize the scope of ‘connected person’. The consultation paper proposes to add additional categories to the current definition of connected persons in the PIT Regulations, and thereby cover more persons who may have access to unpublished price sensitive information (‘UPSI’) by virtue of their relation with an insider.

    While the proposed amendments will help SEBI target additional persons and raise a presumption of possession of UPSI against them, the existing ambiguities in the insider trading legal framework will increase the likelihood of false positives and overregulation in this arena.

    II. Proposed Amendments

    Under the PIT Regulations, an insider is defined as any person who is either a connected person or is in possession of or having access to UPSI. Presently, a ‘connected person’ is defined as a person who is or has, during the six months before the act, been associated with the company, directly or indirectly, in any capacity [Regulation 2(1)(d)]. The relationship with the ‘connected person’ may be contractual, fiduciary or employment-related, and may be temporary or permanent, that allows them access to UPSI or is reasonably expected to allow such access. The PIT Regulations also specify certain categories ‘deemed to be connected persons’, including immediate relatives of the connected person, a holding or associate company or subsidiary company, etc. within its ambit. 

    UPSI is defined as “any information, relating to a company or its securities, directly or indirectly, that is not generally available which upon becoming generally available, is likely to materially affect the price of the securities”. A person who falls under the scope of a ‘connected person’ will be presumed to have access to UPSI, and the person will carry the onus to disprove this presumption. If a person does not fall under the scope of a connected person, the onus to prove access to such information will lie on SEBI.

    The consultation paper notes that certain categories of persons, who have a close and proximate relationship with connected persons, may not be covered under the present definition of ‘connected person’. Therefore, it proposes to replace the term ‘immediate relative’ in section 2(1)(d)(a) with the term ‘relative’. It also proposes the inclusion of additional categories of people who will be deemed to be connected persons, including any person on whose advice, directions or instructions a connected person is accustomed to act, a body corporate whose board of directors, managing director or manager is accustomed to act in accordance with the advice, directions or instructions of a connected person, persons sharing household or residence with a connected person, and persons having material financial relationship with a connected person including for reasons of employment or financial dependency or frequent financial transactions. 

    In order to ensure ease of doing business, the definition of ‘immediate relative’ is proposed to be retained for the purpose of disclosures, and the definition of ‘relative’ is rationalized only for establishing insider trading.

    III. The Good: Targeting a Regulatory Gap

    The changes are proposed with the aim to include persons who may seemingly not occupy any position in the company but are in regular contact with the company and its officers. By virtue of this relationship, such persons may be aware of the company’s operations and get access to UPSI. 

    Under the current regime, the scope of connected persons does not include non-immediate relatives of the person. ‘Immediate relative’ includes the spouse of a person, parent, sibling, and child of such person or of the spouse, any of whom is either financially dependent on this person or consults such a person in making decisions relating to trading in securities. Under the proposed amendments, the term ‘relative’ would include spouse, siblings, siblings of spouse, siblings of parents, any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual or spouse, or spouse of any of the mentioned persons. Evidently, the new definition will include many more persons.

    Many relevant relations remain uncovered in the present terminology, which requires that either (a) the mentioned person be financially dependent on such a person, or (b) consults such a person in making decisions relating to trading. Such facts are difficult to prove, as they involve the family’s internal affairs, and make it difficult to establish the presumption of insider trading. 

    For illustration, under the current regime, if A is a connected person, B, the father-in-law of A’s sister who lives in another city with her husband’s family, would not be deemed to be an insider unless he fulfills the criteria mentioned in the definition. The proposed amendments would bring B under the ambit of ‘deemed to be connected person’ since he is a lineal ascendant of the sister’s spouse. No other criteria are required to be fulfilled.

    The proposed amendments formulate a comprehensive definition of ‘relative’, much like the Income Tax Act, 1961, and do not limit it to immediate family members. This proposed change promises a stricter, and stronger, regulatory regime.

    IV. The Bad and the Ambiguous: Pre-existing issues

    Section 15G of the SEBI Act specifies that any individual who enters into a trade on the basis of UPSI would be penalized for insider trading. The emphasis here is on the term basis since it showcases the requirement of mens rea for the liability to be attracted. On the other hand, Regulation 4 of the PIT Regulations states that if any individual executes any trade while in possession of UPSI, the liability for insider trading shall be attracted. 

    In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Balram v SEBI, observed that ascertaining the intent of individuals is necessary to affix the liability for insider trading. On similar lines, in Abhijit Rajan v SEBI, the apex court highlighted the need to determine the profit motive of the individuals who are in possession of the UPSI. This showcases a clear conflict between the specific wording of the PIT regulations and the interpretation of the court in terms of the presence of mens rea and increases differences in interpretations. 

    If the proposed changes are implemented, many more individuals would be deemed to be connected persons, and the presumption of access to UPSI will be raised against them, even if the access is factual or not, or any mala fide intent to act upon it is present or not. For instance, B, being the father-in-law of A’s sister, who may be deemed to be a connected person by virtue of being a relative if the proposed amendments are made, is able to overhear certain UPSI at a family function, and despite the same, he sells his shareholding as he intended to do so even before possessing the UPSI. In such a scenario, B could still be liable for insider trading under PIT Regulations even though there was a lack of intent and profit motive. 

    Therefore, the present regulatory framework showcases the lack of uniformity and clarity about the threshold for attracting liability for insider trading, and the issue will be exacerbated if the definition of ‘deemed to be connected persons’ is widened. Additionally, such a low threshold (no mens rea required, according to the PIT Regulations) to hold a person liable might lead to false positives, which in turn may overburden SEBI as well as the accused persons. In fact, it was advised by the N. K. Sodhi Committee, which was formed to review PIT Regulations of 1992, that a defense should be incorporated into the provisions which would allow the insider to prove that the alleged illegal trade has an effect which is opposite to what the UPSI requires for one to draw an unfair advantage.

    To address this, we suggest implementing a higher threshold for those connected persons who are very remotely connected to the primary insider and a lower threshold for those who are directly connected. The current framework treats all immediate persons on the same footing. For instance, an individual who came into accidental possession of UPSI might get prosecuted for the offence of insider trading. 

     The incorporation of a threshold on the basis of a higher burden of proof or requirement of mens rea (possession or usage) could increase the efficiency of the framework. To elucidate, for proving insider trading in the case of relatives by birth, the mere possession of UPSI should be enough to hold them guilty, and the opposite can apply in case of relatives by marriage. Similarly, the burden of proof required to prove their innocence should be lesser for relatives by marriage and the contrary for those related by blood. Such a framework is more effective than the proposed changes, as it does not automatically deem ‘immediate relatives’ as connected persons (as is the case in the present scenario), and instead, creates comprehensive criteria for the regulator to implicate relatives in actions against insider trading. Moreover, SEBI should not overlook profit motive as mens rea and refine the insider trading provisions in the PIT Regulations, bringing it more in line with the Act. Lastly, the addition of more defenses in Regulation 4, such as those recommended by the Sodhi Committee, may help dilute the adverse impacts of the proposed amendments. 

    V. Conclusion

    While the proposed amendments aim to broaden the scope of ‘connected persons’ to encompass those in close proximity to insiders, thereby strengthening regulatory oversight, they also introduce challenges. The potential for increased false positives and ambiguities surrounding the intent requirement highlight ongoing concerns within the insider trading legal framework. To mitigate these issues, SEBI must strike a balance by refining definitions, clarifying thresholds for liability, and incorporating defenses against inadvertent breaches. Such measures are essential to uphold both the integrity of the securities market and the rights of individuals ensnared in the regulatory net.