The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Author: HNLU CCLS

  • Bridging Borders: SCRR Amendment 2024 and India’s Gateway to Global Capital

    Bridging Borders: SCRR Amendment 2024 and India’s Gateway to Global Capital

    BY MANAV PAMNANI AND SHOURYA SHARMA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENTS AT NALSAR HYDERABAD AND JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL, SONIPAT

    INTRODUCTION

    The Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance (‘MoF’), has recently amended the Securities Contracts Regulation Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’). This Amendment attempts to make it easier for Indian public companies to list their equity shares within International Financial Service Centres (‘IFSCs’) such as the Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (‘GIFT City’), under the framework of Direct Listing of Equity Shares Scheme and the Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024. One of the significant changes under the Amendment is the reduction of minimum public shareholding thresholds from 25% to 10% for listing made in IFSCs, making international listings more accessible, especially for start-ups and technology-driven enterprises. This move mirrors the government’s broader commitment towards placing India among the world’s competitive investment-friendly destinations and financial hives. This article attempts to analyse the legal framework of this Amendment, alongside exploring its practical implications for the Indian financial landscape.

    REGULATORY FOUNDATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

    The SCRR was notified by the Central Government to help achieve the objectives of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (‘SCRA’) effectively. The preamble clause of the SCRA states that the objective of the statute is to regulate undesirable transactions in securities by overseeing the dealing in securities and monitoring other ancillary business activities. The Amendment aligns the SCRR with this overarching objective. The legal foundation of this Amendment lies in section 30(h)(A) of the SCRA, which gives the Central Government the power to introduce rules stipulating the specific requirements that companies have to follow to get their securities listed on any stock exchange. The word “any” here has to be given a wide interpretation to align with the framers’ intention which was to bestow supervisory and regulatory authority upon the Government to foster the maintenance of a reliable and efficient securities business framework. Therefore, the regulation of listing of securities on IFSCs squarely falls within the competence and authority of the Government.

    Earlier in 2024, the MoF, through a notification amending the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’), explicitly enabled the listing of securities of public Indian companies on international exchanges recognized in Schedule XI of NDI Rules. This, termed as the Direct Listing Scheme, governed several intricacies such as permissible investors, compliance with sectoral caps, regulations regarding prohibited sectors, and pricing guidelines. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) had also introduced the Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024 by virtue of its power under section 23(3) r/w section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 to regulate the entities that can list and jurisdictions where the listing can take place.

    However, both these enactments, along with the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 which prescribed certain similar requirements pertaining to listing in international exchanges, served as mere regulatory tools rather than efficient operational guidelines. They prescribed an overarching framework that has to be adhered to during such listing and discussed the eligibility criteria but failed to provide or clarify points regarding specific thresholds and other operational mechanisms specified under the SCRR.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS

    The recent Amendment fills the void identified above by introducing a few but impactful changes in the securities listing regime, thus reflecting its commitment to fostering a globally competitive and investor-friendly framework while aligning domestic practices with international standards. These international standards include the minimum public float thresholds in jurisdictions like Singapore, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions’ principles of efficiency, transparency and fairness in cross-border listings, the securities regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre, the Financial Action Task Force’s Anti-Money Laundering /Combating the Financing of Terrorism recommendations, and the pricing mechanisms and sectoral compliance thresholds present in the European Union Capital Markets Union and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Regulations.

    The widespread benefits accruing to investors and other stakeholders through the effectuation of this Amendment not only covers the inflow of higher foreign capital and a more efficient and dynamic securities framework but also extends to direct tax advantages. section 10(4D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides a significant tax exemption on income arising from transactions conducted on recognized stock exchanges within IFSCs, including GIFT-IFSC. This incentivizes participation, reduces transactional costs for investors, and creates a persuasive financial rationale for businesses contemplating listing on foreign exchanges. It is also in line with the numerous Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (‘DTAAs’) entered into by India to prevent non-resident Indians from being taxed twice, in both, India and their country of residence, thus significantly alleviating their tax burden. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has considerable control over listing and transactions in the IFSC, as is evident from the scheme of the SEBI (International Financial Services Centres) Guidelines, 2015. This reiterates the commitment of SEBI to safeguard the interests of investors and other stakeholders, alongside maintaining an effective securities landscape.

    An important caveat to consider with respect to this Amendment is that the reduction of thresholds from 25% to 10% extends only to listings made in the IFSC. This implies that as per domestic subscription requirements, the extent of public shareholding is still fixed at the previous 25%. This distinction creates a dual regulatory framework, potentially leading to compliance complexities for companies seeking listings in both domestic and IFSC exchanges. This may limit the seamless integration of domestic and international listing strategies, requiring companies to carefully navigate the differing regulatory requirements to maximize benefits and avoid potential conflicts. Although the text of the Amendment alters Rule 19(2)(b) of SCRR, which covers domestic listings, the primary intention of the legislature was to effect changes in the IFSC listing framework. This ambiguity necessitates a clarification, which will most likely uphold uniformity by stating that the reduction also extends to listings made on domestic stock exchanges by companies wishing to obtain listing on permitted international exchanges. The importance of such uniformity and standardization is also evident from the two definitions (IFSC and International Financial Services Centre Authority (‘IFSCA’) that have been introduced which do not impose their own requirements but simply suggest an alignment with the definitions incorporated in existing legislations. The Amendment while defining these terms states that an IFSC means an IFSC as defined under section 3(1)(g) of the IFSCA Act, 2019 and an IFSCA means the Authority established under section 4(1) of the IFSCA Act. This significantly reduces complexity and fosters consistency and clarity in the navigation of relevant legalities pertaining to share listing and other compliance requirements.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

    This Amendment marks a shift in India’s financial regulatory regime by redefining the entry of companies into global capital markets. In its amplitude, it is not an ordinary technical change but a strategic recalibration of structures of investment. The reduction of public shareholding thresholds from 25% to 10% for foreign listings creates an easier route for start-ups, emerging businesses, and small, mid and large capitalisation companies to access global capital, a phenomenon that is already experiencing an upward trajectory. For example, the gross foreign portfolio investment (‘FPI’) in India was massively estimated at around US$ 41.6 billion in the year 2023-24, which is bound to increase manifold due to this Amendment. The business insights from  companies like Reliance Industries Limited and HDFC Bank Limited, among others, reflect clear examples of corporations successfully accessing large amounts of global capital due to international financial listing. This consequentially places Indian business enterprises in a robust position as reduction in public shareholding compliance requirements is an attractive proposition for investors.

    Interestingly, the lowering of the barriers to international capital access also provides the same growth opportunities to a wider spectrum of sector-specific enterprises, including deep technology, renewable energy and biotechnology. These are crucial sectors requiring large investments. Furthermore, this change may even decentralise India’s economic hubs by allowing international capital to penetrate smaller companies located in tier-2 and tier-3 cities. As an offshoot, regions other than the economically prospering metro cities would witness increased industrialisation and employment generation since more local companies would gain access to foreign investments.

    A research conducted by the International Monetary Fund on emerging markets provides a broader context in which this Amendment fits into a global trend, towards more accessible and flexible capital markets. It represents the benefits of India’s strategic approach to positioning itself as an attractive destination for global investors. Indian firms may be better positioned to raise capital in foreign currencies with a more straightforward pathway to listing abroad while hedge-protecting firms reliant on imports for raw materials or technology from the capricious market exchange rate.

    Contrary to the apprehensions of capital outflow, this Amendment may benefit India’s domestic markets since an international listing enhances reputation of a company, provides international exposure, and encourages investor confidence. Companies will attract a larger pool of sophisticated retail and institutional investors, leading to increased credibility and brand value through such listings. This will enhance liquidity, valuation, expertise, innovation and overall market efficiency.

    However, the opportunity comes with nuanced challenges, particularly for companies that aim to be listed on both domestic and international exchanges. In a dual-listed company structure, the requirement for multi-jurisdictional shareholder and board approvals introduces complexities to decision-making and company operations. This substantially increases audit and compliance costs, necessitating detailed planning and high investments in financial and legal advisory services.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS

    This Amendment is more than a routine regulatory change because it aims to manifest India as a global financial hub by significantly relaxing listing requirements in the IFSC. It serves as a forward-looking measure with the objective of modernising the Indian securities law landscape and aligning it with international best practices by furthering a more inclusive access to global capital markets. With the introduction of this Amendment, the legislature has taken a significant step in the right direction and it will be interesting to observe the future course this Amendment adopts, particularly concerning its effective implementation.

  • The European Commission’s Fine On Meta For Tying Allegations And Why India Needs To Do More

    The European Commission’s Fine On Meta For Tying Allegations And Why India Needs To Do More

    BY ANUSHKA GUHA, THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT NLU, ODISHA

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Commission (‘EC’) fined Meta for tying Facebook Marketplace (‘FM’) to its social media platform, Facebook, in November 2024. FM is Meta’s online classified advertisement service which was introduced in 2016 and can be used to sell and buy products. Tying is a practice in which the availability of a product or a service is made conditional upon the availability of another. The EC found that Facebook had used its dominant position in the market for social networks and in the market for displaying classified ads to tie both services. What this essentially does is, expose all users of Facebook to FM, regardless of whether they want to see those ads or not. Such practices pose a competitive disadvantage for other online classified ads services, as they do not have access to the enormous database of social media users like Facebook does. Meta has also been accused of imposing unfair trade conditions through its terms of service that authorizes it to use ad-related data of competing classified ads service providers, who advertise on Facebook and Instagram, for the benefit of FM.

    GLOBAL SCRUTINY ON META

    This comes at a time when Meta is also under the scrutiny of the United States Federal Trade Commission for its acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram resulting in the elimination of competition among social media platforms. The EC has previously fined Meta for providing misleading information during the WhatsApp-Facebook merger in 2014. In India, the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) has penalised Meta for abuse of its dominant position over WhatsApp’s contentious privacy policy introduced in 2021, which authorized the messaging platform to share user data with its parent company Meta and its subsidiaries. 

    This is not the first time Meta has been accused of tying its services. The launch of Threads in 2023 raised concerns about tying, as it requires one to have an account on Instagram. Meta, formerly known as Facebook, acquired Instagram, a photo-sharing app, in 2012. Although marketed as a competitor of microblogging platform X, the prerequisite of an Instagram account to operate the application makes it vulnerable to antitrust scrutiny, because the functioning of Threads and Instagram is fundamentally different. The Turkish Competition Authority, Rekabet Kurumu (‘RK’), has been investigating Meta’s anti-competitive practices since last year. In December 2023, the RK launched an investigation into the alleged tying of Threads and Instagram. 

    Subsequently, in January 2024, Meta was fined $160,000 per day for failure to adequately address competition concerns arising from its dominance in social networking, consumer communication, and online advertising. Most recently, the RK fined Meta $37.20 million over data-sharing practices between Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Threads.

    TYING : THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

    Tying is prohibited under section 4(2)(e)  of the Competition Act, 2002, in the context of abuse of dominance. The CCI’s interpretation of tying has been a bit more restrictive than its European counterpart. This is especially demonstrated by the element of ‘coercion’ which is very narrowly considered by the CCI. We will try to understand this through two cases: Harshita Chawla v. WhatsApp and Facebook (‘Harshita Chawla’) and the Baglekar Akash Kumar v. Google LLC (‘Google Meet case’). 

    In Harshita Chawla, WhatsApp was accused of tying its Unified Payments Interface, WhatsApp Pay (‘WPay’) services with its messaging platform. The CCI dismissed the allegations on two grounds: first, that the element of ‘coercion’ in using the two products was absent; and second, that it did not cause foreclosure of competition in the market for payments services. It is prima facie amply clear that WhatsApp’s messaging platform and WPay operate in different relevant markets, which is a consideration that was taken into account by the CCI as well. However, its rationale for reaching the conclusion stands on shaky ground. The CCI has failed to consider here that WPay is not independent of the messaging platform, and users need to have a WhatsApp account in order to use it. While the implementation of WPay did not foreclose competition in the market of payment services by itself because it is a heterogeneous market, WhatsApp’s conduct is in clear violation of Section 4(2)(e) for two reasons: first, that users need to use the messaging platform in order to use WPay; and second, that WhatsApp leveraged its dominance in the smartphone-based OTT messaging service market to enter into the payments services market.

    A similar reasoning was used in the Google Meet case. In 2020, Google was accused of anti-competitive tying following the integration of its video-conferencing service Google Meet (‘Meet’) with its client mail service, Gmail. This meant that Meet came pre-installed with Gmail and the latter could not be used without the former. CCI dismissed the allegations on Google on two grounds. Firstly, users were free to use Meet without having a Gmail account. They just needed a Google account, not Gmail. Additionally, they were not under an obligation to necessarily use the video-conferencing service while using Gmail. Secondly, it did not restrict users from using other video conferencing apps with their Google account, thus reaching the conclusion that users are not being ‘coerced’ to use Meet and Gmail together. This approach again overlooks the fact that a dominant enterprise (here, Google) leveraged its position in one relevant market (here, client mail service) to enter into another relevant market (here, video-conferencing service). 

    A PROBLEMATIC APPROACH

    The CCI’s narrow interpretation and mandatory requirement of ‘coercion’ in order to constitute tying is arguably not a favorable one. As demonstrated by both the cases above, it clearly neglects the presence of leveraging. Even if we consider that WPay did not cause foreclosure of market competition in Harshita Chawla, it does not weaken the fact that if a user wishes to use WPay, they would necessarily have to pass through WhatsApp, thereby increasing the market power of the messaging platform and giving it a competitive edge over its counterparts in that relevant market. Additionally, the CCI completely ignores the aspect of consumer inertia or status quo bias with its disproportionate focus on coercion. The concept of status quo bias assumes that consumers refrain from making active choices to change the status quo regardless of economic irrationality. In comparison, it has been due importance by the EC on more than one instance, a notable one being the Google Search (Shopping) decision, where it was observed that of the total consumers, only 1% looked at the second page of Google search results. Similarly, a user with a Gmail account is more likely to tilt towards using Meet over other video-conferencing apps, simply out of convenience, or one may say, irrationality. 

    If we apply the Indian approach to the present case of Meta tying FM with Facebook, chances are that Meta will probably escape CCI’s scrutiny, specifically with respect to tying, because it does not ‘coerce’ Facebook users to necessarily use FM. Users can use the social media platform without using the classified ads services and are also free to use other classified ads services while using Facebook. This approach ignores the aspect that FM is a service that cannot be used in isolation without having a pre-existing Facebook account. Consumer inertia is a significant factor in this case, considering the enormous user base of Facebook. Additionally, as compared to any other online classified ads services, Meta obviously has access to a variety of personal data of millions of users across the world (‘Big Data’), which gives it a significant competitive advantage. Something that has been consistently also ignored is the annoyance caused to the users who do not want to use the additional services but are unable to disable them. These are factors that must be taken into account by CCI while adjudicating upon tying allegations in the digital market. 

    CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD

    In evolving digital markets, Big Data raises competitive concerns, when dominant undertakings use it to the detriment of other competitors, by indulging in tying and leveraging. Being a non-price parameter for competition, possession of Big Data by technological giants (‘Big Tech’) puts non-dominant enterprises at a disadvantage. This is where competition regulators are expected to step in. As Big Tech is under stringent scrutiny around the world, remarkably in jurisdictions other than the European Union, it calls for stronger compliance strategies. For more market-friendly effects of antitrust regimes, it is essential to go beyond the imposition of fines. A monetary penalty, no matter how hefty it is, does not act as an effective deterrent for Big Tech as compared to the money that they make every minute of the day. Antitrust watchdogs should go further than that, and ensure the termination of the services or modification of anti-competitive features of such services, in order to protect and promote competition in the market. Considering liberal jurisdictions like the United States are becoming more active in scrutinising the distortion of competition by Big Tech, it is essential for developing economies like India to catch up as well, and not shy away from imposing stringent measures in the interest of consumer welfare. As we anticipate India’s ex-ante framework, one can hope that CCI will take its lessons and adopt a more dynamic approach in the future. 

  • 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.