The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: finance

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

    Assessing the Deal Value Threshold: Shortcomings and the Way Forward

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

    introduction

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

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

    Transaction Value: Shortcomings and Recommendations

    a. Incidental Arrangements

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

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

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

    b. Uncertainty in the Valuation of Non-Compete Clauses

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

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

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

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

    c. Valuation of Options and Securities

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

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

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

    Substantial Business Operations: Shortcomings and Recommedations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    BY TANMAY DONERIA, FOURTH YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PATIALA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    –       Compulsory Conversion

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

    –       Optional Conversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    III. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    BY TANMAY DONERIA, FOURTH YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PATIALA

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

    I. Introduction: Understanding The Context And Conundrum

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

    –       Understanding Key Provisions

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

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

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

    –       Illustration of the Conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Introduction

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

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

    Rationale Behind the New Guidelines

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

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

    Deciphering the Amendments
    • Migration of VCFs to AIF Regulations

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

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

    • Additional Liquidation Period

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

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

    • Enhanced Regulatory Reporting in case of non-migration

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

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

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

    • Strict Compliance and Accountability

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

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

    Forging new Horizons

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    BY AAKRITI RIKHI, THIRD YEAR STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU

    I. Introduction

    On 10th July 2024, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) ordered Religare Enterprises Ltd. (“REL”) to comply with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) order vis-à-vis the open offer by the Burman Group. This was in light of opposition by the board of directors (“Board”) of REL, the target company, to the proposed acquisition. The interim order by SEBI blocks all attempts by the Board to oppose such a takeover, even as the Board may act in the interests of the stakeholders of the company. [GA1]  The fundamental problem with this order is SEBI’s notion that the Board is accountable to the shareholders only (when a hostile bid is made) and not to all stakeholders of the company. 

    This decision in effect, solidifies the Indian position on hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers are allowed as long as there is a compliance with the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers (“SAST”) Regulations[GA2] , 2011. As per these regulations[GA3] , a limited set of responsibility is upon the Board of the target company, which is owed to the shareholders only. Upon a public announcement of an open offer for acquiring shares of the target company, the Board of the target company cannot act on the offer [R24] without the approval of the shareholders. This, I argue, is extremely constraining. Considering the shift towards the stakeholder model as codified by Section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013[GA5]  (“the Act”), it has become necessary to bestow some scope to act to the Board in the case of a takeover. The current legal framework has not accounted for this shift and as a result, there is a clear imprint of the shareholder-primacy model. 

    This post proposes a re-evaluation of the current legal framework to bring it in line with Section 166 the Act. It does so by firstly, highlighting the problematic assumption of the SEBI order in Religare. Secondly, it rebuts this assumption through a brief analysis of the model followed by India vis-à-vis the duties of directors and finally, using this analysis, it argues for empowering directors with the scope to act during hostile takeovers. 

    II. Analysing the SEBI order: An imprint of the shareholder model

    In the case of REL, prior to the public announcement for acquisition of more shares, the acquirers held 21.54% shares of REL. With the proposed acquisition, the shareholding of the acquirer would have increased beyond 25%, triggering an open offer under Regulation 3(1) and 4 of the SAST Regulations, 2011[GA6] . In relation to this open offer, the Board of REL had constituted a Committee of Independent Directors, which had raised objections to the proposed acquisition, on the ground that the acquirers were not ‘fit and proper’ persons for acquiring shares in the target company. There was no evidence provided in support of these allegations.

    In its interim order, SEBI held that the refusal of the target company to seek statutory approvals from regulators, which would enable the acquirers to discharge their legal obligations and provide an exit option to shareholders in the open offer, defeats the objects of the law and goes against the established canons of corporate governance. As per SEBI, the management of the target company is a representative of the shareholders and cannot act against their rights and interests.

    This ignores the fact that directors owe fiduciary duties to the company and not merely to the shareholders. The fundamental problem with this order is the assumption that shareholders are the only decision-makers of the company. By accounting for only the shareholder’s interests, the order renders the stakeholder model of the present statute otiose and is problematic for the target company. 

    This is symptomatic of our present legal framework for hostile takeovers as the following section will explain.

    III. Duties of Directors during a hostile takeover under the current legal framework

    During an acquisition, the management of a listed company is duty bound to act in the interests of its shareholders under broader corporate governance norms, enshrined in the provisions of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. Regulation 4(2) imposes a mandatory duty on the listed company to protect and facilitate the exercise of the rights of shareholders. This is also reflected in the SAST Regulations 2011. As per Regulation 26(2) of SAST Regulations, the Board of the target company cannot take any substantive action without a special resolution of the shareholders. Further, the Board has to constitute a committee of independent directors to provide reasoned recommendations on an open offer. These recommendations have to be provided to the shareholders of the target company. The Board only exercises an advisory role wherein it has no choice but to facilitate the acquirer in the open offer process. This is consistent with the U.K. Takeover Code. This code has enshrined similar provisions on the duty of the Board in case of a takeover. This is termed as the ‘non-frustration rule’. This rule is established to set aside the management when hostile bids are imminent so that the shareholders have the final say on the merits of the bid. 

    In the Indian context, the rationale for this lies in the structure and organisation of companies. Indian companies typically have concentrated shareholding. They have founding families ‘promoters’ with dominant shareholding positions. This, it has been contended[R27] , blocks against a hostile takeover. As a result, there was no contemplation over promoters not holding large stakes while bringing these regulations. Furthermore, there is an assumption implicit in this rationale that the promoters owe a statutory duty to the company as they are endowed with the scope to act in case of a takeover and not the Board. As the next section establishes, it is ultimately the directors who owe a statutory duty to the company and not the promoters. 

    IV. Section 166: A codification of the stakeholder model

    Section 166 of the Act lays down the duties of directors. This was the first time that India had codified the duties of directors[R28] . Section 166(2) highlights who these duties are owed to. It has been contended that the wording of this provision indicates a concrete shift from the shareholder primacy model to the stakeholder model. The shareholder primacy model is based on the theory that the Board of directors derives its powers from the shareholders and therefore, the role of directors is to promote the interests of the shareholders. The stakeholder model views the company’s activities as affecting the society in genera[R29] l. It emphasizes that the role of a company’s directors is not limited to maximising shareholder value but also to account for the interests of other stakeholders, without prioritising one over the other. Therefore, to summarise, the shareholder-primacy model prioritises the interests of the shareholder at the expense of others in the company. It only recognises the profit-driven stake of the shareholders while the stakeholder model situates the company in the larger society.

    Historically, India has fluctuated between these models. During the colonial and the post-Independence period, we adhered to the shareholder model. With the 1960s socialist era, the company was beginning to be seen as having a public character so, we shifted towards the stakeholder model. But, with the 1990s liberalisation policies, we reverted back to the shareholder primacy model. As a result, there was a recognition that directors owe a fiduciary duty to the existing shareholders. This was reflected in the Companies Bill, 2009 [R210] wherein clause 147(2) recognised that directors owed duties to carry on the business of the company “for the benefit of its members as a whole” i.e., the shareholders. This was later amended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, which recommended the inclusion of Section 166(2). 

    The UK on the other hand, followed a different trajectory. Through section 172 of the UK Companies Act, 2006 the enlightened shareholder value model was adopted. This is a variation of the shareholder primacy model where directors are required to have regard to non-shareholder interests as a means of enhancing shareholder value over the long term. So, a hierarchy has been created wherein the shareholder interests are at the top while stakeholder interests remain at the bottom. This interpretation of Section 172 has been upheld recently by the UK Supreme Court as well. 

    Overall, it can be seen that India casts a positive duty on directors to account for other stakeholders whereas UK considers this to be a secondary consideration (if a consideration at all). In light of this duty, it becomes imperative to empower directors to act against a hostile bid. 

    V. Why should directors have scope to act against a hostile bid?

    India’s shift towards the stakeholder model signifies that a body which is accountable to the company and its stakeholders shall exercise the broader decision-making power of the company. When seen in this context, it is apparent that the rationale of allowing the promoters to act does not necessarily hold water. This is because promoters do not owe any statutory duty to the company. The 2013 Act prescribes only two duties of promoters: duty not to make secret profit and duty to disclose to the company any interest in a transaction.[i] This is quite limited when compared with the duties of directors under Section 166. Further, in the case of a promoter being a majority shareholder, there are only two restrictionsprescribed by the Act: limit on the power to alter the MOA and limiting the power from committing fraud on the minority.

    More specifically, in the context of a takeover, there is no mandate imposed on the promoter/shareholder to take into account stakeholder interests. Whereas by reading the duties of directors to include the scope to act in a takeover, there will be a positive duty imposed on them. This becomes significant as a takeover can impact other stakeholders such as employees adversely. For instance, during the Mindtree acquisition by L&T, there was the risk of a cultural mismatch as Mindtree followed an informal culture while L&T followed a command-and-control and top-down management. We can clearly see that by empowering only promoters with control to act in a takeover, there can be severe consequences as they are not bound to account for the interests of other stakeholders. 

    Therefore, India can no longer afford to continue following the non-frustration rule of the UK Takeover Code. The rule still works for the UK because it has adhered to the shareholder primacy model. It no longer works for India as our understanding of a company is that of an entity having a public character. This is evident from the mandatory CSR obligations under Section 135 of the Act. 

    VI. Conclusion

    The purpose of this post is to prompt a review of our takeover-friendly SAST Regulations. Our present law is located at one end of the spectrum as it completely prohibits any action by directors during a hostile takeover. However, we are at a unique position where we can attain a balanced position by providing some scope to directors to act while formulating a standard of review of directors’ actions under Section 166. If we continue with our current framework, we are likely to run into problems as in the case of Religare wherein the directors have no choice but to delay the inevitable through vague mechanisms. 

    [i] Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., (1878) LR 3 App Cas. 1218, 1236, Gluckstein v. Barnes (1900) AC 240. Also note that Sections 34 and 35 of the Companies Act impose liability for untrue statements in prospectus and sections 339 and 447 impose liabilities on promoters for fraudulent trading. 

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

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

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

    I. Introduction 

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

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

    II. Proposed Amendments

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

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

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

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

    III. The Good: Targeting a Regulatory Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    V. Conclusion

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

  • From Hearsay to Hard Facts – SEBI’s Crackdown on Rumour Verification

    From Hearsay to Hard Facts – SEBI’s Crackdown on Rumour Verification

    BY RITUNJAY SINGH AND SEJAL SINGH, FIFTH-YEAR STUDENTS AT RMLNLU, LUCKNOW

    Introduction

    On May 17, 2024, the Securities Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) announced a pivotal change by notifying the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024 (‘2024 Amendment’). The amendment brings notable updates to the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘LODR Regulations’) by mandating Market Rumour Verification (‘MRV’) by listed companies, particularly those that lead to material price movement (‘MPM’).

    Understanding the Regulation and its Evolution

    The 2023 Amendment focused on triggering rumour verification upon a ‘material event’ occurrence but failed to define ‘material event’, leading to unclear compliance requirements. Consequently, SEBI proposed the formation of an Industry Standards Forum (‘ISF’) by industry associations in July 2023. By August 2023, the ISF, a collaboration between the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, was established to formulate standards for implementing specific circulars and regulations. This collaboration resulted in a Consultation Paper released in December 2023, which laid the groundwork for the 2024 Amendment.

    The 2024 Amendment builds on this foundation, which initially mandated MRV but delayed its enforcement. The new regulations mandate rumour verification for the top 100 listed entities from June 1, 2024, and aim to extend it to the top 250 listed entities from December 1, 2024. The entity must verify specific market rumours reported in mainstream media that lead to MPM, usually within 24 hours from the trigger of MPM. General or vague rumours do not necessitate a response. It shall be specific to the industry consisting of unpublished information. 

    Mainstream media includes Indian newspapers with substantial circulation and readership, their digital versions, designated online news sources, and select international newspapers and news channels. It excludes news sources behind paywalls, news aggregators, and social media platforms, except for verified accounts of recognised news sources. Such focused delineation may presumably provide entities with a manageable scope to monitor. However, excluding social media platforms may leave gaps in differentiating facts from fiction, as seen in the Sadhna Broadcast pump-and-dump controversy, where rumours on social media and YouTube videos artificially inflated stock prices, causing investors losses once the stock inevitably crashed. A similar scenario occurred in the infamous Reddit-fuelled GameStop frenzy, where a coordinated effort by retail investors caused an unexpected stock surge, defying traditional market expectations and forcing hedge funds into massive losses. Furthermore, SEBI’s recent efforts to caution the public against dealing with unregulated entities and clamping down on the association between regulated entities and ‘finfluencers’, SEBI acknowledges this pervasive influence. Excluding such platforms from rumour verification leaves a blind spot in the regulatory framework.

    Having mentioned price volatility, it is crucial to understand MPM. The Bombay Stock Exchange (‘BSE’) and the National Stock Exchange (‘NSE’) introduced the MPM Framework to standardise its assessment, providing clear criteria for its calculation. It considers the cut-off percentage to price variation in share price between the closing price of the previous trading day and the next trading day’s opening price, excluding the benchmark index’s impact (e.g., NSE’s NIFTY 50 and BSE’s SENSEX). Additionally, intraday price movements are analysed, focusing on volatility throughout the trading day rather than just the opening versus closing prices. This responsibility of identifying the MPM rests with the listed entity, which may delegate this role to a designated officer. Owing to the constant fluctuation in stock prices, notifying the listed entity regarding the MPM necessitates a sophisticated technology-based solution. Going forward, service providers will likely offer these alert systems to companies. The lookback period i.e. the timeframe within which companies must retrospectively examine previous market rumours that might have induced an MPM is not specified, allowing companies to tailor their verification procedures flexibly to ensure a thorough and context-appropriate assessment.

    On May 21 2024, SEBI released another circular regarding the “framework for considering the unaffected price for transactions upon confirmation of market rumour.” This framework calculates the unaffected price by excluding the effect of MPM and rumour confirmation on equity share prices. In mergers and acquisitions, if parties’ names are non-disclosable due to confidentiality, the unaffected price is valid for 180 days from rumour confirmation; if names are disclosable, it’s valid for 60 days post-confirmation (Paragraph 5.2.2). If the price variation due to rumour confirmation hits the price band on the next trading day, subsequent trading days’ price variation is included for adjustment until it no longer hits the price band. For example, if ‘A’ trades at Rs. 100 per share and a rumour about acquiring ‘B’ causes the stock price to rise to Rs. 400 per share, later proving untrue and falling to Rs. 50 per share, the rumour period causing the fluctuation is determined. The average stock price of ‘B’ prior to the rumour, over a fixed period (e.g., six months), is analysed. If this average is Rs. 100 per share and market trends align, the unaffected price is Rs. 100 per share. This benefit only applies if the rumour is confirmed within 24 hours of MPM.

    Bridging the Gaps: A Vision for the Future

    The 24-hour timeframe provided under Regulation 30(11) not only seems insufficient to locate the exact source of the rumour in order to effectively address it, given the vast trenches of media requiring navigation; but also, proves to be a very small window to provide the public with the necessary documents that support its confirmation or denial. Something similar took place in the short-selling saga of the Adani-Hindenburg case, wherein even after their quick response within 24 hours, Adani’s stocks continued to tread downwards. Moreover, such a stringent timeline could attract regulatory scrutiny under the PFUTP Regulations in the accidental case of a hasty and, incorrect disclosure. Conversely, the NYSE Manual allows the confirmation of a rumour without the ticking 24-hour time clock, alleviating any pressure and allowing the company to make an accurate statement that verifies the accuracy of a rumour without the risk of any regulatory repercussions for incorrect disclosures.

    Furthermore, in the event of a merger and acquisition, a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which more often than not governs these negotiations, may act as a significant impediment to the Regulation, restricting the information that can be publicly shared. A premature confirmation or outright denial may attract a weaker negotiating position for the entity. While an argument can be made that a rumour may be surfacing owing to an already existing breach, that is not an argument strong enough for intentionally breaching confidentiality agreements. Henceforth, if a company were to deny a rumoured merger and later go through with it, investor trust could still very well be damaged. Some countries, like the United Kingdom (‘UK’), have a standstill period of 6 months under section 2(6) of the UK Takeover Code, in case a company does not verify a rumoured merger within 28 days. However, while this prioritises investor clarity and market stability, it is done at the expense of corporate flexibility and strategic planning. Companies might be forced into premature decisions that misalign with their timelines or negotiation strategies. A premature confirmation could also lead to a failed negotiation and wasted resources in case the deal does not go through.  Nevertheless, missing the 28-day verification window would result in being barred from making any such offers within the next six months, potentially missing out on opportunities.

    A balance can be restored by allowing the company to delay disclosures if an immediate clarification poses potential harm. This postponement ensures that an entity can manage sensitive information without being forced into a premature disclosure that could disrupt ongoing negotiations. The same is ensured by Chapter 3 of the European Union Market Abuse Regulation. However, this ability to delay does not come without oversight. Entities choosing to delay shall have to provide regulators with an explanation for the same, demonstrating how exactly it aligns with their legitimate interests, thereby preventing the misuse of the provision for any unfair competitive advantage. Similarly, vis-a-vis leaving room for corporate flexibility, SEBI can also take note of Part III of Appendix 7A of the Corporate Disclosure Policy of Singapore that carves out exceptions to disclosure due to market rumours: (a) The information to be disclosed doesn’t breach any law (Rule 703(2)); (b) The issuer can temporarily refrain from publicly disclosing particular information if a reasonable person would not expect it to be disclosed, and the information is kept confidential (Rule 703(3)). This comes with the caveat of maintaining the strictest confidentiality to prevent leaks.

    Conclusion

    SEBI’s attempts to balance transparency and accountability are evident, even addressing possible concerns via its Guidance Note, including handling speculations regarding a Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer’s health. Yet, as noted earlier, the indeterminate lookback period tips the scales slightly against corporations. By adopting a more structured approach akin to international practices, Indian entities could be better equipped to safeguard their legitimate interests while maintaining investor confidence. Such regulatory evolution could demystify market speculations, enhance stability, and bring India’s disclosure standards into closer alignment with international standards, safeguarding the truth in trading.

  • Bharati Airtel & Anr v. V.V. Iyer – Unraveling the Set-Off Saga in Insolvency

    Bharati Airtel & Anr v. V.V. Iyer – Unraveling the Set-Off Saga in Insolvency

    by Pratishtha Agarwal and Prabhav Tripathi, students of third-year at the Institute of Law, Nirma University

    Introduction

    While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) serves as a complete code, many a time, the exclusive nature of the Act presents a legal lacuna in the procedure and calls for determining the application of other general laws in such absence of relevant provisions. On a similar note, in the recent case of Bharati Airtel Limited and Anr. v Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Anr., the Supreme Court decided upon the question of the right to claim set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). In set-off, it is a debtor’s right to settle the smaller claim owed to him against the larger claim payable to his creditor. As there is no statutory provision on setting off the balance amount once the CIRP has been initiated, the Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed the appeal.

    It was held that insolvency set-off and statutory set-off do not apply to CIRP. Though the right to claim of set-off is generally granted under Order VIII Rule 6  of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”), it is not permitted in the CIRP when the Resolution Professional proceeds to take control and custody of Corporate Debtor’s assets under Section 25(2)(a) of IBC.

    This blog aims to understand the rationale behind the judgement and the exceptions it carved, discuss the arguments presented from both sides and analyse the dissenting stances of foreign jurisdictions on claim of set-off in insolvency proceedings.  

    Facts of the Case 

    In April 2016, eight spectrum trading agreements were executed between Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Hexacom Limited, Aircel Limited, and Dishnet Wireless Limited to acquire the usage rights of the spectrum allocated to the latter. Since the agreement was contingent on the approval of the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, (“DoT”) it had demanded that the Aircel entities submit bank guarantees for Rs 457.73 crores owing to certain licenses and spectrum dues.

    After the Aircel entities filed a challenge with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (“TDSAT”)regarding DoT’s directive, they were ordered by TDSAT to provide bank guarantees for which they approached the Airtelentities. On the Aircel entities replacing the bank guarantees furnished by the Airtel entities and Airtel entities receiving them from the DoT, Rs. 411.22 crores were payable by the Airtel entities to the Aircel entities.

    Pertinently, the bone of contention arose on 10th January 2019 when the Airtel entities made a payment of Rs 341.80 crores due to Aircel entities after setting-off a balance amount of Rs 145.20 crores on the ground that Aircel entities owed that amount to them. This set-off was contested before the Adjudicating Authority (“AA”) in Mumbai by Airtel wherein an order in favour of the Airtel entities held that they had a right to set off Rs. 112.87 crores from the payment. The Resolution Professional contested the Adjudicating Authority’s order before NCLAT which held ‘set-off to be antithetical to the objective of the IBC.’ 

    Provisions And Principles: No Right To Claim Set-Off In The CIRP

    Relying upon the opening part of the enactment, the Supreme Court judgement addresses IBC as a complete code to consolidate the laws relating to insolvency resolution and reorganization. The intentional omission of statutory set-off or insolvency set-off provisions during CIRP reflects a legislative decision to preclude the assertion of such rights in insolvency proceedings. Additionally, Regulation 29 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“Liquidation Regulations”) which addresses setoff and mutual credits, is confined to Chapter III Part II, specifically about the liquidation process. This posits that if there were a conflicting legislative intent, the law would have encompassed Chapter II Part II of the IBC to allow the application of set-off claims during CIRP.

    Section 238 IBC provides an overriding power wherein notwithstanding anything inconsistent present in any other law for the time being in force, the laws laid down are in effect. This legal position also disarms Regulation 29 from subsuming the CIRP under its scope of insolvency set-off. Further, Order VIII Rule 6 of CPC creates a legal or statutory set-off wherein the defendant has a right to claim set-off against the plaintiff’s demand for an ascertained sum of money that is legally recoverable and is not beyond the pecuniary limits of the court’s jurisdiction. However, this set-off too, is overridden by Section 238 and rendered inapplicable from being exercised during insolvency proceedings, thus maintaining the rigidity and exclusivity of the Code.

    It was further argued that the concept of insolvency set-off, in its entirety, goes against the principle of pari passu. Section 53 of the IBC lays down the priority order of creditors for the distribution of sale proceeds of liquidation assets under the “waterfall mechanism”. Here, set-off offers an overriding effect and primacy to the creditor entitled to claim set-off against the demanded credits of the Corporate Debtor. In the process of dealing with these cross demands by set-off, the assets are depleted in favour of that single creditor with set-off entitlement that was initially available to be settled amongst the general body of creditors. As a consequence, with a decrease in the dividend payable, the same class of creditors are not treated equally and the liquidation hierarchy is also compromised. Thus, if such a claim is permitted in the CIRP, it is bound to go against the waterfall mechanism by keeping the entitled creditor on a higher footing and the other creditors at a disadvantageous position.

    Contradictory Viewpoint on the Applicability of Set-Off to CIRP

    The SC judgment attempts to clear the air on the applicability of set-off to CIRP however it raises pertinent questions on whether the Apex Court has taken an erroneous stance. The judgment moots the contention that Regulation 29 of the Liquidation Regulationsmandates the mutual set-off however the instant regulation only corresponds to liquidation.

    Pertinently, as noted earlier, the judgment of the SC in the case of Swiss Ribbons v. Union of India held that set-off can be considered during CIRP subject to the challenge before the AA. Interestingly, the judgment takes note of the mandatory nature of insolvency set-offs in the United Kingdom as highlighted by the judgment in the case of National Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd.. Therefore, it is vital to highlight that set-off is a widely accepted and practised principle of insolvency law internationally. Notably, Section 553  of the U.S. Code provides for the right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt that arose before the commencement of the case i.e. pre-petition debt. However, per the ratio of In re Shopper’s Paradise,  it was highlighted that a creditor can never offset a post-petition debt against a pre-petition debt. This in line with the distinction drawed upon in the instant judgment in relation to set-off pre and post the initiation of the CIRP. 

    Further, in the matter of Pramod Kumar Sharma Uniworld Sugars Pvt. Ltd. v. ED&F Man Sugar Ltd., NCLT Chandigarh had held that set-off was permissible during CIRP in view of ‘the treatment reflected in the book of accounts of the Corporate Debtor while determining the liability of the parties with regard to the purchase and sale of sugar.’ A case has been made out in detail below for allowing set-off in the context of CIRP. 

    Justifications for Permitting Set-off in the Context of CIRP

    1. Litigation Minimization: Permitting setoffs can aid in the reduction of litigation throughout the CIRP. The presence of set-off may potentially mitigate disputes concerning the validity and magnitude of claims, as it incentivizes the involved parties to negotiate settlements rather than engage in protracted legal disputes.

    2. Encourages Credit Flow: An effectively operating set-off mechanism has the potential to encourage credit flow. If creditors are certain that the quantities owed by the debtor can be offset against their exposure, they may be more inclined to grant credit to financially distressed companies. This would subsequently increase the availability of credit in the market.

    3. Promoting Creditor Engagement: Permitting set-off enables creditors to be more motivated to actively participate in the CIRP. To encourage greater participation in negotiations, contribution to the resolution plan, and support for the company’s revival, creditors might be more inclined to offset their claims against the liabilities of the debtor.

    Conclusion

    However, the Apex Court has carved out two exceptional conditions in Paragraphs 30 and 32 of the judgement, wherein the set-offs are permitted in CIRP in two circumstances. Firstly, a contractual set-off is allowed if its entitlement is effective before or on the date of CIRP initiation.  As the same cannot be precluded, the terms of the contract remain binding besides the moratorium period. Secondly, equitable set-off, wherein the claim and counter-claim are linked by transactions that can be treated as one, was also made an exception by the Bench. Herein, the set-off needs to be “quantifiable, genuine, and established on fact and in law.” Through this judgement, the Supreme Court reiterated the sanctity and exclusivity of IBC and settled the position of law on the applicability of the right to claim set off in the CIRP. In the context of insolvency law, the ratio decidendi is a right step in the way to establish a proper demarcation of claims in CIRP and other laws.

  • SEBI’s Instantaneous Trade Settlement: Evaluating the Implications on Foreign Investors

    SEBI’s Instantaneous Trade Settlement: Evaluating the Implications on Foreign Investors

    BY PARV JAIN, A THIRD-YEAR STUDENT AT INSTITUTE OF LAW, NIRMA UNIVERSITY, GUJARAT

    Introduction

    According to SEBI’s annual report, the year 2022–23 faced a foreign portfolio investors (“FPIs”) outflow of Rs 40,936 crore. This was the third highest sell-off by FPIs during a financial year. This FPI pull-out could be driven by the opening of China post-lockdown, the Russia-Ukraine crisis, and a series of rate hikes due to inflationary pressures. But now, it is the need of the hour to ensure not to give offshore investors any reason to pull out of India, given the huge contemporary capital requirements.

    In September 2023, Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) announced the plan for the implementation of instantaneous trade settlements, which has caused a plethora of debate regarding the future implications of such a move. SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Buch had expressed her enthusiasm for instant trade settlement, which will become a game-changer for the Indian stock market and will benefit investors greatly by making trading faster, safer, and cheaper. According to her, it will also enhance India’s position as a leading financial market in the world. This implies that the instant trade settlement plan might roll out very soon, but it is still unclear whether the regulator would resolve the potential challenges for foreign investors from such a change beforehand or not. SEBI now aims to achieve a same-day i.e. T+0 settlement system by March 2024, and then aspires to move towards a method of instantaneous settlement of trades.

    As the discussions increase, people are anticipating a withdrawal of offshore investors from the market, who fear that the settlement of equity market trade on the same day will eventually fragment the liquidity of the market. In this regard, I discuss how the instant trade settlement affects foreign investors. I argue that the demerits of such a change could outweigh its merits. Lastly, I propose certain additions and changes in the framework to ensure the inflow of foreign investment. 

    Addressing the Lacunae

    From a practical standpoint, achieving instant trade settlement might be impossible within the current financial framework.  In 2020, the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (ASIFMA) also highlighted the difficulties for foreign investors if the settlement cycle is reduced, as this may result in inefficiencies for trade matching and end of day reconciliations. This is because the settlement of securities transactions requires a multi-faceted procedure, demanding seamless coordination and communication among a diverse array of stakeholders. Adequate time must be allocated post agreement on a trade for the underlying securities to undergo the necessary transfers and for the corresponding funds to be transferred. At the core of the settlement process, time must be allowed to guarantee legitimacy, accuracy, and adherence to regulatory standards. 

    These conceptual issues might be solved through technological alterations and mutual agreements, but the core issue would lie in the fact that such a move would require an alteration of the whole financial system. This includes the configuration of the Indian payment system as well as the framework governing pivotal banking functions, such as the facilitation of deposit accounts and the extension of credit. To achieve instant trade settlement, a substantial restructuring of the current clearing, payment, and settlement infrastructure within the Indian market would be required.

    Demystifying the Implications on Foreign Investors

    Currently, there is a set procedure followed by foreign investors to deal in the Indian stock market. For instance, if a Germany-based foreign investor wants to buy shares in India, he has to first send euros to the custodians, who will then book the forex, convert the euros into Indian rupees, and deposit the funds into the FPI’s cash account in India. By the time settlement occurs, the funds are deposited with the custodians. Currently, there is a set window of time for transferring the funds and converting them to Indian rupees, subject to market fluctuations which almost occur within a day. But the instantaneous trade settlement will reduce this time, which means foreign exchange transactions will have to be expedited as well to fast track the conversion of currency into Indian rupees. The foreign investors will have to face a lot of challenges, and this might cause a lot of unexplored issues.

    The core issue with instantaneous trade settlement arises from the time difference between Indian and foreign jurisdictions. As a result, foreign investors would need to predict the entry price of a stock in advance, and the price may also fluctuate before they make a purchase. To mitigate this, offshore investors would be compelled to prefund the transaction. Consequently, in the case of SEBI’s instant settlement plan, the law of diminishing returns applies, as the shortened time frame introduces more risk without generating additional benefits for widespread adoption across the market. This could potentially lead to a situation where capital is underinvested, making the delivery of securities more complex, fraught with increased risk and escalation of costs. Thus, the implementation of this measure could make the Indian financial markets less appealing to global investors. 

    The Way Ahead

    Ms. Madhabi Buch has said that FPI would not face any problems as they would be given the choice to opt out of instantaneous settlement if they prefer not to use it. She ensured that SEBI had ascertained the data that shows which trades are matched with each other. Based on this data, they believe that choosing not to opt for instantaneous settlement will not create any issues or problems for anyone involved. In essence, they are reassuring that the traditional settlement process will still be accommodated and will not cause any difficulties for those who prefer it. However, this optimistic model would fail when the foreign investors would be left with no option but to opt for instant trade settlement if a large share of retail volume does so. This is because, with two distinct trade settlement cycles, the liquidity could be divided in the two-way transaction. Most of the domestic investors are likely to prefer instant trade settlement creating a risk of fragmentation of liquidity and an increased likelihood of failed trades. To prevent this, SEBI should take certain measure like trade limit for a specific settlement cycle to ensure that the liquidity is sufficient, if not equal in both the trade settlement cycles.

    To bypass this hurdle, SEBI will have to formulate a mechanism similar to the one implemented in China. China, at the time of introduction of the T+0 settlement cycle for Stock Connect, was facing several challenges as it increased the operational burden for foreign investors and market participants to complete the settlement obligations. Also, when China A-shares got listed on global indexes such as Morgan Stanley Capital International and Financial Times Stock Exchange, foreign interest in the Chinese onshore equity market skyrocketed. It became very crucial to make an A-share investment channel to entice foreign investment. Thus, in partnership with Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (“HKEX”) launched HKEX Synapse, a revolutionary settlement platform specialized to Northbound Stock Connect. 

    Synapse works as a standardized and centralized platform that efficiently transmits settlement instructions to all relevant parties concurrently. This simultaneous processing ensures full transparency in the trade processing status. After obtaining consensus and approvals, Synapse transmits settlement instructions to the Central Clearing and Settlement System (“CCASS”) for final settlement. Real-time integration with CCASS allows Synapse to provide prompt status updates to all involved parties after a matching or settlement batch run. This results in comprehensive transparency, improved control, and increased efficiency for investors and their counterparts throughout the settlement process.

    In India, if instant trade settlement has to be introduced despite having several loopholes, a platform similar to HKEX Synapse is necessary to ensure that international investors gain immediate access to the real-time status of their trade settlements. This would provide a measure of relief from the constraints imposed by the narrow settlement window. Also, this will standardize and simplify post-trade procedures and empower investors to optimize connectivity and operational efficiencies within a framework that is both transparent and secure. Custodians will be equipped with comprehensive insights regarding the parties that have endorsed and sanctioned specific trades, thereby furnishing them with the essential data needed to promptly address and rectify any trade anomalies prior to the designated cut-off time. 

    Apart from this, SEBI can also give brokers the responsibility of guaranteeing payments on behalf of foreign investors, effectively extending them credit for the interim two-day period until the transactions are duly finalized. For instance, Indian stockbrokers can vouch for foreign investors and settle their trades in instant trade settlement, and later, these investors can repay money to the brokers within two days. While the brokers would take some risks, in the long term they would benefit from the new inflows. 

    Concluding Remarks

    India has at various instances, taken the lead in terms of technological innovation by changing the digital infrastructure with platforms like CoWIN and Unified Payments Interface. Instant trade settlement might put India at the forefront of the globe in terms of trade settlement if it is proven to be the fastest and most efficient in the world. 

    However, it is crucial to recognize the complexities and potential disruptions it may introduce to the existing financial framework. Foreign investors, in particular, will face significant hurdles with the proposed instantaneous settlement. This may necessitate prefunding transactions, introducing added complexity and risk to the process. Additionally, the implementation of this measure may lead to increased operational costs for foreign investors, potentially making the Indian financial markets less attractive on a global scale. SEBI’s assurance that traditional settlement processes will still be accommodated is a positive step, but it may not entirely alleviate concerns, especially if a significant portion of retail volume opts for instantaneous trade settlement.

    Therefore, careful consideration and strategic measures are essential to mitigate potential risks and ensure a seamless transition. By adopting proven mechanisms and addressing the concerns of foreign investors, India can pave the way for a more dynamic and resilient financial ecosystem in the years ahead.