The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: news

  • Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part II)

    Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part II)

    BY Pranav Gupta and Aashi Sharma Year, RGNUL, Punjab

    Having discussed the concept of Security for Costs and International Precedents of Investment Arbitration, this part will delve into precedents of Commercial Arbitration and potential solution for the security for cost puzzle.

    B. Commercial Arbitration Procedure:

    The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, being a foundational framework, empowers the tribunal to order SfC under Article 17(2)(c), after being amended in 2006. The ambiguous drafting of the provision fell prey to a much-anticipated debate,[i] with critics arguing it fails to clearly address the issue of SfC. It led to a proposal[ii] for amending Article 17(2)(c) by adding words “or securing” after “assets” to signify security of some sort. Despite this, the Model Law continues to influence the rules of major arbitral institutions like the London Court for International Arbitration Rules (“LCIA Rules”) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (“SIAC Rules”).

    Article 25.2 under the LCIA rules grants the arbitral tribunal power to order for SfC as mirrored by Article 38(3) of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 which is the governing law of arbitrations seated in England and Wales. In the cases of Fernhill Mining Ltd. and Re Unisoft Group (No. 2), the judges devised a three-pronged test for granting SfC: Firstly, there must be “reasons to believe” that the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if unsuccessful in the claim. Secondly, there must be a balancing of the interest[iii] of the defendant and the claimant by protecting the defendant against impecunious claims while not preventing the claimant from proceeding with a meritorious claim. Thirdly, the conduct of the party[iv] seeking a SfC must not suggest an attempt to stifle a meritorious claim.

    Rule 48 of the SIAC Rules 2025 empowers the arbitral tribunal to order for SfC. Notably, both the LCIA and SIAC Rules distinguishes between SfC and ‘security for the amount in dispute’, with LCIA Article 25.1(i) and Article 25.2 addressing each separately, in the similar way as SIAC Rule 48 and 49 do.

    A Possible Solution to the Security for Costs Puzzle

    As the authors earlier observed that The Arbitration Act doesn’t possess any express provision for awarding SfC, leading courts to resort to section 9 of The Act, an approach later debunked by the Delhi High Court. However, this contentious issue gained prominence again with the landmark judgement of Tomorrow Sales Agency. The case remains landmark, being the first Indian case to expressly deal with the issue of SfC, with the earlier cases touching the issue only in civil or implied contexts. The case led to the conclusion that SfC couldn’t be ordered against a third-party funder, who is not impleaded as a party to the present arbitration, though the Single Judge Bench upholding the court’s power to grant such a relief under Section 9. However, the judgment leaves ambiguity regarding the particular sub-clause under which SfC may be granted, which the author tries to address by providing a two-prong solution.

    As an ad-hoc solution, the authors prescribe the usage of sub-clause (e) of section 9(1)(ii) of The Arbitration Act, which provides the power to grant any ‘other interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient’. The above usage would be consistent with firstly with the Tomorrow Sales Agency case as it implies the power to order such measure under section 9 of The Act and secondly with the modern interpretation of section 9, where courts emphasised its exercise ex debito justitiae to uphold the efficiency of arbitration.

    As a permanent solution, the authors suggest the addition of an express provision to The Arbitration Act. The same can be added by drawing inspiration from the LCIA Rules and the SIAC Rules’ separate provisions for ‘SfC’ and ‘securing the amount in dispute’, further building on the specifics of the concept laid down in Rule 53 of ICSID Rules, with particular emphasis on the above mentioned Indian precedents. An illustrative draft for the provision adopting the above considerations is provided below:

    • “Section XZ: Award of Security for Costs
    • Upon the request of a party, the Arbitral Tribunal may order any other party to provide Security for Costs to the other party.
    • In determining the Security for Costs award, the tribunal shall consider all the relevant circumstances, including:
    • that party’s ability or willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs;
    • the effect that such an order may have on that party’s ability to pursue its claims or counterclaim;
    • the conduct of the parties;
    • any other consideration which the tribunal considers just and necessary.

    Provided that the tribunal while considering an application for Security for Costs must not prejudge the dispute on the merits.

    • The Tribunal shall consider all evidence adduced in relation to the circumstances in paragraph (2), including the existence of third-party funding.

    Provided that the mere existence of a third-party funding arrangement would not by itself lead to an order for Security for Costs.

    • The Tribunal may at any time modify or revoke its order on Security for Costs, on its own initiative or upon a party’s request.”

    Hence, in light of increasing reliance on mechanisms such as TPF, the absence of a dedicated provision for SfC remains a glaring procedural gap. While, the Indian courts have tried to bridge this void through the broad interpretations of section 9 of The Arbitration Act, a coherent solution requires both an ad interim interpretive approach, through the invocation of sub-clause (e) of Section 9(1)(ii) and a long-term legislative amendment explicitly incorporating SfC as a standalone provision. Such a provision must be drawn from international frameworks such as the ICSID, LCIA, and SIAC Rules, ensuring India’s credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

    [i] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Report of the Working Group on Arbitration and Conciliation on the work of its forty-seventh session (Vienna, 10-14 September, 2007).

    [ii] ibid.

    [iii] Wendy Miles and Duncan Speller, ‘Security for costs in international arbitration- emerging consensus or continuing difference?’ (The European Arbitration Review, 2007) <https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/e50de48e389d4f61b47e13f326e9c954.pdf > accessed 17 June 2025.

    [iv] Sumeet Kachwaha, ‘Interim Relief – Comments on the UNCITRAL Amendments and the Indian Perspective’ (2013) 3 YB on Int’l Arb 155 <https://heinonline-org.rgnul.remotexs.in/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ybinar3&i=163> accessed 5 June 2025.  

  • Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    Addressing the Silence: Security for Costs in India’s Arbitration Landscape (Part I)

    BY PRANAV GUPTA AND AASHI SHARMA, SECOND- YEAR STUDENT AT RGNUL, PUNJAB

    Introduction

    The recent cases of Lava International Ltd. and Tomorrow Sales Agency have reignited the confusions regarding the concept of Security for Costs (‘SfC’) in India.Gary B. Born[i] defines SfC as “an interim measure designed to protect a respondent against the risk of non-payment of a future costs award, particularly where there is reason to doubt the claimant’s ability or willingness to comply with such an award.”

    The authors in this manuscript shall wade through the confusions raised in the above cases. For that, firstly, we try to conceptually understand the concept of SfC by distinguishing it from the other situated similar concepts, while also emphasizing on the legal provisions governing them. Secondly, we analyze the concept of SfC in light of the leading international investment and commercial arbitration practices. Lastly, the authors propose a two-tier solution to the problem of SfC in India building on the international practices with certain domestic modifications.

    Security for Costs: Concept and Law
    1. Understanding Security for Costs:

    The concept of SfC is fundamentally different from that of ‘securing the amount in dispute’, as the latter is a measure to ensure the enforceability of the arbitral award by securing the party with whole or some part of the amount claimed or granted. section 9(1)(ii)(b) and section 17(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘The Arbitration Act’) regulates the regime for ‘securing the amount in dispute’ as an interim measure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arcelor Mittal and Nimbus Communications clarified that section 9 permits securing the ‘amount in dispute’ on a case by case basis. Further, SfC is also distinct from ‘Recovery of Costs’, as ‘costs’ are recovered post the declaration of award and is addressed by section 31A of The Arbitration Act. 

    B. Security for Costs and Section 9: A Legal Void:

    While, The Arbitration Act deals with the similarly situated aspects of SfC as shown above, it remains silent on a provision for SfC, a gap that remains unaddressed even by the 2015 Amendment and The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. A landmark ruling with respect to SfC was delivered in the J.S. Ocean Liner case, by ordering to deposit USD 47,952 as an amount for recovery of legal costs. The court relied on section 12(6) of the English Arbitration Act 1950, akin to section 9(1)(ii)(b) of The Arbitration Act, to award SfC as an interim measure in this case. However, this harmonious interpretation was later rejected in the cases of Intertoll Co. and Thar Camps, by observing that under sub-clause (b) of section 9(1)(ii), only ‘amount in dispute’ can be secured and not the SfC. Hence, The Arbitration Act needs a reform with respect to the provision concerning SfC.

    International Precedents concerning Security for Costs
    1. Investment Arbitration Insights:

    The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (‘ICSID’) Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’), being the world’s primary institution, administers the majority of all the international investment cases. Till the 2022 Amendment to The ICSID Arbitration Rules (‘ICSID Rules’), even ICSID Rules were silent on this concept of SfC, however now Rule 53 of the same Rules contains the express provision for awarding SfC by The Tribunal. As the newly introduced Rule 53 is in its nascent stage with no extensive judicial precedents[ii] on it yet, the authors analyze the cases prior to the 2022 Amendment to understand the mechanism for granting SfC.

    Prior to the 2022 Amendment, SfC was granted as a provisional measure[iii] under Article 47 of The ICSID Convention and Rule 39 of The ICSID Rules as observed in the cases of RSM v. Grenada[iv] and Riverside Coffee.[v] However, in the Ipek[vi] case, the Tribunal permitted the granting of SfC only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.[vii] The high threshold[viii] was reaffirmed in Eskosol v. Italy[ix], where even the bankruptcy didn’t sustain an order for SfC. Further, in EuroGas[x] case, financial difficulty and Third-Party Funding (’TPF’) arrangement were considered as common practices, unable to meet the threshold of ‘exceptional circumstances’.

    Finally, in the RSM v. Saint Lucia[xi] case, the high threshold[xii] was met as the Claimant was ordered to pay US$ 750,000 as SfC on account of its proven history of non-compliance along with the financial constraints, and TPF involvement. In the same case, The Tribunal established a three-prong test[xiii] for awarding SfC emphasizing on the principles of ‘Exceptional Circumstances, Necessity, and Urgency’,[xiv] with the same being followed in the further cases of Dirk Herzig[xv] and Garcia Armas.[xvi] Further, The Tribunal added a fourth criterion of ‘Proportionality’[xvii] to the above three-prong test in the landmark case of Kazmin v. Latvia.[xviii]

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) is another prominent institution, with nearly half its cases involving Investment-State arbitrations. The PCA resorts to Article 26 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to award SfC as seen in the Nord Stream 2 case.[xix] In Tennant Energy v. Canada[xx] and South American Silver,[xxi] the PCA applied the same test, devised in the Armas case to grant SfC.[xxii] Similar approaches have been adopted by the local tribunals, including Swiss Federal Tribunal and Lebanese Arbitration Center.[xxiii]

    [i] Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021); See also Maria Clara Ayres Hernandes, ‘Security for Costs in The ICSID System: The Schrödinger’s Cat of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (Uppsala Universitet, 2019) <https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1321675/FULLTEXT01.pdf&gt; accessed 17 June 2025.

    [ii] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, The First Year of Practice Under the ICSID 2022 Rules (30 June 2023).

    [iii] Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v. Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/2, Procedural Order No. 2 (Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures) (13 February 2016) para 53.

    [iv] Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Tribunal’s Decision on Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs (14 October 2010) para 5.16.

    [v] Riverside Coffee, LLC v. Republic of Nicaragua, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/16, Procedural Order No. 7 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (20 December 2023) para 63.

    [vi] Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18, Procedural Order No. 7 (Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (14 October 2019) para 8.

    [vii] BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL v. Republic of Guinea (I),ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No. 3 (Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures) (25 November 2015) para 46.

    [viii] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award (6 August 2019) para 78.

    [ix] Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Procedural Order No. 3 Decision on Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (12 April 2017) para 23.

    [x] EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, Procedural Order No. 3 (Decision on the Parties’ Request for Provisional Measures) (23 June 2015) para 123.

    [xi] RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs (13 August 2014) para 75.

    [xii] Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures Relating to Security for Costs (21 January 2016) para 7.

    [xiii] Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8, Decision on Applicant’s Request for Provisional Measures (7 May 2012) para 13.

    [xiv] BSG Resources Limited (n vii) para 21.

    [xv] Dirk Herzig as Insolvency Administrator over the Assets of Unionmatex Industrieanlagen GmbH v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/35, Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Security for Costs and the Claimant’s Request for Security for Claim (27 January 2020) para 20.

    [xvi] Domingo García Armas, Manuel García Armas, Pedro García Armas and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9 Decision on the Respondent’s Request for Provisional Measures (20 June 2018) para 27.

    [xvii] Transglobal Green Energy (n xii) para 29.

    [xviii] Eugene Kazmin v. Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/5, Procedural Order No. 6 (Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Security for Costs) (13 August 2020) para 24.

    [xix] Nord Stream 2 AG v. European Union, PCA Case No. 2020-07, Procedural Order No. 11 (14 July 2023) para 91.

    [xx] Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2018-54, Procedural Order No. 4 (Interim Measures) (27 February 2020) para 58.

    [xxi] South American Silver Limited v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10 (Security for Costs) (11 January 2016) para 59.

    [xxii] Domingo García Armas (n xvi).

    [xxiii] Claimant(s) v. Respondent(s) ICC Case No. 15218 of 2008.

  • Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

    Navigating RBI’s Revised Framework for Downstream Investments by FOCCs

    BY PURNIMA RATHI, FOURTH-YEAR STUDENT AT SYBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

    On January 20, 2025, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) released a comprehensive revision of the Master Direction on Foreign Investment in India (‘Master Direction’). The update represents a landmark regulatory revision, particularly for Foreign Owned and/or Controlled Companies (‘FOCCs’) pursuing downstream investments. The updated Master Direction has attempted to resolve a number of ambiguities, align regulatory treatment with the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment (‘FDI’) Policy, 2020 and the Foreign Exchange (Non- Debt_ Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) and thus, stream lining the compliance requirements for both investors and companies.

    The blog shall analyse key regulatory changes made through the Master Direction and its effects on downstream investments made by FOCCs. This analysis is made by comparing the recent update to the earlier versions of the Master Direction.

    WHAT ARE FOCCs AND DOWNSTREAM INVESTMENTS ?

    To understand the significance of the Master Direction, it is first necessary to understand the meaning and the context in which FOCCs and downstream investments operate. A FOCC is defined in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’) and the NDI Rules as an Indian entity that is:

    •  Owned by non-resident entities (more than 50% shareholding); or

    •  Controlled by non-residents (in the sense of a non-resident entity or person is empowered to appoint a majority of directors or is empowered to influence decisions which are deemed to be strategic business decisions).

    Downstream investment is defined collectively, in this context, as an investment in capital instruments (equity shares, compulsorily convertible preference shares, etc.) made by said FOCC in another Indian entity. It is essentially an investment made by a company already partly or wholly owned by foreign investors, into another Indian entity.

    Analysis of Key Changes

    The updated Master Direction has important amendments which are aimed at reducing compliance complexities, providing legal clarity, and allowing flexibility with transaction structures. Analysed below are the key revisions from the Master Direction:

    1. Consistency with General FDI Norms

    The most important change is the explicit consistency of downstream investments by FOCCs with general FDI norms. Downstream investments are treated as a different investment category and require separate compliance obligations.  However, now it requires that FOCCs must comply with the same entry routes (automatic or government), sectoral restrictions, price restrictions, and reporting requirements as any direct foreign investment investor. The guiding principle of “what cannot be done directly, shall not be done indirectly” has the intention to place downstream investments on an equal level with FDI.

    This is particularly advantageous in sectors where the automatic route is available and removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. For example, if a FOCC is investing in an Indian startup that provides services to the technology sector, they may now invest and treat it the same as a direct foreign investment provided that the sector cap and conditions are adhered to.

    2. Share Swaps Approved

    Another important change is the recognition of share swap transactions by FOCCs. Before the recent change, it was unclear whether share swaps were permitted for FOCCs at all, and companies tended to either seek informal clarifications or err on the side of caution.

    The updated direction explicitly provides that FOCCs can issue or acquire shares in lieu of shares of another company (either Indian or foreign) subject to pricing guidelines and sectoral limitations. This is an important facilitative measure for cross-border mergers, joint ventures, and acquisition deals where share swaps are the predominant form of consideration.

    This reform enhances transactional flexibility, encourages capital growth and will reduce friction in structuring deals between Indian FOCCs and foreign entities, thereby promoting greater integration with global capital market. 

    3. Permissibility of Deferred Consideration

    The RBI now formally recognizes deferred consideration structures such as milestone-triggered payments, escrows, or holdbacks. However, they are still governed by the ’18-25 Rule’, which allows 25% of total consideration to be deferred, which must be paid within 18 months of execution of the agreement. This represents a pragmatic acceptance of the commercial acknowledgment that not all transactions are settled upon completion.

    RBI shall have to give additional clarifications as the Master Direction still does not specify the extent to which provisions are applicable to downstream investments in comparison to the FDIs.

    4. Limitations on the Utilisation of Domestic Borrowings

    In an effort to safeguard the integrity of foreign investment channels and to deter round-tripping, or indirect foreign investment through Indian funds, the RBI continues to restrict FOCCs from utilising domestic borrowings for downstream investment. This implies that FOCCs can only downstream invest with foreign funds introduced through equity investments or through internal accruals. The restriction aims that downstream investments are made through genuine foreign capital introduced in the country through abroad, rather than through domestic borrowings.

    Practically this means that if the FOCC receives a USD 5 million injection from the parent organization abroad, then they can utilize such funds for downstream investment, but not if they were to borrow the same amount in INR through a loan from an Indian financial institution. This maintains investor confidence and enhances transparency in capital flows.

    5. Modified Pricing Guidelines for Transactions

    The revised framework reiterated pricing guidelines in accordance with the different types of company:

    •  For listed companies: The pricing must comply with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) guidelines,

    •  By unlisted companies: The price cannot be lower than the fair market value determined by internationally accepted pricing methodologies.

    Additionally, in all rights issues involving non-residents, if the allotment is greater than the investor’s allotted entitlement, price has to comply with these guidelines. In this case, the rights issue would protect minority shareholders and mitigate the dilution that would occur by no listings from unlisted companies.

    6. Reporting and Compliance via Form DI

    An excellent innovation is the new compliance requirement of filing on Form DI within 30 days of the date an Indian company becomes a FOCC or makes a downstream investment. This will assist the RBI in maintaining regulatory visibility and better tracking of foreign investment in India. Companies will have to implement stricter internal compliance mechanisms and timely reporting as failure to do so could result in penalties under FEMA. The RBI’s emphasis on transparency reflects a continuing trend toward digitization and live reporting of capital flows by Indian regulators.

    7. Clearer Application of the Reporting Forms (FC-GPR, FC-TRS, DI)

    In addition, the RBI has further clarified the documents to use the following forms:

    • Form FC-GPR: is for reporting the issuance of shares by an Indian entity to a FOCC. • Form FC-TRS: is for any transfer of shares involving FOCC as the non-resident and between residents and non-residents.

    • Form DI: is for downstream investments made by FOCC into any other Indian entity.

    This clarity will help eliminate confusion around these procedures and synchronize the reporting regime of the RBI with the reporting systems of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) and SEBI. FOCC should implement strong internal controls to monitor and track when these filings will become due.

    8. Classification of FOCCs based on Share Movement

    The new regulations will also provide clarity on how the status of a FOCC will influence a regulatory classification. Specifically:

    •  if a FOCC receives shares from an Indian entity, it will be treated as a ‘Person Resident Outside India’; and

    •  if it transfers shares to an Indian entity, it will be deemed to be domestic in nature but needs to comply with the repatriation norms.

    These classifications have an important bearing on the route and pricing of transactions especially in exits or complex internal restructuring transactions. Through these classifications, RBI intends to clarify the confusion from mischaracterizing transactions and reducing risk for the investors in the event of any enforcement action.

    Conclusion

    The amendments to the Master Direction represent a measured and thoughtful change in the foreign investment regulatory framework in India. The RBI has set the tone in favour of enabling policy predictability and investor confidence by clarifying FOCC structures’ downstream investment norms to be consistent with FDI, allowing for more sophisticated structures like share-swap transactions and deferred consideration, and imposing effective operational compliance requirements. Going forward, these refinements have set the foundation for deeper capital integration and increased investor trust in India’s FDI regime.

  • RBI’s Electronic Trading Platforms: a Bittersweet Take on Trading

    RBI’s Electronic Trading Platforms: a Bittersweet Take on Trading

    BY ABHISHEK KAJAL, FOURTH YEAR STUDENT AT IIM, ROHTAK
    Introduction

    The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) introduced the 2024 framework on Electronic Trading Platforms (“ETPs”) in April 2024 (“2024 Draft Framework”), superseding the earlier 2018 Direction (“2018 Framework”) with some key changes.

    As defined by the RBI, an ETP means any electronic system, other than a recognised stock exchange, on which transactions in eligible instruments are contracted.It is a platform that allows trading in eligible instruments as notified by the Reserve Bank of India. The main instruments include Government Securities (“G-Sec”), Money instruments, and Foreign Exchange instruments.

    No individual or organisation, whether local or foreign, is permitted to run an ETP without first securing authorisation or registration from the RBI. A resident person under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”) is allowed to do online forex transactions only on authorised ETPs by the RBI. The purpose of this blog is to analyze the Indian ETP framework by tracing its evolution, examining key regulatory changes in the 2024 draft, highlighting challenges faced by domestic platforms, and suggesting practical solutions to strengthen the framework.

    Evolution of ETPs in India

    After the global financial crisis, trading on electronic platforms was being encouraged in several jurisdictions, driven primarily by regulatory initiatives to reform Over-the-Counter (“OTC”) derivative markets through a technology-driven approach. 

    Therefore, to have more market access, increased competition, and reduced dependency on traditional trading methods, the RBI, in 2017, issued a Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies as a part of its fourth bi-monthly Monetary Policy Statement 2017-18, where it highlighted its intention, for the first time, to regulate the money markets instruments under their purview through ETPs.  They recommended a framework to be put in place for ETPs that will deter market abuse and unfair trading practices, leading to better price discovery and improved market liquidity. Following this, the ETP Direction was first introduced in 2018.

    More Flexibility in Trading

    Under the 2018 framework, only banks were excluded from the framework’s applicability given that they allowed trading of eligible market instruments only with their customers on a bilateral basis and did not trade with market makers, including authorised dealers under FEMA.

    However, under the 2024 framework, the RBI has expanded the relaxation of this framework. Now, scheduled commercial banks (“SCB(s)”) and standalone primary dealers are also excluded from the framework for trading in eligible instruments. They can operate ETP platforms and trade in eligible instruments even without the authorization of the RBI, given that the SCB or primary dealer is the sole provider of price/quote and is a party to all the transactions of the platform.

    Certain reporting requirements have been provided for the SCBs or primary dealers, where they have to report any data or information whenever asked by RBI, and further, to avoid any misuse, the RBI can require such ETPs to comply with the ETP Direction. This change by the RBI reflects a balance between promoting ease of doing business and ensuring market protection in the ETP market.

    Setting up and Authorisation of ETPs

    To establish itself, an ETP must meet specific eligibility criteria for authorization from the RBI. The criteria are dynamic, beginning with the basic requirement that the ETP must be a company incorporated in India. Then, the ETP must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including those of FEMA.

    The ETP or its Key Managerial Personnel (“KMP”) must have at least three years of experience in managing trading infrastructure within financial markets. This requirement serves as a preventive measure against potential market collapses. The ETP must have a minimum net worth of ₹5 crores at the outset and must maintain this net worth at all times. The ETP must have a robust technology infrastructure that is secure and reliable for systems, data, and network operations. All the trade-related information must be disseminated on a real-time or near real-time basis. Once an ETP meets the eligibility criteria, it must submit an application to the RBI in the prescribed format to obtain authorization.

    Offshore ETPs: Opening Doors for Cross-Border Trading

    The background of offshore ETPs is closely linked to the rising incidents of unauthorized forex transactions in India. In response, the RBI has periodically issued warnings against unauthorized platforms engaged in misleading forex trading practices and has maintained an Alert List of 75 such entities.

    The reason for such unauthorized practices lies in the previous 2018 framework, where a significant barrier for offshore ETPs was the requirement to incorporate in India within one year of receiving RBI authorization. This regulation proved challenging for foreign operators, leading to their non-compliance. Under the 2024 draft framework, foreign operators are now allowed to operate from their respective jurisdictions, however, they need authorisation from the RBI.

    The authorization process involves adhering to a comprehensive set of criteria aimed at ensuring regulatory compliance and market integrity. To qualify, the offshore ETP operator must follow some conditions, which include incorporating it in a country that is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”). This will enhance the transparency and integrity of Indian Markets. It ensures adherence to global standards in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. This can enhance the overall credibility of India’s financial markets, making them more attractive to global investors.

    Then, the operator must be regulated by the financial market regulator of its home country. This regulator must be a member of either the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) or the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), both of which are key international bodies that promote robust financial market practices and infrastructure. Once an offshore ETP operator meets these criteria, they must then follow the standard ETP application process for registration with the RBI.

    While analyzing this decision of the RBI, it is a promising initiative. The reason is that it does serve the purpose for which it was intended to be implemented, i.e., preventing unauthorized forex trading. The fundamental issue of unauthorized forex trading was about mandatory incorporation or registration in India, which has been done away with.

    Further, the framework specifies that transactions on these offshore ETPs can only involve eligible instruments that include the Indian rupee or rupee interest rates, and these transactions must strictly be between Indian residents and non-residents.

    Transactions between residents are not permitted under this framework, which indicates that the offshore ETP serves a cross-border trading function rather than facilitating domestic transactions. This is the right step in increasing Foreign Portfolio Investment in India and ensuring risk mitigation that may arise by allowing offshore ETPs to allow transactions among Indian residents.

    The Domestic Game

    However, when it comes to domestic ETPs, the 2024 draft framework is not very effective, the reason being that they do not incentivize domestic operators to apply for authorization. To date, over a span of six years, the RBI has authorized a total of only five ETP operators, one of which is the Clearing Corporation of India and four other private players.

    The reason for such slow adoption is that the operators are ineligible to apply for authorization due to stringent eligibility criteria (Regulatory Restriction). For example, the general authorization criteria for an ETP require that the applying entity or its Key Managerial Personnel must have at least three years of experience in operating trading infrastructure in financial markets. The issue here is that the requirement focuses solely on prior experience in operating trading infrastructure. This effectively limits eligibility to entities already active in this space, leaving little to no opportunity for new entrants to participate and innovate in the ETP market.

    This missed opportunity to foster domestic competition and innovation could limit the full potential of ETPs in India. Therefore, the RBI should take a liberalized approach towards domestic ETPs and ensure that the domestic ETP climate is conducive. To address this, the RBI should broaden the eligibility criteria to allow entities from other financial sectors, not just those with experience in trading infrastructure, to apply for ETP authorization. To ensure market safety, this relaxation can be balanced by imposing stricter disclosure requirements on such entities.

    A phased approach could also be taken by RBI where it could require new players with insufficient experience to first test their platform in the regulatory sandbox operated by RBI and then after rigorous testing, the same could be granted authorization. This will allow more domestic players to participate and will lead to enhanced forex trading in India which will potentially increase FDI investment in India.

    Way Forward

    Another potential change to increase the adoption rate of domestic ETPs might include examining and changing the eligibility requirements. Tax exemptions or lower net worth (less than 5 cr.) entry with certain restrictions could be considered to attract more participants, improving the entire market environment and addressing the low adoption rate found under the existing framework.

    The inclusion of offshore ETPs to register and operate in India has been the most favorable move towards facilitating foreign investment in India. The sturdy registration process ensures that only serious firms join the Indian market, which sets the pace for a market overhaul. The exclusion of scheduled commercial banks and standalone primary dealers is also a significant step forward in simplifying banking operations and increasing FPI.

    Finally, the 2024 Draft ETP Framework may be favorable to foreign ETPs, but the game is not worth the candle for domestic ones. With continued advancements and strategic enhancements, as suggested, India’s ETP framework has the potential to drive significant economic growth and elevate its position in the global financial landscape.

  • 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 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?

  • 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.