S&R Associates is an Indian law firm with offices in New Delhi and Mumbai providing legal services to Indian and international clients.
Our lawyers are admitted to practice in India and many have previously practiced law in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore. As a result, we offer our clients a unique combination of Indian law expertise coupled with international quality legal services.
We distinguish ourselves based on the quality of our services and legal advice and on the range of our experience. Our lawyers have advised on some of the most significant Indian transactions and matters in recent times. The quality of our legal advice and services has helped us become the law firm of choice for our clients and has also been recognised by various industry publications, surveys and rankings. Lawyers in each of our practice areas have routinely been recognised as leading lawyers in India by Chambers Global, Chambers Asia Pacific, IFLR1000, Legal500 and RSG India Report.
With the recent auction and sale of media rights of the Indian Premier League (“IPL”) by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) for over INR 480 billion (approximately USD 6 billion), IPL franchises are in the spotlight. Reports suggest that certain IPL franchise owners may look to capitalize on an improved valuation, and either sell a part (or all) of their shareholding in the legal entity that has bid for and owns the IPL franchise, or may even consider a public listing of such legal entity. In this note, we look at key legal due diligence issues that may arise in connection with transactions involving IPL franchises.
On June 30, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) issued a circular amending the quarterly shareholding pattern disclosed by listed entities in India (the “2022 Circular”). This amended an earlier SEBI circular dated November 30, 2015. The 2022 Circular comes into force with effect from the quarter ending September 30, 2022. Listed entities are required to submit their shareholding pattern to the stock exchanges within 21 days of the end of each quarter in formats prescribed under the circulars. This note discusses certain key changes implemented by the 2022 Circular.
Since the introduction of the concept of independent directors, it has been perceived as an easy remedy to poor corporate governance. Their efficacy in effectively monitoring company management is often taken at face value. Studying recent instances of corporate governance lapses provides an insight into the efficacy of independent directors. To plug gaps, regulators constantly strive to raise the bar on the relevant criteria for determining the independence, and the procedure for the appointment, of independent directors. However, the changes affected do not appear to address the problem at hand. In the United States, unlike in India, shareholders have often pursued derivative claims against independent directors. While these derivative actions are not always successful, they function as an additional check on independent directors’ actions. Derivative actions are also pursued by shareholders in India. However, they: (a) are rarely pursued against independent directors; and (b) typically arise out of situations where directors have committed a fraud on the shareholders rather than when they have simply failed to perform their duties. For independent directors in India to function as an effective check on management, the threat of shareholder action needs to be a real one.