On September 28, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the “SEBI”) approved certain changes to regulations governing related party transactions involving listed entities under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (the “Listing Regulations”). The changes were announced in a press release dated September 28, 2021. Subsequently, the SEBI amended the Listing Regulations on November 9, 2021 (the “Amendment Regulations”). This note sets out an overview of the amendments introduced by the Amendment Regulations, most of which will take effect from April 1, 2022, with certain provisions taking effect from April 1, 2023. While these amendments will require increased monitoring and compliance by listed entities, clarifications have also been provided to ease compliance. Overall, these amendments are expected to strengthen oversight of related party transactions involving listed entities in India.
The recent controversies involving Zee Entertainment and Dish TV both involve investors holding significant stakes attempting to convene general meetings of shareholders. Through such meeting, the investors seek to replace certain directors on the existing boards. In both cases, the existing boards of directors have declined to convene such meetings. In this context, we first consider a purely legal question related to the circumstances under which can a company’s board decline a request from the company’s shareholders to convene a shareholders meeting. We then consider whether the grounds on which the boards of Zee Entertainment and Dish TV have rejected the investors’ requests are valid.
Recently, pursuant to its decision in Ebix Singapore Private Limited v Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Anr., the Supreme Court of India extensively analyzed the status of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors but pending approval of the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court observed that such a resolution plan binds the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Applicant and reinforced the strength of the decision of the Committee of Creditors in favor of a resolution plan. The Supreme Court also, once again, clarified the scope of scrutiny, at the stage of approval of a resolution plan, by the National Company Law Tribunal and consequently by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Recently the Standing Committee on Finance in a report placed before the Parliament on August 3, 2021 proposed a Code of Conduct for the Committee of Creditors in a corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Following such report, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has published a discussion paper on August 27, 2021 which includes, among other things, a draft Code of Conduct. This note considers an alternative approach for such a Code of Conduct.
We are pleased to announce that Rachita R. Bhat, Raunaq Bahadur Mathur, Dhruv Nath, Lakshmi Pradeep and Abhishek Tewari have been designated as retained partners at S&R Associates. We are also pleased to announce that Kanika Khanna has been designated as counsel at the Firm.
The recent amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) replaces an ordinance promulgated earlier this year, and provides for a pre-packaged insolvency resolution process (“PIRP”) for micro, small and medium enterprises (“MSMEs”). The PIRP comes in the backdrop of the financial stress caused by COVID-19 and aims to cause minimal disruption to business and to ensure job preservation. While the PIRP is well intended, how effective it will be in resolving stress on corporate debtors in the MSME sector will come down to how it is implemented and if required, fine tuning its design.
In the last decade the digital sector has witnessed tremendous growth – while this has given rise to new business models, opened up new markets, and unlocked significant efficiencies, it has also raised concerns that tech giants may use the excessive amounts of user data they hold, to influence digital markets to their advantage. However, there are also apprehensions regarding the use of competition law (instead of privacy and consumer legislations) to address such concerns. This note provides a brief overview of the existing legal framework on data privacy in India, analyses the CCI’s decisional practice in this regard, and suggests an appropriate way forward for the CCI on this matter.
By an order dated July 19, 2021, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the “NCLAT”) stayed the operation of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (the “NCLT”) which had approved a resolution plan in relation to the Videocon group. In staying the operation of the NCLT’s order, the NCLAT appears to have been influenced by the observations of the NCLT on two points, a substantial haircut and a breach of confidentiality. Apart from these two points, this note considers a possible shortcoming in the NCLT order in relation to treatment of dissenting creditors.
The vexed question of whether two Indian parties can validly choose a foreign seat of arbitration under Indian law and the applicability of interim relief, in the event of such a choice, remained a long-standing debate. It is relevant to note that there was never an express statutory bar on Indian parties’ choice to select a foreign seat of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”). However, the complex interplay of the party-centric definition of “international commercial arbitration” with certain other provisions of the Arbitration Act, in the context of a fundamental principle of Indian law that no Indian party can exclude the application of Indian law to itself, led to conflicting decisions on this issue. The uncertainty forced Indian parties to actively avoid a foreign seat of arbitration to circumvent a potential challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the time of enforcement of the award. Recently, the Supreme Court of India revisited this question in PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited, 2021 SCCOnLine SC 331 and affirmed that two Indian parties can not only validly select a foreign seat of arbitration but can equally apply to Indian courts for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
On June 15, we had written about a proposed preferential issue by PNB Housing Finance, in respect of which a proxy advisor issued a report asking public shareholders to vote against the proposed investment. As an alternative to a preferential issue, the report suggested that the company should have considered a “rights issue”. In our previous article, we considered a “rights issue” and a “preferential issue” from the perspective of certainty in funding, disclosure obligations, approvals and timelines and pricing.
The debate has since focused on whether the proposed preferential issue required a report of a registered valuer and whether such a report was in fact procured. In this article, we consider the legal framework around which the debate turns, comprising the SEBI ICDR Regulations, the Companies Act and PNB Housing Finance’s articles of association.