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.
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.
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.
Recently PNB Housing Finance announced a “preferential issue” of shares, through which the Carlyle Group will acquire a controlling interest in the company. A proxy advisor has issued a report asking public shareholders to vote against the proposed investment. The report argues that the price at which Carlyle will be investing in the company belies the company’s true value. As an alternative to a preferential issue, the report suggests that the company should have considered a “rights issue” in which all shareholders will be entitled to participate. In this context, it is important to consider whether a preferential issue and a rights issue are, in fact, comparable options for fundraising and accordingly, if there is merit in the allegation of poor corporate governance that has been levelled against the target company’s board of directors.
On March 26, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in a matter that has grabbed headlines for more than four years. Two prominent business groups, historically inter-connected with each other in multiple ways, have engaged in a no-holds-barred battle that by all accounts will be a significant marker in the history of corporate India. It started at a board meeting of Tata Sons on Oct. 24, 2016, when Cyrus Mistry was removed by the board of directors from his position as executive chairman. This led to a series of cascading events that ultimately ended up in the courts.
The SEBI’s Insider Trading Regulations prohibit trading in listed securities when in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (“UPSI”). Therefore one question which invariably needs to be addressed in such matters is whether the information that was alleged to be UPSI was “unpublished”. In a recent order issued by the SEBI in February 2021, Future Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mr. Kishori Biyani and certain other persons (together, the “Noticees”) were held to be in violation of the Insider Trading Regulations. It was alleged that the Noticees traded in shares of Future Retail Limited when in the possession of UPSI. The Noticees argued, inter alia, that the information that was alleged to be UPSI was already in the public domain in the form of media reports. This argument was rejected by the SEBI. It was not the first time that such an argument was made. It will likely not be the last. However, the backdrop is that the original 1992 regulations, and then the amendments in 2002 and 2015, have taken divergent approaches on this point. It has also not helped that the orders of adjudicatory authorities on this point have been inconsistent.
The recent interpretation of “control” by the High Court of Delhi in a litigation between Future Retail and Amazon has once again focused attention on the perennial question of what constitutes control. As described in more detail in the note, this question cannot be considered in abstract; it must be considered in the context of a specific legislation or policy and the objective it seeks to achieve. The relevant provisions of the FDI policy, which provide the context in this case, may not have been correctly appreciated.
As government agencies and regulators around the world are strengthening their enforcement efforts (having unearthed major bribery, corruption and money laundering related lapses by various corporates in the recent years), corporate activities have come under increased regulatory scrutiny. A target’s historical and existing anti-money laundering (AML) or anti-bribery, anti-corruption (ABAC) violations and resultant liabilities typically become the acquirer’s responsibility post-closing. This can have far-reaching legal, business and reputational consequences on the acquirer and in an extreme case, could result in an acquisition being a failure. As a result of this, acquirers have to be cognizant of not only any post-closing transgressions but also any pre-closing ones that they know, or ought to have known. The approach of a hurriedly-conducted limited due diligence with heavy reliance on warranties alone is therefore a risky one.
This note is divided into four parts – the first part provides a general overview of the key legislations. The second part highlights certain factors such as the target’s jurisdiction, sector, local laws and other cultural and geographical issues that typically influence such AML and ABAC issues. The third part outlines safeguards that are customarily adopted by the acquirers and the last part proposes certain measures that may be considered and implemented for effective risk-management by the acquirers.
Governmental authorities in India have, from time to time, implemented various measures to facilitate ease of doing business for companies operating in India including, inter alia, by way of amendments to the Companies Act, 2013 (the “Act”). In the past 1 (one) year, these reforms have focused on introducing new mechanisms for swift adjudication of offences, and decriminalization and rationalization of criminal penalties, particularly in relation to minor, technical or procedural non-compliances under the Act.
The objective of decriminalization and recategorization of offences that was introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2019 is now sought to be augmented by the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (the “CAB 2020”) which was recently presented in the Lok Sabha on March 17, 2020. CAB 2020 has, amongst other matters, proposed amendments in respect of decriminalization of various compoundable offences and rationalization of penalties prescribed under the Act. CAB 2020 is currently awaiting legislative consideration.
In this note, we discuss the continuing efforts of the Indian governmental authorities towards streamlining the processes for dealing with certain non-compliances under the Act, and analyze if the critical changes proposed by CAB 2020 for further decriminalization of offences and alteration of penalties under the Act is a step in the right direction.
The outbreak of COVID-19 and its development into a pandemic has led governments across the world to take extraordinary measures to protect their residents. The Central Government and various State Governments in India, along with public-health authorities, not-for-profit organizations and corporates, are collecting, tracking, and using information about individuals to slow down the spread of COVID-19; however, since a large proportion of such information could be categorized as ‘personal data’ or ‘sensitive personal data’ its use is subject to the data protection laws in India. It is, therefore, essential that a balance is struck between an individual’s right to privacy and public interest at large. Separately, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, corporates are also required to implement aberrant measures to safeguard their employees and extended workforce. In this regard, the collection of personal data by corporates will need to be undertaken in compliance with the requirements of data protection laws in India.
This note discusses the use of technology platforms by the Government of India to curtail the spread of COVID-19 and the obligations of corporates in India in relation to their employees or business, in each case, in the context of the legal framework for data protection in India.