Regulatory Practice & Securities Laws

Regulatory Framework on FDI in E-Commerce

Regulatory Framework on FDI in E-Commerce

  • Introduction

With the stated aim of clarifying the foreign direct investment (‘FDI’) regime for e-commerce activities, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (‘DIPP’) has issued Press Note No. 3 (2016 Series) on March 29, 2016 (‘Press Note’). Prior to the Press Note, the Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy issued by DIPP (‘FDI Policy’) allowed 100% FDI under the automatic route (i.e. without requiring prior approval of the Government of India) in business to business (B2B) e-commerce activities, but did not permit FDI in multi-brand retail trade activity through online e-commerce. In such a regulatory landscape, the ‘marketplace’ model became popular; under the marketplace model, the marketplace entity provided a technology platform to connect buyers and sellers and did not itself undertake any trading activity. Such entities received FDI without any prior approvals from the Government of India. The regulatory framework for e-commerce has now been altered by the Press Note in the manner discussed below.

  • Salient Features

i. FDI up to 100% under the automatic route is now permitted in the ‘marketplace’ model (definition discussed below in paragraph (iv) of the section on New Definitions), subject to certain conditions, including those described below.

ii. FDI is not permitted in the ‘inventory-based’ model (definition discussed below in paragraph (iii) of the section on New Definitions).

iii. Subject to the conditions in the FDI Policy applicable to the services sector and applicable laws / regulations, security and other conditionalities, FDI up to 100% is also permitted, under the automatic route, in entities engaged in the sale of services through e-commerce.

iv. Other noteworthy aspects of the new framework for e-commerce include:

        a. the inclusion of goods coupled with services within the purview of e-commerce;

        b. the clarification that marketplace entities are permitted to provide ancillary services such as delivery, logistics etc.;

        c. marketplace entities not being permitted to have sales of more than 25% from one seller / vendor; and

        d. marketplace entities being restricted from directly or indirectly influencing the sale price of goods/ services and being required to maintain a level playing field.

  • New Definitions

The Press Note has introduced the following new definitions:

i. E-commerce: E-commerce means “buying and selling of goods and services including digital products over digital & electronic network”.1 The definition of e-commerce includes buying and selling of goods and services (including digital products) within its purview. At the same time, paragraph 3.0 of the Press Note suggests that the services sector is outside the purview of the Press Note and continues to remain eligible for 100% FDI under the automatic route. The interplay of the definition of e-commerce read with paragraph 3.0 of the Press Note suggests that the Press Note may not apply to entities merely providing services including digital products, except where they are buying and selling both, goods and services.

ii. E-commerce Entity: An e-commerce entity has been defined to mean “a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies Act, 2013 or a foreign company covered under section 2(42) of the Companies Act, 2013 or an office, branch or agency in India as provided in section 2(v)(iii) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, owned or controlled by a person resident outside India and conducting the e-commerce business.”

It is not clear why the Government felt the need to include, within the definition of e-commerce entity, a foreign company or a branch or agency in India, when the conditions in the Press Note are applicable only to FDI investment, which is a very specific route of investment in an Indian incorporated entity under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the rules and regulations notified thereunder ( ‘FEMA Regulations’).

An office or branch of a foreign company is merely a form of presence of the foreign company itself, the establishment and operation of which is separately regulated under FEMA Regulations. This kind of presence i.e. a foreign company or an office, branch or agency of a foreign company in India does not actually receive FDI, and therefore inclusion of these kinds of entities in the Press Note (which is intended to govern conditions for FDI in the e-commerce sector) is unclear. Also, given that the definition is restricted to companies and does not specifically include limited liability partnerships (‘LLP’), it is not clear if it is intended to exclude LLPs from the purview of the Press Note, implying that an LLP cannot conduct permissible e-commerce activities.

iii. Inventory Based Model of E-commerce: This model has been defined under the Press Note to mean “an e-commerce activity where inventory of goods and services is owned by e-commerce entity and is sold to the consumers directly”. The Press Note does not permit FDI in entities that operate under an inventory based model of e-commerce.

iv. Marketplace Based Model of E-commerce: The Press Note defines this model as “providing of an information technology platform by an e-commerce entity on a digital & electronic network to act as a facilitator between buyer and seller.” This is the model that is popular in the market and which has been adopted by various aggregation platforms, more prominently for online hotel / room reservations, taxi booking services and online shopping.

  • Relaxations Provided for the Marketplace Model

i. Marketplace entity allowed to provide support services to sellers in respect of warehousing, logistics, order fulfillment, call centre, payment collection and other services: This clarification is very welcome. Even before the Press Note was issued, a marketplace entity could have engaged in all these activities. However, the specific clarification included in the Press Note brings in more transparency in implementing the policy. The ability for e-commerce entities to provide these kinds of services could result in greater efficiencies as services ancillary to marketplace operations are commonly housed in different legal entities. We expect marketplace entities to be more optimistic about consolidating these functions within a single entity in light of this clarification.

ii. Express Recognition of Marketplace Model: There has been an increasing trend amongst investors to be a little more cautious about investing or increasing their investments in the Indian e-commerce space. While profitability has been a commercial issue and may continue to be an issue in the foreseeable future, there has also been some circumspection that has resulted from the absence of an express policy statement regarding FDI in the e-commerce sector, negative publicity around FDI in e-commerce and queries that have previously been raised by the regulators.

As the Government’s policy is now expressly stated, it will address concerns raised by various trade associations in their petitions before multiple judicial forums, where it is being argued that the marketplace model is not recognized under the FDI Policy and therefore not eligible for FDI. In our view, this argument was flawed since the FDI Policy cannot be expected to positively list every business model or opportunity that emerges in this fast moving technology rich environment. On the contrary, paragraph 6.2 of the FDI Policy specifically clarifies that FDI is allowed up to 100% under the automatic route in sectors and activities not listed in the FDI Policy. Hence, merely because the marketplace model was not expressly mentioned in the FDI Policy, did not imply that such activity was not eligible to receive FDI prior to the Press Note. If each of its ingredients were eligible for FDI investment, such sector/activity was always eligible to receive FDI.

  • Restrictions on the Marketplace Model

i. Marketplace entity cannot exercise ownership over the inventory (goods purported to be sold), as ownership of the goods would result in an inventory based model: While it is clear that ownership of goods by a marketplace entity is not permitted under the Press Note, the scope of the term ‘exercise ownership’ used in paragraph 2.3(iv) of the Press Note is unclear.

ii. Not more than 25% of the sales from one vendor/ its group companies: This condition may affect the business model of certain e-commerce entities, where a significant percentage of sales are often made by one large reseller. Marketplace operators may now have to limit sales made by these resellers to ensure compliance with the Press Note. Such large resellers are therefore impacted despite the Press Note not being applicable to them. While the Press Note does not expressly clarify as to how and when the 25% limit on sales is to be computed, we expect that such compliance will be reviewed on an annual basis. Similar annual checks at the end of the financial year are prescribed in the FDI Policy on wholesale trading where the wholesale entity cannot sell more than 25% of its wholesale turnover to a group company.

iii. Post sales, delivery of goods and customer satisfaction to be seller’s responsibility: There seems to be an inconsistency between this obligation of the seller and the ability of the marketplace entity to provide ancillary support services. On the one hand, the Press Note permits a marketplace entity to provide logistics and ancillary services, while on the other it requires that following the sale, delivery of goods will be the seller’s responsibility. It is likely that the Press Note intended to clarify that the responsibility for all post-sale obligations is that of the seller, and not the marketplace entity. However, contractually, the seller should be free to provide such services in the manner it deems fit (including through an agreement with the marketplace entity, in which case the marketplace entity would be contractually liable to the seller for such services).

iv. Warranty/ guarantee of goods and services sold to be seller’s responsibility: This condition appears to stem from the requirement that goods/ services not be owned by the marketplace entity. This condition seems more in the nature of a clarification rather than a change in the legal position given that a marketplace entity would not usually provide any warranty / guarantee in respect of goods/ services; which warranties / guarantees are usually extended by the manufacturer / service provider.

v. Marketplace entity will not directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods/ services and will maintain a level playing field: This condition is one of the key changes introduced by the Press Note and is likely to have a significant impact on marketplace entities and their business models. Popular marketplaces invest meaningfully to promote their platform to make it attractive for customers and sellers. Unlike brick and mortar stores which are able to promote their marketplace / shops in numerous ways that can be seen and felt by a customer, there are only a limited number of ways in which an online marketplace entity can promote its virtual presence. The broad language of the Press Note makes it even more difficult for a marketplace entity to promote its platform.

With regard to the obligation to maintain a ‘level playing field’, more than one interpretation may be possible. One school of thought is that this requirement is intended to apply to the sellers on the e-commerce platforms inter-se, such that the marketplace is not built around a single large / dominant seller, which seller is then accorded preferential treatment over other sellers by the marketplace entity. Another reading of this provision could be that the requirement is intended to apply to sellers on the e-commerce platforms vis-à-vis brick and mortar stores, such that brick and mortar stores are not unduly disadvantaged by e-commerce platforms through the actions of such e-commerce platforms, such as through offering discounts / incentives / promotional pricing on goods sold through such platforms. It is however difficult for a marketplace entity to ensure a level playing field with respect to brick and mortar stores, particularly given the inherent differences between the two mediums.

  • Conclusion

The Press Note is a step in the right direction by the Government and has introduced much needed and anticipated clarity on FDI in the e-commerce sector.

The conditionalities and restrictions imposed by the Press Note (which states that it shall take immediate effect) are prospective in nature and are not stated to apply to FDI already received by entities engaged in e-commerce activities. Any marketplace e-commerce entities which now intend to receive FDI would need to ensure that such FDI is received in compliance with all conditions of the Press Note. Likewise, any entities with existing FDI (received prior to the issuance of the Press Note) but which intend to receive additional FDI, would need to ensure that the conditions prescribed by the Press Note are complied with going forward. To this end, it may serve well for all existing e-commerce companies to revisit their business models and ensure that their business models are aligned to the Press Note as soon as possible.

 

 

 

View More

Exemptions to Companies Established in International Finance Service Centers

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Public unlisted companies and private companies, which have been licensed to operate by the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (‘IRDAI’) from an International Financial Services Centre (‘IFSC’) located in an approved multi services Special Economic Zone (‘Specified IFSC Companies’), have been exempted from the applicability of certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA 2013’). Pursuant to the notifications dated January 4, 2017, the MCA has granted certain general exemptions to the Specified IFSC Companies from compliance with the following provisions of CA 2013:

i. prohibition under Section 42(3) on making fresh offer for private placement of securities during pendency of allotment under an earlier;

ii. restriction under Section 54(1)(c) on issuing sweat equity shares within a period of one year from the commencement of business;

iii. requirement under Section 118(10) requiring all companies to observe secretarial standards with respect to general and board meetings;

iv. compliance with corporate social responsibility under Section 135 to not apply for a period of five years from the commencement of business;

v. restriction under Section 139(2) on the ability of a company to appoint / re-appoint statutory auditors for more than the prescribed period;

vi. director residency requirement under Section 149(3) of having at least one director who has stayed in India for a total period of not less than 182 days, to not apply for the first financial year from the date of its incorporation;

vii. prohibition on making investments through more than two layers of investment companies under Section 186(1); and

viii. directors of Specified IFSC Companies will be entitled to exercise powers either by means of resolutions passed at board meetings or through circular resolutions, including for those matters prescribed under Section 179(3).

In addition to the general exemptions, specific exemptions from applicability of the following provisions of CA 2013 have been granted to public unlisted companies located in IFSC:

i. restriction under Section 47 on the voting rights of preference shareholders, provided that the charter documents provide for it;

ii. restrictions under Section 73(2)(a) to (e) on raising public deposits from members, provided that the deposits accepted do not exceed 100% of the aggregate of the paid-up share capital and free reserves and the details of monies so accepted has been filed with the Registrar of Companies in the manner prescribed;

iii. requirement under Section 149(1) to have a woman director;

iv. requirement under Section 152(6) providing for retirement of directors of public companies by rotation;

v. requirement to appoint the audit committee, nomination and remuneration committee or stakeholders’ relationship committee under Sections 177 and 178;

vi. consent of board of directors as stipulated under Section 188(1) for related party transactions;

vii. requirement under Section 196(4) to appoint a whole-time director, managing director or manager; and

viii. restriction under Section 197 on the remuneration payable to managerial personnel.

View More

No Overseas Direct Investment in Countries Identified as Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of a notification dated January 2, 2017, amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 to restrict an Indian Party from making an investment in an entity set up or acquired abroad either directly or indirectly, in countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force as “non co-operative countries and territories” (or as notified by the RBI from time to time).

View More

Amendments to FEMA 20

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of a series of notifications, amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000 (‘FEMA 20’). The key amendments pursuant to these notifications have been summarized below.

i. Issuance of Convertible Notes by Startups: RBI notification dated January 10, 2017 (‘January Notification’) provides for the issuance of convertible notes by Indian startup companies[1] (‘startups’). A ‘convertible note’ has been defined to mean “an instrument issued by a startup company evidencing receipt of money initially as debt, which is repayable at the option of the holder, or which is convertible into such number of equity shares of such startup company, within a period not exceeding five years from the date of issue of the convertible note, upon occurrence of specified events as per the other terms and conditions agreed to and indicated in the instrument”.

The newly introduced Regulation 6D of FEMA 20 sets out the relevant provisions, which provide that:

a. A person resident outside India (other than an individual who is a citizen of, or an entity registered / incorporated in, Pakistan or Bangladesh), may purchase convertible notes issued by startups for an amount of Rs. 2,500,000 (approximately US$ 39,000) or more in a single tranche;

b. Startups engaged in a sector where foreign investment requires Government approval may issue convertible notes to a non-resident only with Government approval;

c. Issue of shares against convertible notes will be as per Schedule 1 of FEMA 20;

d. Startups issuing convertible notes to a non-resident must receive the consideration by inward remittance through banking channels or by debit to the NRE / FCNR (B) / escrow account maintained as per the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 and closed upon the earlier of the requirements having been completed or within a period of six months;

e. Non-resident Indians may acquire convertible notes on non-repatriation basis as per Schedule 4 of FEMA 20;

f.  A person resident outside India may acquire or transfer, by way of sale, convertible notes, from or to, a person resident in or outside India, provided the transfer takes place in accordance with the pricing guidelines as prescribed by RBI; and

g. Startup issuing convertible notes are required to furnish reports as prescribed by RBI.

ii. Foreign Investment in Infrastructure Companies: The January Notification also amends conditions relating to foreign direct investment (‘FDI’) under Schedule 1 of FEMA 20 in commodity exchanges, which have been combined with those relating to infrastructure companies in the securities market (namely stock exchanges, commodity derivative exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations). The key revisions introduced by the January Notification are:

a. FDI, including by foreign portfolio investors (‘FPI’), in commodity exchanges will now be subject to guidelines prescribed by RBI in addition to those issued by the Central Government (‘GoI’) and SEBI;

b. FDI in other infrastructure companies in securities market will now be subject to guidelines by GoI and RBI, in addition to those issued by SEBI;

c. the earlier condition permitting FIIs / FPIs to invest in commodity exchanges or infrastructure companies only through the secondary market has been removed; and

d. the restriction on investment by a non-resident in commodity exchanges to a maximum of 5% of its equity shares has been removed.

The Consolidated Foreign Direct Investment Policy dated June 7, 2016 (‘FDI Policy’) has also been amended, by way Press Note 1 of 2017 dated February 20, 2017, to align it with the January Notification.

iii. FDI in LLPs: Pursuant to notification dated March 3, 2017, RBI has amended Regulation 5(9) and Schedule 9 of FEMA 20 to further liberalize FDI in Limited Liability Partnerships (‘LLPs’). Companies having FDI can now be converted into LLPs under the automatic route provided that the concerned company is engaged in a sector where: (a) 100% FDI is permitted under the automatic route; and (b) no FDI linked performance conditions exist. Previously, conversion of companies with foreign investment was only permitted under the approval route. The erstwhile ‘Other Conditions’ stipulated under Schedule 9 of FEMA 20 have been completely omitted resulting in the following key changes:

a. Previously, the designated partner of a LLP having FDI had to satisfy the condition of being “a person resident in India”. Also, a body corporate other than a company registered in India under CA 2013 was not permitted to be a designated partner of a LLP with FDI. These conditions have been removed. Consequently, a LLP having FDI will have to comply only with the provisions of the LLP Act, 2008 for appointment of designated partners;

b. Earlier, designated partners were responsible for compliance with FDI conditions for LLPs and liable for all penalties imposed on a LLP for any contraventions. This condition has now been deleted from Schedule 9 but no corresponding provision has been included in the revised Schedule 9; and

c. Express prohibition on LLPs availing External Commercial Borrowings (‘ECB’) has been removed. However, the extant ECB guidelines have not yet been amended to permit LLPs to avail ECBs. Therefore, LLPs will not be able to avail ECBs until the extant ECB guidelines are amended.

iv. FDI in E-commerce: The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had, by way of Press Note 3 of 2016 dated March 29, 2016 (‘Press Note 3’), prescribed that no FDI is permitted in an inventory based model of e-commerce and 100% FDI under the automatic route is permitted in the marketplace model of e-commerce subject to compliance with the guidelines prescribed thereunder. A summary of the key changes introduced through Press Note 3 have been captured in the April 2016 edition of Inter Alia. RBI has, by way of a notification dated March 9, 2017, amended FEMA 20 in line with the changes introduced through Press Note 3. However, RBI has introduced a minor change to Press Note 3 by clarifying that the threshold of 25% of sales emanating from one vendor or their group companies will be computed based on the sale value during the relevant financial year.

[1]     Being a private company incorporated under CA 2013 and recognized as such as per Notification G.S.R. 180(E) dated February 17, 2016 issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.

 

View More

Amendment to SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The key amendments notified by SEBI to the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (‘ICDR Regulations’) on February 15, 2017 are:

i. Regulation 70 of the ICDR Regulations specifies certain instances when the provisions of the chapter relating to preferential issue do not apply. One such instance is when the preferential issue is pursuant to a scheme approved by a High Court under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 or the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) under Sections 230 to 234 of CA 2013. The amendment clarifies that the pricing provisions for the preferential issue will apply to issuance of shares under such schemes in case the allotment of shares under such scheme is only to a select group of shareholders or to shareholders of unlisted companies.

ii. The amendment also empowers stock exchange(s) to take action against listed entities or any other person thereof contravening the provisions of the ICDR Regulations, in addition to applicable liabilities under securities laws, by way of imposition of fines, suspension of trading, freezing of promoter / promoter group holding of designated securities in coordination with depositories and/or any other action as may be specified by SEBI. Further, any failure to pay such fines within the specified time period may result in the stock exchange(s) initiating other actions in accordance with law, after giving a written notice.

View More

Amendment to the SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, by way of a notification dated January 2, 2017, has amended the SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993 (‘PM Regulations’) to provide an enabling framework for registration of fund managers desirous of providing services to overseas funds. A new chapter on ‘Eligible Fund Managers’ has been introduced, which inter alia sets out the registration procedure and obligations and responsibilities of eligible fund managers. Pursuant to the amendment, SEBI has permitted existing portfolio managers as well as new applicants compliant with the requirements specified under Section 9A(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘ITA’) to act as ‘Eligible Fund Managers’. Eligible Fund Managers are exempt from certain provisions of the PM Regulations.

View More

Amendment to the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, by way of a notification dated February 27, 2017 has amended the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014. Some key amendments are:

i. In case of delay, the applicant has to file an application for condonation of delay and the settlement fees payable by the applicant will be increased by levying simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a.;

ii. An application for default, which has been previously rejected by SEBI or withdrawn by the applicant, may be refiled and considered in exceptional circumstances (such as lapse of time since the default, weight of evidence against the applicant) and the payment of the additional fees and/or interest as recommended by the High Powered Advisory Committee;

iii. The settlement amount must be paid within 15 calendar days from the receipt of the notice of demand and such period may be extended by the panel of whole time members by an additional 15 calendar days, but no later than 90 calendar days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice. If the amount is remitted between the 30th and 90th calendar day, interest at 6% p.a. will be levied from the date of the notice till the payment of the settlement amount. Upon failure by the applicant to remit the settlement amount within such period and/or abide by the relevant undertaking and waivers, SEBI may reject the application;

iv. Except in cases specifically excluded from settlement, a settlement notice indicating the substance of charges and the probable actions may be issued in advance of the notice to show cause so as to afford an opportunity to file a settlement application within 15 calendar days from the receipt of such settlement notice. However, SEBI will have the power to modify the enforcement action to be brought against the notice and the notice will not confer any right to seek settlement or avoid any enforcement action; and

v. Applications filed voluntary or suo moto will get the benefit of a proceeding conversion factor of 0.65 as opposed to the existing 0.75.

View More

SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Amendment Regulations, 2017

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, by way of a notification dated February 15, 2017, has amended the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, 2015 (‘LODR’). Regulation 37 of the LODR stipulates that a listed company desirous of undertaking a scheme of arrangement or involved in such scheme is required to file the draft scheme with the relevant stock exchanges and obtain a no-objection / no-observation letter from the stock exchange prior to filing such scheme under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or CA 2013. Pursuant to the amendment, SEBI has provided that these provisions of Regulation 37 will not be applicable in case of a scheme, which provides solely for the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary with its holding company, provided that the draft scheme is filed with the stock exchanges for the purpose of disclosure.

View More

SEBI Permits FPIs to Invest in Unlisted Debt Securities and Securitized Debt Instruments

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, by way of a notification dated February 27, 2017, amended the provisions of the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014 to permit registered FPIs to invest in (i) unlisted non-convertible debentures (‘NCDs’)/bonds issued by an Indian company subject to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and (ii) securitized debt instruments, including certificates/instruments issued by special purpose vehicles set up for securitization of assets with banks, financial institutions or non-banking financial companies (‘NBFCs’) as originators, and certain listed securitized debt instruments. Additionally, SEBI has specified by its circular dated February 28, 2017, that investment by FPIs in unlisted corporate debt securities in the form of NCDs/bonds will be subject to minimum residual maturity of three years along with an end use-restriction on investments in ‘real estate business’, capital market and purchase of land. SEBI has also clarified that investment by FPIs in securitized debt instruments will not be subject to the minimum three-year residual maturity requirement. SEBI has also specified that investments in unlisted corporate debt securities and securitized debt instruments will be permitted up to an aggregate of Rs. 35,000 crores (approximately US$ 5.4 billion) within the existing investment limits prescribed for corporate debt from time to time (presently, Rs. 244,323 crores (approximately US$ 38 billion)).

RBI had earlier, by way of a notification dated October 24, 2016, introduced corresponding amendments to FEMA 20 and prescribed similar conditions for such investments by an FPI by way of a circular dated November 17, 2016. A summary of these RBI notifications has been captured in our January 2017 edition of Inter Alia.

Further, SEBI has also amended the definition of ‘offshore derivative instrument’ to permit FPIs to issue instruments with the underlying being unlisted debt securities or securitized debt instruments held by such FPI.

View More

SEBI Revises Regulatory Framework on Schemes of Arrangement

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has issued a circular dated March 10, 2017, as amended by circular dated March 23, 2017, (‘Scheme Circulars’) which replaces the circular dated November 30, 2015 issued by SEBI in relation to the regulatory framework on schemes of arrangement, amalgamation and capital reduction involving listed companies (‘2015 Circular’). Some of the key changes brought about by the Scheme Circulars are:

i. The Scheme Circulars will now not apply to schemes that solely provide for merger of a wholly owned subsidiary with the parent company. However, such draft schemes will have to be filed with the stock exchanges by way of disclosures and the stock exchanges are required to publish the scheme documents on their websites.

ii. The pricing related provisions of Chapter VII of the ICDR Regulations will be followed in case of issuance of shares to a select group of shareholders or shareholders of unlisted companies pursuant to such schemes. The ‘relevant date’ for the purpose of computing pricing will be the date of board meeting in which the scheme is approved.

iii. The circumstances under which the approval of majority of public shareholders of the listed entity will be required have been expanded to include the following:

a. where a scheme involving merger of an unlisted company results in reduction in the voting share of pre-scheme public shareholders of the listed entity in the transferee/ resulting company by more than 5% of the total capital of merged entity; and

b. where the scheme involves transfer of whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking[1] of the listed entity and the consideration for such transfer is not in the form of listed equity shares.

iv. Listed entity is not required to provide the option of voting by postal ballot and is only required to provide shareholders with the option of e-voting.

v. Schemes of arrangement between listed and unlisted entities will be subject to the following conditions:

a. Percentage shareholding of pre-scheme public shareholders of the listed entity and of the qualified institutional buyers of the unlisted entity in the post scheme shareholding pattern of the resulting company must not be less than 25%;

b. Listed entity must disclose the material information pertaining to the unlisted entity(ies) involved in the scheme in the format specified for abridged prospectus as provided in Part D of Schedule VIII of the ICDR Regulations, as part of the explanatory statement sent to the shareholders while seeking approval of the scheme. Such disclosures are required to be certified by a SEBI registered merchant banker, and are also required to be uploaded on the stock exchange(s) website(s); and

c. Unlisted entities are permitted to merge with a listed entity only if the listed entity is listed on a stock exchange having nationwide trading terminals;

vi. In case of schemes involving the demerger of a division of a listed entity into an unlisted entity and the subsequent listing of the unlisted entity, specific conditions for seeking relaxation of the strict enforcement with respect to listing prescribed by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 have been modified as follows:

a. Conditions specified for lock-in of the pre-scheme share capital of the unlisted entity seeking listing are not applicable where the post scheme shareholding pattern of the unlisted entity is exactly same as the shareholding pattern of the listed entity; and

b. Pre-scheme share capital of the unlisted entity seeking listing held by non-promoters shall be locked-in for a period of one year from the date of listing of the shares of the unlisted entity, instead of the three years prescribed earlier;

vii. Subsequent to filing the draft scheme with SEBI, no changes to the draft scheme are permitted except with SEBI’s written consent. However, this requirement is not applicable for changes mandated by other regulators, authorities or by the NCLT; and

viii. The listed entity must pay a fee to SEBI in an amount of 0.1% of the paid-up share capital of the listed / transferee / resulting company, whichever is higher, post sanction of the scheme, subject to a cap of Rs. 5,00,000 (approximately US$ 7,800).

The provisions of the Scheme Circulars are not applicable to schemes already submitted to the stock exchanges, which will continue to be governed by the 2015 Circular.

[1]     The expression has been defined under Section 180(1)(a)(i) of CA 2013 to mean 20% or more of value of the company in terms of consolidated net worth or consolidated total income during previous financial year.

 

View More

Revised Guidelines for Registration of Infrastructure Provider – I

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

On January 13, 2017, the Department of Telecom (‘DoT’) issued revised guidelines for registration of Infrastructure Provider – I[1] (‘IP-I’) to incorporate the relevant provisions of the FDI Policy. 100% FDI is permitted in an IP-I, with 49% FDI permitted under the automatic route. The guidelines clarify that both direct and indirect foreign investment in the IP-I entity will be taken into account for computing FDI.

[1]     Infrastructure providers who provide dark fiber, right of way, duct space and towers.

 

View More

Claim of Damages for Breach of Contract under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 by a non-resident does not violate the RBI guidelines

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - April 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

On February 9, 2017, in the case of Shakti Nath and Ors v. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investments[1], the Delhi High Court (‘Delhi HC’), while deciding a challenge to an arbitral award involving enforcement of put option rights, held that awarding damages to a non-resident investor does not amount to an indirect enforcement of an optionality clause under a contract.

Facts

Two foreign entities (‘Respondents’) had entered into inter alia a shareholders’ agreement (‘SHA’) with certain resident entities (‘Petitioners’) to invest in an Indian company in the real estate sector. The SHA provided for a ‘put option right’ in favour of the Respondents, entitling the Respondents, upon non-fulfilment of certain conditions by the Petitioner, to require the Petitioners to acquire the Respondents’ shares at a price ‘equal to the Investors’ Capital plus a post tax IRR of 19% on the Investors’ Capital’. The arbitral tribunal, appointed upon occurrence of certain disputes, awarded damages to the Respondents on finding that the Petitioners had breached their obligations under the SHA.

The issue before the Delhi HC was whether awarding damages to the Respondents would amount to an enforcement of their put option right, thereby violating the guidelines set out in the RBI Circular dated July 15, 2014 (‘RBI Circular’). The RBI Circular states that a transfer of shares between a resident and a non-resident is required to be undertaken at a price computed in accordance with internationally accepted methodology, with the underlying principle being that a non-resident investor cannot be guaranteed an assured return on its exit price.

Decision

The Delhi HC held that the Respondents had a choice between enforcement of the put option and claiming damages for breach of the SHA. Given that the Respondents chose to make a claim for damages for breach of contract under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, the question of violation of the RBI Circular did not arise.

It is pertinent to note that the judgment reflects the pro-arbitration stance of Indian Courts, and indicates a liberal approach towards enforcement of awards arising out of obligations under optionality contracts.

[1]     Judgment dated February 9, 2017, in OMP (Comm) 154/2016. (Delhi High Court)

 

View More

Foreign Direct Investment Policy, 2017

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

On August 28, 2017, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (‘DIPP’) issued the consolidated foreign direct investment policy circular of 2017 (‘FDI Policy 2017’), which replaces the consolidated foreign direct investment policy circular of 2016, dated June 7, 2016 (‘FDI Policy 2016’). The FDI Policy 2017 also consolidates press notes issued by the DIPP since June 7, 2016.

Set out below are the key changes introduced in the foreign direct investment (‘FDI’) regime through the FDI Policy 2017.[1]

i. Conversion of companies and LLPs: The FDI Policy 2016 did not cover or prescribe any rules for conversion of companies into Limited Liability Partnerships (‘LLPs’) and vice versa. The FDI Policy 2017 now provides that conversion of LLPs with foreign investment into a company and vice-versa is permitted under the automatic route, if the converting LLP / company is operating in sectors/activities in which: (a) 100% FDI is allowed through the automatic route; and (b) there are no FDI linked performance conditions. The term ‘FDI linked performance conditions’ has been clarified to mean “sector specific conditions for companies receiving foreign investment”.

ii. Retail trading by wholesale companies: Per FDI Policy 2016, a wholesale / cash & carry trade was permitted to undertake ‘single brand retail trading’. FDI Policy 2017 provides that wholesale/cash & carry traders may undertake ‘retail trading’, i.e., both single brand retail trading and multi brand retail trading (subject to applicable conditions).

iii. ‘State of the Art’ and ‘Cutting Edge’ single brand product retail trading:

a. Press Note 5 (2016 series) dated June 24, 2016 issued by the DIPP did away with local sourcing norms for a period of three years from commencement of business (being, opening of the first store) for entities undertaking single brand retail trading of products having ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology and where local sourcing is not possible.[2]

b. FDI Policy 2017 provides that a committee under the chairmanship of Secretary, DIPP, with representatives from NITI Aayog, concerned administrative ministry and independent technical expert(s) on the subject will examine the claim of applicants on the issue of the products being in the nature of ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology where local sourcing is not possible and give recommendations for such relaxation.

iv. E-commerce: Under the FDI Policy 2016, an e-commerce entity with foreign investment was not permitted to effect more than 25% of sales through its market place by one vendor or its group companies. FDI Policy 2017 clarifies that the 25% threshold applies to sales value on a financial year basis.

v. Government approval for additional FDI: Per FDI Policy 2016, additional FDI into the same entity within the approved foreign equity percentage or into a wholly owned subsidiary did not require fresh Government approval. FDI Policy 2017 provides that Government approval will be required for additional FDI within the approved foreign equity percentage or into a wholly owned subsidiary beyond a cumulative amount of Rs. 5,000 crores (approx. US$ 764 million).

vi. Downstream investment intimation: FDI Policy 2017 requires intimation of downstream investments by foreign owned and/or controlled Indian companies to be made to the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) and the Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal within 30 days of the investment (instead of the Secretariat of Industrial Assistance, DIPP and the Foreign Investment Promotion Board, as prescribed earlier).

[1]     This article does not cover changes introduced through press notes and other amendments since June 7, 2016 (which have only been consolidated and introduced in the FDI Policy 2017).

[2]     Incorporated in Note (iii) of Paragraph 5.2.15.3 of FDI Policy 2017

View More

Guidelines on Issuance of Offshore Derivative Instruments with Underlying Derivatives

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

On July 7, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) issued a circular on guidelines for issuance of offshore derivative instruments (‘ODIs’), with derivatives as underlying, by the ODI issuing foreign portfolio investors (‘FPI’) (‘ODI Guidelines’). As per the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014 (‘FPI Regulations’), FPIs are required to comply with certain conditions for issuance of ODIs. Per the ODI Guidelines, FPIs issuing ODIs are required to comply with the following from July 7, 2017:

i. The ODI issuing FPIs will not be allowed to issue ODIs with derivatives as underlying, with the exception of those derivative positions that are taken by the ODI issuing FPIs for hedging the equity shares held by them, on a one-to-one basis;

ii. If there are existing ODIs issued by FPIs where the said underlying derivatives position are not for the purpose of hedging the equity shares held by it, the ODI issuing FPIs are required to liquidate such ODIs latest by the earlier of the date of maturity of the ODI instrument or by December 31, 2020. However, such FPIs must endeavor to liquidate such ODI instruments prior to the said timeline;

iii. If fresh ODIs are issued with derivatives as underlying, a certificate would need to be issued by the compliance officer (or its equivalent) of the ODI issuing FPI, certifying that the derivatives position, on which the ODI is being issued, is only for hedging the equity shares held by it, on a one-to-one basis. The said certificate will be submitted alongwith the monthly ODI reports; and

iv. It has been clarified that the term ‘hedging of equity shares’ means taking a one-to-one position in only those derivatives which have the same underlying as the equity share.

View More

Debt Investments by FPIs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI issued a circular on July 20, 2017, which brought about the following modifications to the existing legal framework governing investments in corporate debt by FPIs:

i. 95% of the combined corporate debt limit (‘CCDL’) will be available for FPI investment on tap, after which an auction mechanism will be initiated for allocating the remaining limits.

ii. Once such limit is exceeded, the National Securities Depository Limited and Central Depository Services Limited will direct custodians to halt further investments in corporate debt securities by FPIs, and inform BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited to conduct an auction for allocation of the unutilised FPI corporate debt limit, provided such limit is at least Rs. 100 crores (approx. US$ 15.3 million). If the unutilised FPI corporate debt limit continues to remain lower than the above amount for 15 consecutive trading days, then an auction is to be conducted on the 16th day.

iii. The minimum bid is Rs. 1 crore (approx. US$ 153,000), and the maximum bid is for 10% of the unutilised FPI corporate debt limit. A single FPI/ FPI group cannot bid for more than 10% of the limits being auctioned.

iv. Once the unutilised FPI corporate debt limit has been auctioned, the FPIs have a utilisation period of 10 trading days to make investments, after which the unutilized FPI corporate debt limit allocated to them, reverts to the pool of free limits.

v. Investment in corporate debt by FPIs on tap and issuance of rupee denominated bonds overseas by Indian companies will again be available once the FPI corporate debt limit utilisation levels fall back to less than 92%.

vi. Investments by FPIs in unlisted corporate debt will compulsorily be in dematerialised form, and be subject to a minimum residual maturity period of three years.

View More

Amendments to Schedule 5 of FEMA 20: Investment in Corporate Debt Securities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - January 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) has, by way of a notification dated October 24, 2016, amended Schedule 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (‘FEMA 20’) to permit registered Foreign Institutional Investors and Foreign Portfolio Investors (‘FPIs’) to invest in unlisted non-convertible debentures (‘NCDs’)/bonds issued by an Indian company and securitized debt instruments, including certificates/instruments issued by special purpose vehicles set up for securitization of assets with banks, financial institutions or Non-Banking Financial Companies (‘NBFCs’) as originators, and any listed securitized debt instruments. Additionally, by its circular dated November 17, 2016, the RBI has specified that unlisted corporate debt securities in the form of NCDs/bonds issued by Indian companies would be subject to minimum residual maturity of three years along with an end use-restriction on investments in real estate business, capital market and purchase of land. The RBI has also specified that such investments in unlisted corporate debt securities and securitized debt instruments will be permitted up to an aggregate of Rs. 35,000 crores (approximately US$ 5 billion) within the existing investment limits prescribed for corporate bonds from time to time (presently, Rs. 2,44,323 crore (approximately US$ 35 billion)).

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) in its board meeting dated November 23, 2016 (‘SEBI Board Meeting’) approved corresponding amendments to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014, which are yet to be notified by SEBI.

View More

Corporate Governance Issues in Compensation Agreements

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - January 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, in a consultation paper released by it on October 4, 2016, had noted the practice followed by private equity firms (‘PE Firms’) of entering into side agreements with senior management personnel and/or key managerial persons (‘KMP’) of listed companies (in which such PE Firms are shareholders). While SEBI acknowledged that it is not unusual for PE Firms to incentivize the promoters/ KMPs, it also raised concerns on potential unfair practices being resorted to by the promoters/ KMPs if such agreements were not approved by the board of directors and shareholders of such companies. Pursuant to the decisions of SEBI in the SEBI Board Meeting, the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘Listing Regulations’) have been amended with effect from January 4, 2017. The key amendments are as follows:

i. Restriction on all employees of listed companies (including KMPs, directors or promoters) from entering into an agreement with any shareholder or third party in relation to compensation or profit sharing regarding dealings of securities in such listed entity without the prior approval of the board of directors and public shareholders of the company by way of an ordinary resolution;

ii. All such agreements entered into during the previous three years (including those that have expired) are to be disclosed to the stock exchanges for public dissemination;

iii. Approval of the relevant company’s board of directors and its public shareholders is to be sought for all such subsisting agreements in the forthcoming board meeting and general meeting, respectively; and

iv. Interested persons involved in such transactions, i.e., persons who are directly or indirectly interested in the agreement or the proposed agreement, are not permitted to vote in such board / shareholder meetings to be held as per iii above.

View More

Amendment to SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - January 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to the decision taken in the SEBI Board Meeting, the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 have been amended with effect from January 4, 2017 as follows:

i. The upper limit of angel investors in a scheme has been increased from 49 to 200;

ii. Angel funds are permitted to invest in start-ups incorporated within five years from incorporation, which has been increased from the earlier limit of three years;

iii. The requirements of minimum investment amount by an angel fund in any venture capital undertaking has been reduced from Rs. 50,00,000 (approximately US$ 75,000) to Rs. 25,00,000 (approximately US$ 37,500), and the lock-in period of these investments has been reduced from three years to one year; and

iv. Angel funds will now be permitted to invest in securities of foreign companies, subject to the guidelines and conditions issued by the RBI and SEBI.

View More

Change in Corporate debt limits for FPIs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, on August 4, 2016, had redefined the corporate debt limit of Rs. 244,323 crores (approx. US$ 38 billion) for FPIs as the CCDL for all foreign investments in rupee denominated bonds (‘RDBs’) issued onshore and offshore by Indian corporates. Subsequently, the RBI, by way of its circular dated September 22, 2017, excluded foreign investment in RDBs issued offshore by Indian corporates from CCDL, with effect from October 3, 2017. In line with the same, SEBI, on September 29, 2017, has notified that foreign investments in rupee denominated bonds issued offshore by Indian corporates would no longer form a part of CCDL. Additionally, CCDL would be renamed as the corporate debt investment limits (‘CDIL’) for FPIs and the upper limit for CDIL would be stated only in Rupee terms.

The circular also contemplates the creation of a sub-limit within the overall CDIL exclusively for investments by long term FPIs in the infrastructure sector, which sub-limit would include investment in both listed and unlisted corporate debt issued by companies in the infrastructure sector. The sub-limit would be Rs. 9,500 crores (approx. US$ 1.5 billion) from October 3, 2017 and will be enhanced to Rs. 19,000 crores (approx. US$ 3 billion) on January 1, 2018 and will also be available for investment on tap. As mandated by SEBI previously, investment by FPIs in unlisted corporate debt securities and securitized debt instruments is not permitted to exceed Rs. 35,000 crores (approx. US$ 5.4 billion) within the extant CDIL.

View More

Consultation Paper on Easing of Access Norms for Investment by FPIs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, on June 28, 2017, issued a consultation paper on Easing of Access Norms for Investment by FPIs, which inter alia proposes the following key amendments to the FPI Regulations:

i.  The jurisdictions from which Category I FPI registrations are allowed should also include jurisdictions that are compliant with the extant foreign exchange regulatory framework and that have formal diplomatic ties with India (such as Canada). Presently, such registrations are limited to those entities which are resident of a country whose securities market regulator is either a signatory to International Organisation of Securities Commissions’ Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding or has a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding with SEBI;

ii.  Discontinuance of the requirement to seek prior approval from SEBI in case of change of the designated depository participant / custodian of the FPI.

iii.  Deeming as ‘broad based’ (for the purpose of Category II FPI registration) applicant funds which have banks, sovereign wealth funds, insurance/ reinsurance companies, pension funds, and/or exchange traded funds as underlying investor(s), subject to the condition that such underlying investor(s) in the applicant fund should either individually or jointly hold majority stake in the applicant fund at all times; and

iv.  Permitting different custodians for FPI and foreign venture capital investor (‘FVCI’) registrations for the same entity (presently, an entity holding FPI and FVCI registration is required to have the same custodian for both registrations). SEBI has also proposed that if an entity has a FPI registration and a FVCI registration, then the investment limit of 10% under the FPI Regulations should also include FVCI investments by entities forming a part of the same investor group. Further, SEBI proposes that FPIs must report details of all other FVCIs which share more than 50% common beneficial ownership to the designated depository participant at the time of seeking registration, and FVCI applicants are also proposed to be mandated to provide details of ‘group’ FPI accounts to SEBI at the time of making an application for FPI registration.

The Consultation Paper also prescribes norms for rationalization of fit and proper criteria for FPIs, rationalization of certain compliance requirements, and other related matters. SEBI invited comments and views on the consultation paper by stakeholders, the window for which is now closed.

View More

Disclosure of Divergence in the Asset Classification and Provisioning by Banks

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to the RBI notification dated April 18, 2017 requiring certain disclosures by banks in cases of divergence in asset classification and provisioning, SEBI, by its circular dated July 18, 2017 mandated banks with listed specified securities (equity shares and convertible securities) to disclose divergences in asset classification and provisioning to the stock exchanges in the prescribed format where:

i.  the additional provisioning requirements assessed by the RBI exceed 15% of the published net profits after tax for the reference period; and/or

ii.  the additional gross non performing assets identified by the RBI exceed 15% of the published incremental gross non performing assets for the reference period.

Such disclosures are required to be made along with the annual financial results filed immediately following communication of such divergence by the RBI to the concerned bank, as an annexure to the disclosures to the annual financial results filed with the stock exchanges in accordance with the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

View More

Amendment to SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 and SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - January 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to the meeting of the SEBI board held on September 23, 2016, SEBI has amended the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014. Some of the key amendments include:

i. The minimum holding of the mandatory sponsor in the infrastructure investment trust (‘InvIT’) has been reduced from 25% to 15%;

ii. The existing limit of three sponsors has been removed from both regulations;

iii. The permissible investment limit for investment by real estate investment trusts (‘REIT’) in ‘under construction’ assets has been increased from 10% to 20%; and

iv. InvITs and REITs are allowed to invest in a two-level SPV holding structure, through a holding company.

View More

Disclosure by Listed Entities of Defaults on Payment of Interest or Repayment of Principal Amount on Loans

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI had issued a circular on August 4, 2017 mandating disclosures by listed entities that have defaulted on inter alia, either the payment of interest or the repayment of the principal amount on loans taken from banks or financial institutions, with effect from October 1, 2017. Accordingly, all entities which have listed any specified securities (equity and convertible securities), non-convertible debt securities or non-convertible and redeemable preference shares, are required to disclose any default with respect to, either the payment of interest, or instalment obligation on debt securities (including commercial paper), medium term notes, foreign currency convertible bonds, loans from banks and financial institutions, external commercial borrowings, etc.

However, SEBI, through its press release dated September 29, 2017, has decided to indefinitely defer the implementation of this circular.

View More

Amendments to the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, on August 14, 2017, notified amendments to Regulation 10 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (‘Takeover Regulations’) pursuant to which exemptions from making an open offer have been accorded to certain acquisitions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) and under debt restructuring schemes subject to compliance with the conditions specified therein.

View More

Definition of ‘Control’ under the Takeover Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

With a view to bring about clarity on the definition of “control” under the Takeover Regulations, SEBI had, on March 14, 2016, published a discussion paper setting out certain bright line tests for the interpretation of the term “control”, which, inter alia, sets out a set of protective (as opposed to participative) rights which would not be constituted as ‘control’. However, SEBI has, by a press release, on September 8, 2017, clarified that it does not propose to formalize these rights into the Takeover Regulations and, instead, proposes to continue with the subjective definition of “control”, and determine what constitutes “control” on a case to case basis.

View More

Consultation Paper on Amendments/Clarifications to the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, on June 22, 2017, issued a consultation paper on Amendments/ Clarifications to the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (‘IA Regulations’), setting out the following key proposals:

i. Segregation between “investment advisory” services and “distribution/execution services”: To maintain a clear segregation between these two services provided by the same entity and to prevent associated conflicts of interest, SEBI has proposed amending the IA Regulations to prohibit entities offering investment advisory services from offering distribution/execution services, including in cases of banks, non-banking financial companies and body corporates that offer such services through separately identifiable departments or divisions. Such departments will be required to be segregated within a period of six months through a separate subsidiary. Entities which provide advice solely on products which do not qualify as securities have been excluded from the purview of the IA Regulations.

ii. Distribution of mutual fund schemes by distributors: To maintain a clear segregation between “advising” and “selling / distribution” of mutual fund products”, SEBI proposes that mutual fund distributors will only be permitted to explain the features of schemes of which they are distributors and distribute them while ensuring suitability of the scheme to the investors, but will not give any investment advice.

iii. Incidental advice by recognized intermediaries: Under the existing framework, exemptions from IA registration have been granted to inter alia various intermediaries, who give investment advice to their clients incidental to their primary activity. SEBI has now proposed that in order to have a clear segregation between “investment advisory services” and other services provided by such intermediaries, all intermediaries who receive separate identifiable consideration for investment advisory services will need to register with SEBI as an investment adviser. Moreover, persons who provide holistic advice/ financial planning services are compulsorily required to be registered as investment advisers.

iv. Relaxation in registration requirements: SEBI has proposed that the educational qualification requirements for representatives/employees of registered investment advisers be relaxed. It has also been proposed to reduce the net worth requirement for body corporates from Rs. 25 lakhs (approx. US$ 38,000) to Rs. 10 lakhs (approx. US$ 15,000).

v. Regulation of the activity of ranking of mutual fund scheme: SEBI has proposed that the activity of ranking of mutual fund schemes be brought within the ambit of SEBI (Research Analyst) Regulations, 2014, under a separate chapter.

View More

SEBI Circular in relation to Schemes of Arrangement by Listed Entities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Rule 19(7) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCRR’) provides that SEBI may, at its own discretion or on the recommendation of a recognized stock exchange, waive or relax the strict enforcement of any or all of the requirements with respect to listing as prescribed under the SCRR in relation to schemes of arrangements by listed entities. By its circular dated March 10, 2017, SEBI had provided that at least 25% of the post-scheme paid up share capital of the transferee entity seeking relaxation from Rule 19(2)(b) of the SCRR (which provides specific conditions for securities offered to the public for subscription) should comprise shares allotted to the public shareholders in the transferor entity.

By its circular dated September 21, 2017, SEBI has provided that in the event the entity fails to comply with the aforementioned requirement, it may alternatively satisfy the following conditions:

i.  It has a valuation in excess of Rs. 1,600 crores (approx. US$ 246 million) as per the valuation report;

ii.  The value of post-scheme shareholding of public shareholders of the listed entity in the transferee entity is not less than Rs. 400 crores (approx. US$ 62 million);

iii.  At least 10% of the post-scheme paid-up share capital of the transferee entity comprises shares allotted to the public shareholders of the transferor entity; and

iv.  It must be required to increase its public shareholding to at least 25% within a period of one year from the date of listing of its securities and an undertaking to this effect is incorporated in the scheme of arrangement.

View More

Notification of Reserve Bank Commercial Paper Guidelines, 2017

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The RBI has by a notification dated August 10, 2017 issued the Reserve Bank Commercial Paper Directions, 2017 (‘New CP Directions’) in supersession of the existing directions on the same, which inter alia specifies the following:

i. A commercial paper (‘CP’) will be issued in the form of a promissory note, held in a dematerialized form with a denomination of Rs. 5 lakhs (approx. US$ 7,600) or multiples thereof. The issuance must be at a discount to face value with no issuer having such issue underwritten or co-accepted. Optionality clauses, such as put and call options, are not permitted on a CP. The original tenor of a CP must be between seven days to one year.

ii. Companies, including non-banking financial companies and All India Financial Institutions will be eligible to issue CPs, with no minimum net worth requirement. Entities such as co-operative societies / unions, Government entities, trusts, LLPs and other bodies corporate can also issue CPs, provided that they have a presence in India and a minimum net worth of Rs. 100 crores (approx. US$ 15.3 million).

iii. Eligible investors include all residents, non-residents who are permitted to invest in CPs under the exchange control regulations. However, no person is allowed to invest in CPs issued by related parties either in primary or secondary market. Additionally, investment by regulated financial sector entities will be subject to conditions imposed by the concerned regulator.

iv. Issuers, whose total CP issuance during a year is Rs. 1,000 crores (approx. US$ 153 million) or more, should obtain credit rating of a minimum of ‘A3’ from at least two SEBI registered credit rating agencies.

v. No end-use restriction to a CP issuance has been prescribed but it should be disclosed in the offer document at the time of issuance.

vi. The buyback of a CP, in full or in part, must be at the prevailing market rate, which cannot be made before 30 days from the date of the issue.

vii. A CP will be a ‘stand-alone’ product, with banks and financial institutions optionally choosing to provide stand-by assistance / credit, back stop facility, etc. as a means of credit enhancement. Non-banking entities may provide unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for credit enhancement for CP issue provided the offer document for CP properly discloses the net worth of the guarantor company, among other details.

viii. In case of secondary market trading and settlement of CP, all over-the-counter trades in CP will be reported within 15 minutes of the trade to the Financial Market Trade Reporting and Confirmation Platform of Clearcorp Dealing System (India) Ltd.

View More

Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) (Thirteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of a notification dated September 9, 2016 (‘FEMA 20 Notification’), amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (‘FEMA 20 Regulations’), to inter alia: (i) permit 100% foreign direct investment (‘FDI’) under the automatic route in financial services activities regulated by financial sector regulators (as may be notified by the Government of India (‘GoI’)); (ii) remove the restriction for FDI, under the automatic route, in NBFCs engaged in any one of the 18 specified activities; (iii) remove the erstwhile minimum capitalization requirements, however, capitalization norms and other limits prescribed by the relevant financial sector regulator will still apply; and (iv) clarify that in sectors where financial services are not regulated / partially regulated by a financial sector regulator, then 100% FDI is permitted under the Government approval route subject to conditions including minimum capitalization requirements, as may be decided by the Government.

View More

Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Regulations, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of a notification dated April 1, 2016, issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Regulations, 2016 (‘2016 Remittance Regulations’), which supersedes the erstwhile regulations. Some of the key changes introduced under the 2016 Remittance Regulations are as follows: (i) any non-resident Indian (‘NRI’) or person of Indian origin desirous of remitting any amounts from an NRO account is now required to submit an undertaking to the authorized dealer bank (‘AD’) confirming that the remittances are being made from the balance arising from legitimate receivables in India, and not by borrowing from any other person or a transfer from any other NRO account; and (ii) it is no longer required for Indian companies remitting assets when under liquidation to furnish a tax clearance certificate from the relevant tax authorities.

View More

Corrigendum to Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulation, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has issued a corrigendum dated September 8, 2016 (with effect from April 1, 2016) (‘Corrigendum’) to the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulation, 2016 (‘Deposit Regulations’) clarifying that the restriction on ADs from allowing their branches / correspondents outside India to grant loans to or in favour of non–resident depositors or third parties for purposes other than for relending or carrying on agricultural / plantation activities or for investment in real estate business, has now been dispensed with.

View More

SEBI Circular for Disclosure of the Impact of Audit Qualifications by Listed Entities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’), has issued a circular on May 27, 2016, for streamlining the existing process of disclosure of the impact of audit qualifications by listed companies under the SEBI (Listing and Other Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘Listing Regulations’). Listed companies are required to disclose the cumulative impact of all audit qualifications in a separate format for the period ending on or after March 31, 2016, simultaneously, while submitting the annual audited financial results to the stock exchanges. SEBI has now dispensed with the requirement of filing Form A or Form B for audit report with unmodified or modified opinion and the requirement of making adjustment in the books of accounts of the subsequent year, and the management of the listed entity will have the option to explain its views on the audit qualifications. If the impact of the audit qualification is not quantified by the auditor, the management must provide an estimate and if the management is unable to provide an estimate, it must state reasons for the same. In both instances, the auditor is required to review and provide comments.

View More

Informal guidance under the Listing Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has issued an informal guidance dated August 23, 2016, under the SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2003 (‘IG Scheme’) in the matter of Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Limited regarding the requirement to obtain a shareholders’ resolution for reclassification of the promoters as per the Listing Regulations. SEBI has clarified that subject to compliance with Regulation 31A of the Listing Regulations (which lists down conditions for reclassification), reclassification of the promoters of a listed company as public shareholders, not being pursuant to an open offer (in terms of Regulation 31A(5) of the Listing Regulations) or pursuant to a listed entity becoming professionally managed (in terms of Regulation 31A(6) of the Listing Regulations), would not require any approval from the shareholders of the listed entity.

View More

Amendment of the Listing Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to the notification dated July 8, 2016, SEBI has amended the Listing Regulations to include Regulation 43A, which states that the top 500 listed entities based on market capitalization (calculated as on March 31 of every financial year) are required to formulate a dividend distribution policy that must be disclosed in their annual reports and on their websites. Further, if a listed entity declares dividend on the basis of any additional parameters or proposes to amend the dividend declaration policy, it will be required to disclose the rationale for such changes in its annual report and on its website. However, companies other than the top 500 listed entities may voluntarily disclose their respective dividend distribution policies.

View More

Amendments to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investment) Regulations, 2014

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, by way of a notification dated July 8, 2016, amended the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investment) Regulations, 2014, by substituting Regulation 22(2). The amendment stipulates that a foreign portfolio investor (‘FPI’) is required to ensure that transfer of offshore derivate instruments (‘ODIs’) issued by or on behalf of it, is made subject to: (i) the ODIs being transferred to persons subject to fulfilment of Regulation 22(1), i.e., no FPI may issue, subscribe to or otherwise deal in ODIs, directly or indirectly, unless: (a) such ODIs are issued only to persons who are regulated by an appropriate foreign regulatory authority, and (b) such ODIs are issued after compliance with ‘know your customer’ norms; and (ii) prior consent of the FPI having been obtained for such transfer (except when the transferee has been pre – approved by the FPI).

View More

FAQs in relation to issuance and transfer of ODIs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

As per the key clarifications provided by SEBI in the FAQs dated September 2, 2016, in relation to its circular dated June 10, 2016, which had specified the conditions for issuance and transfer of ODIs:

i.  The beneficial owners of an ODI subscriber cannot be a non-resident Indian, a person of Indian origin, or an Indian resident, (as defined under the Income-tax Act, 1961);

ii.  Regarding verification of beneficial owners of ODI subscribers pursuant to the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, SEBI has clarified that the relevant thresholds for identification of the beneficial owner are required to be applied at the subscriber level (and not to the material shareholder / owner entity of the subscriber, as prescribed earlier). Similarly, if no material shareholder / owner entity is identified as the ODI subscriber, the ODI issuer must obtain the identity and address proof of the relevant natural person who holds the position of senior managing official of the ODI subscriber entity (and not in the material shareholder / owner entity, as had been specified earlier).

View More

Meeting of the SEBI Board

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The SEBI Board met on September 23, 2016 and took the following decisions:

i.  Currently, FPIs are required to transact in securities through stock brokers registered with SEBI, while domestic institutions such as banks, insurance companies, pension funds etc. are permitted to access the bond market directly (i.e. without brokers). SEBI has decided to extend this privilege to Category I and Category II FPIs.

ii.  In order to facilitate the growth of Investment Trusts (“InvIT”) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REIT”), SEBI has decided to amend the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 and the SEBI (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2014 (“REIT Regulations”). The key amendments will include:

a.  InvITs and REITs will be allowed to invest in the two level SPV structure through the holding company subject to sufficient shareholding in the holding company and other prescribed safeguards. The holding company would have to distribute 100% cash flows realised from the underlying SPVs and at least 90% of the remaining cash flows.

b.  The minimum holding of the mandatory sponsor in the InvIT has been reduced to 15%.

c.  REITs have been permitted to invest upto 20% in under construction assets.

d.  The limit on the number of sponsors has been removed under the REIT Regulations.

iii.  The SEBI Board has approved amendments to the SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993, to provide a framework for the registration of fund managers for overseas funds, pursuant to the introduction of section 9A in the Income Tax, 1961.

iv.  The SEBI Board has decided to grant permanent registration to the following categories of intermediaries: merchant bankers, bankers to an issue, registrar to an issue & share transfer, underwriters, credit rating agency, debenture trustee, depository participant, KYC registration agency, portfolio managers, investment advisers and research analysts.

v.  The Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Cleaning Corporations) Regulations, 2012 have been amended to increase the upper limit of shareholding of foreign institutional investors mentioned in the Indian stock exchanges from 5% to 15% and to allow an FPI to acquire shares of an unlisted stock exchange through transactions outside of recognised stock exchange including allotment.

View More

Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - October 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 (‘ESIRDA Act), which has been enacted by the Parliament and received Presidential assent on August 12, 2016, seeks to amend certain provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’), the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (‘RDBFI Act’), the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘ISA’), and the Depositories Act, 1996 (‘Depositories Act’). Certain sections of the ESIRDA Act have been notified with effect from September 1, 2016.

i.  Key Amendments to SARFAESI: (a) Debenture trustees registered with SEBI have now been included in the definition of ‘secured creditor’, and can take enforcement action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI, as the remedies under SARFAESI have been extended to apply to listed debt securities. The scope of SARFAESI has been widened to include hire purchase, financial leasing and conditional sale transactions; (b) the process of taking possession over collateral against which a loan has been provided by a secured creditor, with the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate, has been made time-bound, requiring an order to be passed within 30 days from the date of application by the secured creditor; (c) amendments relating to registration of security interest have been introduced, including: (1) a proposal to set up a central database to integrate records of security registered under various registration systems including those made under the Companies Act and the Registration Act, 1908; (2) Central Government may require creditors not qualifying as “secured creditors” under SARFAESI to register the creation, modification and satisfaction of security interest with such central registry; and (3) after registration of security interest with the central registry, the debts due to any secured creditor will have priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central, State or local Governmental authorities.

ii.  Key Amendments to ISA: The ESIRDA Act amends the ISA to exempt stamp duty on instruments of transfer or assignment of rights or interest in financial assets to asset reconstruction companies, where such transfer is for the purpose of asset reconstruction or securitisation. Security receipts issued by such asset reconstruction companies may be subscribed to by non-institutional and other investors of prescribed classes.

iii.  Key Amendments to RDBFI Act: (a) Debenture trustees registered with SEBI can initiate proceedings under the RDBFI Act regarding defaults in listed debt securities; (b) a bank or a financial institution has now been permitted to take proceedings under RDBFI Act before a tribunal in whose jurisdiction where the defaulted account is maintained / located; (c) a defendant, upon service of summons under the RDBFI Act, is restricted from transferring the secured assets or other assets disclosed in the application made by the bank or financial institution without the approval of the tribunal, except in the ordinary course of business; and (d) electronic filing of recovery applications, documents and written statements has been introduced.

iv.  Other Significant Changes: The Depositories Act has been amended to require registration by a depository of any transfer of security in favour of an asset reconstruction company along with or consequent upon transfer or assignment of a financial asset of any bank or financial institution under SARFAESI. Additionally, every depository is also required to register any issue of new shares in favour of any bank or financial institution or asset reconstruction company or any of their assignees, by conversion of part of their debt into shares pursuant to reconstruction of debts of the company agreed between the company and the bank, financial institution or asset reconstruction company.

View More

Amendments to Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) has, by way of notifications dated April 28, 2016 and May 20, 2016, made the following amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000:

i. The term ‘startup’ has been defined to mean a private limited company / limited liability partnership, incorporated within the preceding five years, with an annual turnover not exceeding Rs 25 crores (approximately US$ 3.7 million) in any preceding financial year, working towards innovation, development, deployment or commercialisation of new products, processes or services driven by technology or intellectual property, provided that such entity is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business;

ii. Schedule 6 has been amended to permit foreign venture capital investors (‘FVCI’) registered with Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) to invest in: (a) equity, equity-linked instruments or debt instruments issued by startups, irrespective of the sector of such startup; (b) units of a registered Category I Alternative Investment Fund (‘Cat-I AIF’) or units of a scheme or a fund set up by a Cat-I AIF; (c) equity, equity-linked instruments or debt instruments issued by an unlisted Indian company engaged in specified sectors;

iii. A new Regulation 10A has been inserted which provides for the following:

• In case of transfer of shares between a resident and a non-resident, not exceeding 25% of the total consideration can be paid by the buyer on a deferred basis, for which an escrow arrangement may be made, for a period not exceeding 18 months from the date of the transfer agreement; and

• Even if the total consideration has been paid, the seller may furnish an indemnity for an amount not exceeding 25% of the total consideration, for a period not exceeding 18 months from the date of payment of the full consideration.

iv. The total consideration finally paid for such shares must comply with applicable pricing guidelines.

View More

Revisions to FDI Policy

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (‘DIPP’) has, by way of Press Note No. 5 dated June 24, 2016 (‘Press Note 5’), introduced the following notable amendments to the FDI Policy:

i. 100% foreign direct investment (‘FDI’) is permitted under the approval route for trading, including through e-commerce, in respect of food products manufactured or produced in India;

ii. In the defence sector, FDI beyond 49% is permitted through the approval route, where the investment results in Indian access to modern technology or for other reasons. The erstwhile condition for such FDI, requiring such investment to result in access to ‘state-of-art’ technology, has been dispensed with;

iii. Foreign investment in the civil aviation sector has been liberalised, whereby: (a) 100% FDI is permitted under the automatic route in brownfield and greenfield airport projects; and (b) FDI has been raised to 100% (with up to 49% under the automatic route and 100% through the automatic route for non-resident Indians (‘NRIs’)) for scheduled air transport services, domestic scheduled passenger airlines and regional air transport services. Foreign airlines continue to be allowed to invest in the capital of Indian companies operating scheduled and non-scheduled air-transport services up to 49%;

iv. FDI in brownfield pharmaceutical projects has been permitted up to 100%, with 74% under the automatic route. However, a non-compete clause is not permitted in transactions, except in certain special circumstances with the prior approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board;

v. Local sourcing norms have been relaxed for three years for entities engaged in single brand retail trading of products having ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting edge’ technology, and where local sourcing is not possible;

vi. FDI in private security agencies has been raised to 74%, with 49% permitted under automatic route. It is clarified that the terms ‘private security agencies’, ‘private security’, and ‘armoured car service’ will have the same meaning as ascribed to such terms under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Accordingly, private security agencies would include any person (other than any governmental agency) providing private security services including training of private security guards and deployment of armoured cars;

vii. FDI in animal husbandry (including breeding of dogs), pisciculture, aquaculture and apiculture was permitted up to 100% under the automatic route under controlled conditions. The requirement of ‘controlled conditions’ for FDI in these activities has now been removed; and

viii. 100% FDI in broadcasting carriage services, including teleports, direct to home, cable networks, mobile TV and headend-in-the-sky broadcasting services, has been permitted under the automatic route.

View More

RBI Circular on Investment in Credit Information Companies

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to the circular dated May 19, 2016 issued by RBI, all credit information companies (‘CIC’) have been directed to comply with the following:

i. Investments by any person (whether resident or otherwise), directly or indirectly, in a CIC, must not exceed 10% of the equity capital of the investee company. However, RBI may consider allowing higher FDI limits to entities with an established track record in running a credit information bureau in the following cases:

• up to 49%, if ownership is not well diversified (i.e., one or more shareholders each hold more than 10% of voting rights in the company);

• up to 100%, if ownership is well diversified, or if their ownership is not well diversified, but at least 50% of the directors of the investee CIC are Indian nationals/ NRIs/ persons of Indian origin (out of which at least one third of the directors must be Indian nationals resident in India); and

• The investor company should preferably be listed on a recognised stock exchange.

ii. A foreign institutional investor (‘FII’)/ foreign portfolio investor (‘FPI’) is permitted to invest in a CIC subject to certain prescribed conditions.

If the investor in a CIC is a wholly owned subsidiary (directly or indirectly) of an investment holding company, then the above conditions will be applicable to the operating group company that is engaged in the credit information business and has undertaken to provide technical know-how to the CIC in India.

View More

Disclosure of Compounding Orders Passed by RBI on RBI’s Website

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

With a view to ensure transparency and disclosure, compounding orders passed by RBI on or after June 1, 2016 will be publicly available on RBI’s website (www.rbi.org.in). The RBI circular dated May 26, 2016 in relation thereto also sets out a guidance note for calculating (on an indicative basis) the amount of penalty/ fine that may be imposed on the applicant, although the actual amount may vary on a case to case basis.

View More

Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a Branch or a Liaison Office or a Project Office or any Other Place of Business) Regulations, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of a recent notification issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a Branch or a Liaison Office or a Project Office or any Other Place of Business) Regulations, 2016 (‘New Regulations’) which replace the erstwhile regulations of 2000. The key changes in the New Regulations, inter alia, include: (i) the term ‘branch office’ has been defined to mean any establishment described as such by the concerned company; (ii) cancellation of approval if no office is opened within six months of receiving the approval letter, subject to an extension of six months by the Authorised Dealer Category-I bank (‘AD Bank’) on account of reasons beyond control; (iii) citizens of certain specified countries are required to obtain registration with the relevant State police authorities in addition to the RBI approval for establishing a branch office or liaison office or project office or any other place of business; and (iv) AD Bank may permit intermittent remittances by branch office/ project offices pending winding up/ completion of the project subject to submission of specified documents.

View More

Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

RBI has, by way of notification dated April 1, 2016, issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016, which supersede the erstwhile regulations of 2000, with the following key changes:

i. A person resident outside India having a business interest in India is permitted to open a Special Non Resident Rupee Account (‘SNRR Account’) with an AD Bank for bona fide transactions in Rupees subject to certain conditions;

ii. A shipping or airline company incorporated outside India is permitted to hold and maintain a foreign currency account with an AD Bank for meeting expenses in India. However, freight or passage fare collections in India or inward remittances through banking channels from its office outside India are the only permissible credits; and

iii. An AD Bank is permitted to allow unincorporated joint ventures between foreign and Indian entities executing a contract in India, to open and maintain a non-interest bearing foreign currency account and a SNRR Account for the purpose of undertaking transactions in the ordinary course of its business, subject to certain conditions.

View More

Foreign Investment in Units Issued by REITs, InvITs and AIFs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Salient features of foreign investment permitted by RBI, pursuant to its circular dated April 21, 2016, in the units of investment vehicles for real estate and infrastructure registered with the SEBI or any other competent authority are as under:

i. A person resident outside India (including a Registered Foreign Portfolio Investor (‘RFPI’) and NRIs may invest in units of real estate investment trusts (‘REITs’);

ii. A person resident outside India who has acquired or purchased units in accordance with the regulations may sell or transfer in any manner or redeem the units as per regulations framed by SEBI or directions issued by RBI;

iii. An Alternative Investment Fund Category III with foreign investment can make portfolio investment in only those securities or instruments in which a RFPI is allowed to invest; and

iv. Foreign investment in units of REITs registered with SEBI will not be included in ‘real estate business’.

View More

Revision of Sectoral Limits – ARCs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

DIPP has, by way of Press Note 4 dated May 6, 2016 (‘Press Note 4’), permitted 100% FDI in asset reconstruction companies (‘ARCs’) under the automatic route, from the erstwhile 49%, subject to the following key conditions:

i. Earlier, an ARC sponsor was not allowed to hold more than 50% shareholding, including by way of FDI or by routing it through a FII/ FPI controlled by the same sponsor, in line with the existing restriction under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’). This restriction is proposed to be done away with by the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016. Therefore, Press Note 4 provides that the investment limit of a sponsor in an ARC’s shareholding will be governed by SARFAESI;

ii. Permissible FII/ FPI investment in each tranche of security receipts has been increased to 100%, as opposed to the earlier 74%, subject to compliance with RBI’s directions; and

iii. Foreign investment in an ARC is now subject to all provisions of SARFAESI (instead of only Section 3(3)(f)).

View More

Guidelines for Public Issue of Units of Infrastructure Investment Trusts

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, on May 11, 2016, issued Guidelines for Public Issue of Units of Infrastructure Investment Trusts (‘Guidelines’), which amend the provisions of the SEBI (Infrastructure Investment Trusts) Regulation, 2014 (‘SEBI InvIT Regulations’).

The Guidelines set out the procedure to be followed by an infrastructure investment trust (‘InvIT’) in relation to a public issue of its units, which includes the appointment of a lead merchant banker and other intermediaries, procedure for filing of offer documents with SEBI and the stock exchanges, the process of bidding and allotment. Further, the allocation in a public issue is required to be in the following proportion: (i) not more than 75% to institutional investors; and (ii) not less than 25% to other investors; provided that the investment manager has the option to allocate 60% of the portion available for allocation to institutional investors and anchor investors (which includes strategic investors), subject to certain conditions. Further, the investment manager, on behalf of the InvIT is required to deposit and keep deposited with the stock exchange(s), an amount equal to 0.5% of the amount of the units offered for subscription to the public or Rs 5 crores (approximately US$ 7,45,000), whichever is lower. The price of units can be determined either: (i) by the investment manager in consultation with the lead merchant banker; or (ii) through the book building process. However, differential prices are not permitted.

View More

Amendment of Guidance Note on SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, on April 12, 2016, amended the guidance note on SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’) which was issued on August 24, 2015 to extend the exemption from ‘contra trade’ restrictions under the PIT Regulations to exit offers in addition to buy back offers, open offers, rights issues, Follow – on Public Offers, bonus issues, etc.

View More

SEBI Board Meetings

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, in its board meeting held on May 19, 2016, approved the incorporation of the internal guidance note in the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations 2014 (‘Settlement Regulations’), to clarify that only serious and substantial cases are to be taken for enforcement under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Settlement Regulations. For this purpose, defaults which in the opinion of SEBI have a bearing on the securities market as a whole and not just the listed security and its investors may be considered to have market wide impact.

Thereafter, in its meeting held on June 17, 2016, SEBI approved the two consultation papers in relation to the changes to be made to the SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations and the SEBI InvIT Regulations.

View More

SEBI Circular on Restriction on Redemption in Mutual Funds

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2016 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, on May 31, 2016 issued a circular providing details of certain specified circumstances in which mutual funds/ asset management companies/ trustees could impose restrictions on redemption of units of their mutual fund schemes. SEBI has provided that the restriction on redemption cannot exceed ten working days in any 90 day period and would be applicable for redemption requests above Rs 200,000 (approximately US$ 2,975). Further, specific approval of the board and trustees of an asset management company is required before imposing such restrictions and SEBI should be notified of such approval immediately.

View More

RBI notifies the Cross Border Merger Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) has notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2018 (‘Cross Border Merger Regulations’), by way of a notification dated March 20, 2018. Some of the key provisions of the Cross Border Merger Regulations are set out below:

i.  Inbound Mergers: In case of an inbound merger (i.e. a cross border merger wherein an Indian company is the resultant company), the resultant Indian company may issue shares to persons resident outside India, subject to compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2017 (‘FEMA 2017’). Further, if (a) the foreign company in an inbound merger is a joint venture (‘JV’) or wholly owned subsidiary (‘WOS’) of the Indian company; or (b) the inbound merger of a JV or WOS results in the acquisition of a step down subsidiary, then compliance with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of any Foreign Security) Regulations, 2004 (‘ODI Regulations’) is required. Some of the key provisions governing inbound mergers are set out below –

•   Acquisition/transfer of assets and liabilities by the resultant Indian Company: If the resultant Indian company acquires any asset or comes to hold any liability outside of India as a result of the inbound merger, which acquisition is not permitted under FEMA, then the resultant Indian company would be required to sell such asset / security or extinguish such liability from the sale proceeds of the overseas assets, within two years of the merger scheme being sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’).

•   Offices of the foreign transferor company: The overseas office(s) of the foreign transferor company would be deemed to be the offshore branches/office outside India of the resultant Indian company, which will be required to undertake the activities of a branch/office as permitted under the Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Currency Account by a person resident in India) Regulations, 2015.

•   Borrowings and guarantees of the foreign transferor company: Any borrowings raised or guarantees issued by the foreign transferor company, which come to be held by the resultant Indian company, will have a period of two years to become compliant with the applicable foreign exchange regulations governing external commercial borrowings, borrowing or lending in Rupees or guarantees. No remittance for paying such liability can be made by the resultant Indian company within the two years of the merger scheme being sanctioned by the NCLT. In such cases, end use restrictions will not apply.

With respect to an inbound merger, if the resultant Indian company intends to continue operations outside India post completion of such cross-border merger, then such resultant Indian company will be required to maintain a presence outside India, through an offshore branch or a subsidiary in the manner permitted under foreign exchange regulations.

ii.  Outbound Mergers: In case of an outbound merger (i.e. a cross border merger wherein a foreign company is the resultant company), a person resident in India may hold or acquire securities of the resultant foreign company, in accordance with the provisions of ODI Regulations (including the fair market value of such foreign securities being within the limits prescribed under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme, where the resident Indian is an individual). Some of the key provisions governing outbound mergers are set out below:

•   Offices of the Indian transferor company: Indian offices of the Indian transferor company will be deemed to be branch offices of the resultant foreign company. Transactions can be undertaken out of such Indian branch offices in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a branch office or a liaison office or a project office or any other place of business) Regulations, 2016.

•   Borrowings and guarantees of the Indian transferor company: The guarantees or outstanding borrowings of the Indian company which become the liabilities of the resultant foreign company are required to be paid as per the scheme sanctioned by the NCLT. However, the resultant foreign company will not be permitted to acquire any liability payable towards an Indian lender in Rupees which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’).

•   Acquisition/transfer of assets by the resultant foreign Company: If the resultant foreign company acquires any asset or security which it is not otherwise permitted to hold under FEMA, it will be required to sell such asset or security within two years of the merger scheme being sanctioned by the NCLT, and the proceeds of such divestment are required to be repatriated outside India immediately through normal banking channels. However, repayment of Indian liabilities from the proceeds of the sale of such assets or securities within such two year period is permitted.

•   Valuation: In accordance with Rule 25A of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangement and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, valuation for an outbound merger has to be conducted by a valuer who is a member of a recognized professional body in the jurisdiction of the transferee company in accordance with internationally accepted principles on accounting and valuation.

With respect to an outbound merger, if the resultant offshore company intends to continue operations in India post completion of such cross-border merger, then such resultant offshore company will be required to maintain a presence outside India through a subsidiary in the manner permitted under foreign exchange regulations.

View More

Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2018

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The RBI has, by way of a notification dated March 26, 2018, issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2018 (‘2018 Regulations’) that replaces the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 (‘2000 Regulations’). Some of the key changes introduced by way of the 2018 Regulations are set out below:

i.  The 2018 Regulations has replaced the concepts of ‘a person resident outside India who is a citizen of India’ and ‘a person of Indian origin’ under the 2000 Immovable Property Regulations with ‘Non-Resident Indian’ (‘NRI’) and ‘Overseas Citizen of India (‘OCI’), respectively and treats NRIs and OCIs at par with respect to their capacity to hold and / or transfer immovable property in India.

ii.  An NRI or an OCI is generally permitted to acquire any immovable property, other than agricultural land/ farm house / plantation property in India, by way of a sale or gift from a person resident India or another NRI or OCI, who is a ‘relative’ (as defined under Section 2(77)[1] of the Companies Act, 2013). While the 2000 Regulations were silent on this aspect, the 2018 Regulations provide that a person resident outside India, not being an NRI or OCI but whose spouse is an NRI or an OCI, may acquire one such immovable property, jointly with the NRI / OCI spouse.

iii.  Any person being a citizen of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Nepal or Bhutan, or persons of Hong Kong, Macau or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and including persons from aforesaid countries having a place of business in India in a manner permissible under FEMA, will not be permitted to acquire or transfer any immovable property in India in their individual capacity, without the prior approval of the RBI, other than on lease not exceeding five years. However, such restriction would not apply where such person is an OCI.

iv.  Under the 2018 Regulations, a person resident in India under a long term visa, who is a citizen of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan and belongs to minority communities in those countries (namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians), may purchase only (a) one residential immovable property for self-occupation and (b) one immovable property for carrying out self-employment activities, inter alia subject to such immovable property not being in / around any restricted / protected areas and cantonment areas. This dispensation was not provided for under the 2000 Regulations.

v.  The 2018 Regulations do not have retrospective application on any existing holding of immovable property by a person resident outside India, which was acquired under the 2000 Regulations.

[1]     Section 2 (77) of the Companies Act, 2013 states: “relative”, with reference to any person, means any one who is related to another, if— (i) they are members of a Hindu Undivided Family; (ii) they are husband and wife; or (iii) one person is related to the other in such manner as may be prescribed.

View More

Amendments to FEMA 2017

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The RBI has, by its notification dated March 26, 2018 introduced the following amendments to the sector specific policy for foreign investment, under FEMA 2017:

i. Foreign investment in investing companies: (a) Foreign investments in investing companies not registered as non-banking financial companies (‘NBFCs’) with the RBI and in core investment companies, both engaged in the activity of investing in the capital of other Indian entities, will require prior Government approval; and (b) foreign investment in investing companies registered as NBFCs with the RBI, will not require any prior approval and will be permissible under 100% automatic route.

ii. Single brand product retail trading: In case of entities undertaking single brand retail trading of products having ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology and where local sourcing is not possible, a committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary, DIPP, with representatives from Niti Aayog, concerned Administrative Ministry and independent technical expert(s) on the subject will examine the claim on the issue of the products being in the nature of ‘state-of-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology, and give recommendations for such relaxation.

iii. Issuance of capital instruments to persons resident outside India: No prior Government approval will now be required for issuance of capital instruments to persons resident outside India against: (a) import of capital goods / machinery / equipment (excluding second hand machinery); or (b) pre-operative / pre-incorporation expenses, unless the Indian investee company is engaged in a sector under the Government route.

As set out in our January 2018 edition of the Inter Alia, the Union Cabinet had approved certain amendments to the foreign direct investment regime in India on January 10, 2018, which have now been incorporated in FEMA 2017.

View More

Manner of achieving minimum public shareholding

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Securities Exchange Board India (‘SEBI’) has, by its circular dated February 22, 2018 (‘MPS Circular’), introduced the following two additional methods that can be adopted by listed entities to achieve minimum public shareholding in compliance with the requirements under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘ICDR Regulations’):

i. Open Market Sale:

a. Promoters/ promoter group are now permitted to sell up to 2% of their total paid-up equity share capital in the company in the open market, subject to five times’ average monthly trading volume of the shares of such company.

b. The entity is required to, at least one trading day prior to every such proposed sale,announce the: (A) intention and purpose of sale; (B) details of the sellers and the shares to be sold; and (C) time period for completion of the sale, to the stock exchange(s) where its shares are listed.

c. The listed entity is also required to give an undertaking to the relevant stockexchange(s) obtained from the promoters/ promoter group to not buy any shares in the open market on the dates on which the offer for sale is open.

ii. Qualified Institutions Placement of eligible securities under Chapter VIII of the ICDR Regulations: SEBI, by way of a circular dated February 12, 2018, has dispensed with the requirement of adhering to minimum public shareholding for a listed issuer intending to make a Qualified Institutions Placement.

The MPS Circular supersedes a previous circular issued by SEBI on November 30, 2015.

View More

Easing of access norms for investments by Foreign Portfolio Investors

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, by way of circulars dated February 15, 2018 and March 13, 2018 (collectively, the ‘FPI Circulars’), revised the regulatory framework governing foreign portfolio investors (‘FPIs’) under the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014 (‘FPI Regulations’) to ease the access norms for investments by FPIs. Some of the key changes that have come into force are set out below:

i. The current requirement of prior SEBI approval for a change in local custodian/ designated depository participant (‘DDP’) has been replaced with the requirement of obtaining a no-objection certificate from the earlier DDP, followed by a post-facto intimation to SEBI.

ii. The regime has been liberalized concerning FPIs having ‘Multiple Investment Managers’ structure and the same permanent account number, with respect to ‘Free of Cost’ transfer of assets. Approval of SEBI is now not required and DPPs are now entitled to process such requests.

iii. In case of addition of a new share class, where a common portfolio of Indian securities is maintained across all classes of shares/fund/sub-fund and broad based criteria are fulfilled at a portfolio level after adding a new share class, prior approval of the DDP is no longer required.

iv. Private banks and merchant banks are now permitted to undertake investments on behalf of their respective investors, provided that the investment banker/merchant banker submits a prescribed declaration.

v. SEBI also clarified that appropriately regulated Category II FPIs viz. asset management companies, investment managers/ advisers, Portfolio managers, Broker-dealer and Swap-dealer etc. are permitted to invest their proprietary funds.

View More

Notification of Cross-border Mergers

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

On April 13, 2017, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) notified Section 234 (merger or amalgamation of a company with a foreign company) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’), paving the way for cross-border mergers and amalgamations. Simultaneously, the MCA notified an amendment to the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Amendment Rules, 2016 (‘Merger Rules’) by inserting a new Rule 25A, which prescribes the rules governing (i) inbound mergers by foreign companies with Indian companies, and (ii) outbound mergers by Indian companies with foreign companies incorporated in certain ‘notified jurisdictions’.

Section 234 of the Companies Act inter alia provides that, with the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), a foreign company may merge into an Indian company and vice versa and that the terms and conditions of the scheme of merger may provide, among other things, for payment of consideration to the shareholders of the merging company in cash, or in depository receipts, or partly in cash and partly in depository receipts. The amendment to the Merger Rules further prescribes that such cross-border mergers and amalgamations must adhere to the requirements under the Companies Act and that the valuation (in case of an outbound merger) be conducted by valuers who are members of a recognised professional body in the country of the transferee company and as per internationally accepted accounting standards and valuation.

While the MCA has now permitted cross-border mergers, there are certain aspects that would require evaluation for successful implementation of cross-border mergers, including feasibility of tax neutrality in all the relevant countries and evaluation of impact under other tax provisions such as general anti-avoidance rules etc.

View More

Participation by Strategic Investor(s) in InvITs and REITs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to SEBI’s circular dated January 18, 2018 (‘SEBI Circular’), a Real Estate Investment Trust (‘REIT’) / Infrastructure Investment Trust (‘InvIT’) may invite subscriptions from strategic investors subject to inter alia the following:

i. The strategic investors can, either jointly or severally, invest not less than 5% and not more than 25% of the total offer size.

ii. The investment manager or manager is required to enter into a binding unit subscription agreement with the strategic investors proposing to invest in the public issue, which agreement cannot be terminated except if the issue fails to collect minimum subscription.

iii. The entire subscription price has to be deposited in a special escrow account prior to opening of the public issue.

iv. The price at which the strategic investors have agreed to buy units of the InvIT/ REIT should not be less than the public issue price. In case of a lower price, the strategic investors should bring in the additional amounts within two working days of the determination of the public issue price, and in case of a higher price, the excess amount will not be refunded and the strategic investors will be bound by the price agreed in the unit subscription agreement.

v. The draft offer document or offer document, as applicable, will disclose details of the unit subscription agreement, including the name of each strategic investor, the number of units proposed to be subscribed etc.

vi. Units subscribed by strategic investors, pursuant to the unit subscription agreement, will be locked-in for a period of 180 days from the date of listing in the public issue.

View More

Schemes of arrangement by listed entities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI, by its circular dated January 3, 2018 (‘Scheme Circular’), has amended its circular issued in March, 2017 (‘March Circular’). Some of the key amendments are as follows:

i. The scope of the March Circular has been extended to schemes which solely provide for merger of a division of a WOS with its parent company, in addition to the merger of a WOS with its parent company.

ii. In respect of the valuation report and a fairness opinion by an independent chartered accountant and an independent SEBI registered merchant banker to be submitted by a listed entity, SEBI has clarified that the term ‘independent’ will mean that there is no material conflict of interest among the chartered accountant and the merchant banker or with the company, including that of common directorships or partnerships.

iii. The percentage of pre-scheme public shareholders of the listed entity and the Qualified Institutional Buyers of the unlisted entity should not be less than 25% on a fully diluted basis in the post-scheme shareholding pattern of the merged company.

iv. The requirements under the March Circular, in relation to the scheme once the scheme has been sanctioned by the High Court or the NCLT, have been dispensed with.

v. The lock-in requirements relating to the pre-scheme share capital of the unlisted issuer seeking to be listed in case of a scheme involving merger of a listed company or its division into an unlisted entity have been amended as follows:

• Shares held by promoters up to the extent of 20% of the post-merger paid-up capital of the unlisted issuer to be locked-in for three years from the date of listing of the shares of the unlisted issuer.

• The remaining shares are to be locked-in for one year from the date of listing of the shares of the unlisted issuer.

• No additional lock-in is applicable if the post-scheme shareholding pattern of the unlisted entity is exactly similar to the shareholding pattern of the listed entity.

View More

Draft Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2017

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Following the notification of Section 234 of the Companies Act, the RBI, on April 26, 2017, released the draft Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2017 (‘Draft Cross Border Merger Regulations’) to provide a regulatory framework for cross border mergers. Some of the key provisions of the Draft Cross Border Merger Regulations have been summarized below.

i. Issue/ transfer/ acquisition of security: Any issue or transfer of security by the resulting company is required to comply with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’) and the regulations issued thereunder.

ii. Borrowings:

a. In inbound mergers, any borrowing from overseas sources entering the books of resultant company arising must conform to the External Commercial Borrowing (‘ECB’) norms or trade credit norms or other foreign borrowing norms.

b. In outbound mergers, the resultant company must be liable to repay outstanding borrowings or impending borrowings as per the scheme sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’).

iii. Repatriation on Contravention: If the assets/ securities held by the resultant company is in contravention of the Companies Act or FEMA provisions, the resultant company would be required to sell those off within 180 days of the sanction of the scheme and the proceeds are to be repatriated to or outside India, as the case may require.

iv. Valuation: The valuation of both Indian and foreign company must be conducted as per internationally accepted pricing methodology, shares on arm’s length basis and duly certified by an authorised chartered accountant/public accountant/ merchant banker in the relevant jurisdiction.

v. Reporting: Any transaction that arises in relation to the scheme must be reported in the same manner in which it is otherwise required to be reported under FEMA. The Indian company and the foreign company involved in an overseas merger will be required to furnish reports as prescribed by the RBI.

While Section 234 of the Companies Act only allows cross border mergers and amalgamations, the draft regulations include demergers and arrangements as well. Thus, this issue requires clarity and may need some amendments to the law. Further, effective implementation of the cross-border merger provisions will require amendments to FEMA, securities and tax laws, etc. While it is unclear how the proposed cross-border merger provisions will be specified under various laws, it may become a useful tool for companies to undertake expansion and restructuring activities.

View More

SEBI informal guidance in the matter of UBS AG

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

UBS AG is a Category II registered FPI and is not a promoter of any listed entity. Regulation 32(2)(d) of the FPI Regulations requires the depository participant engaged by an FPI to ensure that equity shares held by the FPI are free from encumbrances and to obtain a declaration from the FPI to this effect. UBS AG, under the SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2003, sought certain clarifications from SEBI:

i. whether the term ‘encumbrance’ would include non – disposal undertakings in relation to the FPIs who are investors in the capacity of acquirer and not promoter.[1]; and

ii. whether the FPIs are restricted from executing non disposal undertaking with third parties by providing limited undertaking to the depository participant.

SEBI, by way of clarification dated March 14, 2018, was of the view that the term ‘encumbrance’ would include non – disposal undertakings and accordingly, FPIs would not be permitted to execute the non – disposal undertakings.

[1]     It is pertinent to note that the term ‘encumbrance’ is not defined under the FPI Regulations. However the term includes pledges, liens, non disposal undertakings and other transactions in terms of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011.

 

View More

SEBI Order in the matter of Price Waterhouse relating to the case of Satyam Computer Services Limited.

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

An order was passed by SEBI in relation to the financial fraud perpetrated by the senior management of Satyam Computer Services Limited (‘Satyam’).

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Chartered Accountants (‘PWC’) were the statutory auditors of Satyam since April 1, 2000. When the financial irregularities at Satyam came to light, SEBI issued notices to 11 entities in the PWC group and the 2 signatories of the auditors’ report of Satyam on behalf of PWC, namely, Mr. S Gopalakrishnan and Mr. Srinivas Talluri (collectively, the ‘Noticees’). The Noticees were accused by SEBI of (i) acting in violation of certain provisions of the SEBI Act and the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (‘FUTP Regulations’) and in gross violation of their duties and responsibilities as auditors while certifying the financial statements of Satyam for the period from 2000 to 2008; and (ii) being complicit or acquiesced in the fraud perpetuated at Satyam.

In its order of January 10, 2018 (‘Order’), SEBI observed that there had been a total abdication by PWC of its duty to follow minimum standards of diligence (including PWC’s own manual), which inter alia required external confirmation of bank balances and fixed deposits. Further, PWC failed to reconcile discrepancies in the records of Satyam, which it had full knowledge of and which had been flagged by Satyam’s internal auditors, and its report certified the fairness of Satyam’s financial statements, forming a vital component of the prospectus inducing investors to trade in the scrip of Satyam believing it to be in a sound financial position.

SEBI inferred that their involvement was mala fide, and that the only reason for such a casual approach taken by PWC could be either complacency or complicity, and that PWC’s acts amounted to commission of fraud for the purposes of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. In SEBI’s view, while PWC group entities are separate entities, they functioned as a single unit for all practical purposes in the context of the fraud at Satyam, and therefore, SEBI directed: (i) debarment from directly or indirectly issuing certificates of audit of listed companies, compliance of obligations of listed companies and intermediaries registered with SEBI for a period of two years for all PWC entities practicing as chartered accountants in India, and for a period of three years for the Noticees; (ii) disgorgement of wrongful gains of approximately Rs. 13.09 crore (approx. US$ 2 million) (joint and several liability) by PWC, Bangalore and the Noticees, with interest; and (iii) all listed companies and intermediaries registered with SEBI not to engage audit firms forming part of the PWC network for issuing any certificate with respect to compliance of statutory obligations for a period of two years.

An appeal against this Order filed by PWC is pending before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (‘SAT’). SAT has refused to grant a stay on the two-year audit ban imposed by SEBI, but has clarified that PWC is permitted to service its existing clients for the fiscal year 2017-2018 and is also permitted to complete assignments already undertaken for listed entities that follow the calendar year as their fiscal year, but is not permitted to undertake any new listed assignments.

View More

Outcome of SEBI meeting held on March 28, 2018

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - March 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

In its meeting held on March 28, 2018, SEBI accepted the recommendations of the Kotak Committee on Corporate Governance (‘Committee’) along with certain other proposals discussed. Set out below are some of the key proposals:

i. (a) Reduction in the maximum number of listed entity directorships from 10 to (x) eight by April 1, 2019, and (y) seven by April 1, 2020; (b) expanding the eligibility criteria for independent directors; (c) disclosure of utilization of funds from qualified institutional placement or preferential issue; (d) separation of chief executive officer/managing director and chairperson (to be initially made applicable to the top 500 listed entities by market capitalization with effect from April 1, 2020); (e) enhancing the role of the audit committee, nomination and remuneration committee and the risk management committee; (f) strengthening the disclosures pertaining to related party transactions and related parties being permitted to vote against such transactions; (g) enhancing the obligations on listed entities with respect to subsidiaries; and (h) shareholder approval (majority of minority) for royalty/brand payments to related party exceeding 2% of consolidated turnover.

ii. Certain amendments to SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012, with respect to ‘Angel Funds’: (i) Maximum investment amount in venture capital undertakings by an angel fund has been increased from Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 10 crores (approx. US$ 750,000 to US$ 1.5 million); (ii) mandatory minimum corpus of an angel fund has been reduced to Rs. 5 crores (approx. US$ 750,000); and (iii) provisions of the Companies Act have been made applicable to an angel fund, if formed as a company.

iii. Revision of the existing framework for non-compliance of the listing regulations by listed companies, inter alia, empowering the stock exchanges to freeze the shareholding of the promoter and promoter group in a non-compliant entity along with their shareholding in other securities. SEBI is empowered to order suspension if the non-compliance persists.

iv. Undertaking a public consultation process for a review of the SEBI (Buy-back of Securities) Regulations, 1998 and the Takeover Regulations and inviting comments from stakeholders in relation to compliance with various SEBI regulations by listed entities subject to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC.

View More

Abolition of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance (‘DEA’), has, by way of an office memorandum dated June 5, 2017, notified the Government’s approval to abolish the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (‘FIPB’). 11 sectors (including telecom, broadcasting, defence and banking) would continue to require Government approval for foreign investments, while the responsibility to grant such approvals would now vest with the concerned administrative ministries / departments. Applications for investment in core investment companies or Indian investing companies, and investments in financial services sectors not regulated by any financial services regulator, will be processed by DEA.

Further, the following foreign investment proposals requiring Government approval, will be dealt with by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (‘DIPP’):

i. Trading (Single, Multi brand and Food Product Retail Trading);

ii. Proposals by non-resident Indians / export oriented units;

iii. Issue of equity shares under the Government route for import of capital goods / machinery / equipment (including second hand machinery); and

iv. Issue of equity shares for pre-operative / pre-incorporation expenses.

The DIPP will identify the relevant ministry in respect of applications where there is doubt about the administrative ministry concerned. The office memorandum also specifies that all applications pending with the FIPB portal as on the date of abolition of FIPB, will be transferred immediately by the DIPP to the relevant administrative ministry / department.

The DIPP has also issued a detailed standard operating procedure (‘SOP’) on June 29, 2017, which outlines the guidelines to the relevant administrative ministries / departments for processing of the FDI proposals. The SOP inter alia prescribes the process of inter-ministerial consultations as well as indicative timelines within which the proposals are to be assessed and disposed off. The applications will continue to be filed on the current online FIPB portal (now renamed as the ‘Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal’).

The SOP further prescribes that proposals involving a total foreign equity inflow of more than INR 5,000 crores (approx. USD 772 million) will additionally require the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (Ministry of Finance), and that the concerned ministry will also seek DIPP concurrence where a proposal is being rejected or being granted subject to conditions not specified in the relevant laws.

View More

Changes to Framework for Masala Bonds

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The RBI, by way of Circular No. 47 dated June 7, 2017, has reviewed the existing framework in relation to the issuance of rupee denominated bonds overseas (‘Masala Bonds’) in order to harmonize the various elements of the ECB framework and revised the framework. The circular provides as follows:

(i) Proposal for issuance of Masala Bonds will be examined by the Foreign Exchange Department; (ii) The minimum original maturity period for Masala Bonds up to USD 50 million (equivalent in INR per financial year) is 3 years and for Masala Bonds above USD 50 million is 5 years. Previously, such bonds were subject to a minimum maturity of 3 years; (iii) The all-in-cost ceiling for Masala Bonds will be 300 basis points over the prevailing yield of the Government of India securities of corresponding maturity. Previously, the all-in-cost ceiling was to be commensurate with the prevailing market conditions; and (iv) Investors in Masala Bonds should not be related parties (within the meaning given in Ind-AS 24).

View More

Disclosure Requirements for Issuance and Listing of Green Debt Securities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has, by way of circular dated May 30, 2017, set out certain requirements to be considered, along with the requirements set out in the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations, 2008, for the issuance of and disclosures pertaining to ‘Green Debt Securities’.

A debt security will be considered as a ‘Green Debt Security’, if the funds raised through its issuance are to be utilized for the following project(s)/ asset(s): (a) renewable and sustainable energy; (b) clean transportation; (c) sustainable water management; (d) climate change adaptation; (e) energy efficiency; (f) sustainable waste management; (g) sustainable land use; and (h) biodiversity conservation.

The issuer of green debt securities is required to make certain disclosures in its offer / disclosure documents including inter alia: (a) a statement on the environmental objectives of the issuance; (b) details of the system / procedures to be employed for tracking the deployment of proceeds of the issue; and (c) details of the project and/or assets where the issuer proposes to utilize the proceeds of the green debt securities.

View More

Amendment to the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has amended the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2014 (‘FPI Regulations’) with effect from May 29, 2017 to prohibit the issuance or transfer of an offshore derivative instrument (‘ODI’) to persons who are resident Indians or non resident Indians and to entities that are beneficially owned by resident Indians or non resident Indians.

View More

Amendment to the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Pursuant to its notification dated May 31, 2017, the key amendments introduced to the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (‘ICDR Regulations’) are as follows:

i. The definition of Qualified Institutional Buyers (‘QIBs’) has been amended to include systemically important and RBI registered non-banking financial companies, having a net-worth of more than INR 500 crores (approx. USD 77 million), as per the last audited financial statements.

ii. Regulation 16, which deals with monitoring agencies, has been amended to provide that:

a. if the issue size, excluding the size of offer for sale (‘OFS’) by selling shareholders, exceeds INR 100 crores (approx. USD 15 million), the use of proceeds is to be monitored by a public financial institution / scheduled commercial bank identified as the banker of the issue in the offer document;

b. the monitoring agency will be required to submit quarterly reports to the issuer until utilization of at least 95% of the proceeds, excluding the proceeds under the OFS and amount raised for general corporate purposes; and

c. the issuer to publically disseminate such report on its website and to the stock exchanges within 45 days from the end of each quarter.

View More

Participation of Category III Alternative Investment Funds in the Commodity Derivatives Market

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has by way of its circular dated June 21, 2017, permitted Category III Alternative Investment Funds to participate in the commodities derivatives market subject to the following conditions:

i. to participate on the commodity derivatives exchanges as ‘clients’, subject to compliance of all SEBI rules, regulations, position limit norms issued by SEBI / stock exchanges etc., as applicable to clients;

ii. to not invest more than 10% of the investable funds in one underlying commodity;

iii. leveraging or borrowing subject to consent from the investors and maximum limit specified by SEBI (presently capped at 2 times the net asset value of the fund);

iv. disclosures to be made in the private placement memorandum of intent to invest in commodity derivatives, consent of existing investors to be taken and exit opportunities to be provided to the dissenting investors; and

v. to comply with SEBI reporting requirements.

View More

Proposals approved at SEBI Board Meetings

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Some of the key proposals approved in the board meetings of the SEBI held on April 26, 2017 and June 21, 2017 are as follows:

i. Amendment to the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 to permit stock brokers / clearing members currently dealing in commodity derivatives to deal in other securities and vice versa, without setting up a separate entity;

ii. Relaxations from preferential issue requirements under the ICDR Regulations and from open offer obligations under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 (‘SAST Regulations’) which are currently available to lenders undertaking strategic debt restructuring of listed companies in distress, and be extended to new investors acquiring shares in such distressed companies pursuant to such restructuring schemes. Such relaxations, however, will be subject to shareholder approval by way of a special resolution and lock-in of shares for a minimum period of 3 years. The relaxations will also be extended to lenders under other restructuring schemes undertaken in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI;

iii. Exemption from open offer obligations under the SAST Regulations, for acquisitions pursuant to resolution plans approved by the NCLT under the IBC;

iv. Extension of relaxations in relation to the lock-in provisions currently available to Category I AIFs in case of an initial public offering to Category II AIFs as well;

v. Proposal for initiation of a public consultation process to make amendments to the FPI Regulations: (a) expansion of the eligible jurisdictions for the grant of FPI registrations to Category I FPIs by including countries having diplomatic tie-ups with India; (b) simplification of broad based requirements; (c) rationalization of fit and proper criteria; and (d) permitting FPIs operating under the multiple investment managers structure and holding FVCI registration to appoint multiple custodians; and

vi. Levy of a regulatory fee of USD 1,000 on each ODI subscriber, once every 3 years, starting from April 1, 2017 and to prohibit ODIs from being issued against derivatives except those which are used for hedging purposes.

View More

Recording of Non Disposal Undertaking in the Depository System

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

In order to enable the recording of non-disposal undertakings (‘NDU’) in the depository system, SEBI has, by way of circular dated June 14, 2017, permitted depositories to offer a system for capturing and recording NDUs subject to prescribed conditions. The provisions of the circular are required to be implemented by the depositories within four months.

Pursuant to the circular, on the creation of the freeze for recording the NDU, the depository will not effect any transfer, pledge, hypothecation, lending, rematerialisation or alienation in any form or any dealing of the encumbered securities till instructions are received from both parties for the cancellation of the NDU. The depository participants are prohibited from facilitating or being parties to any NDU created outside the depository system.

View More

Review of OFS of Shares through Stock Exchange Mechanism

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has modified the guidelines pertaining to OFS of shares through stock exchange mechanism by way of its circular dated June 27, 2017. The rationale for such revisions was to encourage greater participation by employees. The key modifications are as follows:

i. Promoters of eligible companies are permitted to sell the shares within 2 weeks from the OFS transaction to the employees, and such an offer would be considered to be a part of the OFS transaction.

ii. Promoters have the discretion to offer the shares at the price discovered in the OFS transaction, or at a price which is at a discount to such discovered price.

Promoters are required to make necessary disclosures in the OFS notice disseminated to the stock exchanges, and such disclosure would be required to contain details of the number of shares offered to employees and the discount offered, if any.

View More

Copyright Board Merged with the IPAB

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - July 2017 [ English Chinese japanese ]

Sections 160 and 161 of the Finance Act, which have come into force on May 26, 2017, amend the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to pave way for the merger of the Copyright Board with the IPAB. As a result, all the functions of the Copyright Board (including adjudicating disputes in relation to assignment of copyright, granting of compulsory licenses and statutory licenses in relation to certain types of works) will now get transferred to the IPAB.

Pursuant to powers granted under the Finance Act, the Central Government has promulgated and brought into force the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 (‘Tribunal Rules’) which govern the qualifications, experience and other conditions of service of the members of various tribunals, including the IPAB. According to the Tribunal Rules, a search-cum-selection committee would be responsible for the recruitment of members for the IPAB.

Given the fact that the Copyright Board has not been functional for quite a few years now, the merger of the Copyright Board with the IPAB gives a forum to the concerned stakeholders to seek redressal of their grievances. However, it still remains to be seen how effectively the IPAB will be able to perform the tasks, roles and responsibilities erstwhile carried out by the Copyright Board, given the huge backlog of pending matters at the IPAB.

View More

Changes in the Foreign Investment regime in India

The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) recently issued the Master Directions on Foreign Investment in India (‘Master Directions’) on January 4, 2018, on the heels of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2017 (‘New FEMA 20’) issued by way ofNotification dated November 7, 2017, which replace the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (‘Erstwhile FEMA 20’) and the Foreign Exchange Management (Investments in Firms of Proprietary Concerns in India) Regulations, 2000.

The New FEMA 20 and the Master Directions now contain comprehensive rules on foreign investment in India as issued by the RBI. A summary of some of the key changes to the Erstwhile FEMA 20 introduced by the RBI are set out below:

i. Definition of ‘Capital Instruments’: The New FEMA 20 has introduced a definition of ‘Capital Instruments’[1]. While the base definition remains similar to that of ‘Capital’ under the Erstwhile FEMA 20, two clarifications have been provided as follows:-

(a) Non-convertible/ optionally convertible/ partially convertible preference shares issued up to April 30, 2007, as well as optionally convertible/ partially convertible debentures issued up to June 7, 2007 will be considered to be capital instruments till their original maturity; and

(b) Share warrants can be issued to a person resident outside India only in accordance with the regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (i.e. the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009), i.e. share warrants can be issued to a person resident outside India only by a listed Indian company.

ii. Definition of ‘Foreign Investment’: ‘Foreign investment’[2] has been defined under the New FEMA 20 to mean any investment by a person resident outside India in the capital instruments of an Indian company or in the capital of a limited liability partnership (‘LLP’), on a repatriable basis; thereby clarifying that investments made on a non-repatriable basis are to be treated as domestic investments and not included in the foreign investment limits.

iii. Definition of ‘Foreign Direct Investment’: The definition of ‘foreign direct investment’[3] (‘FDI’) under the New FEMA 20 distinguishes between investments in unlisted and listed Indian companies. While any investment by a person resident outside India in the capital instruments issued by an unlisted Indian company is to be treated as FDI, in case of listed Indian companies, only investments of 10% or more of the post issue paid-up equity capital of a listed Indian company, computed on a fully diluted basis, is to be treated as FDI.

iv. New Concept – Foreign Portfolio Investment: Under New FEMA 20, RBI has introduced a new concept of an investment being categorized as ‘Foreign Portfolio Investment’ if the investment made by a person resident outside India in a listed Indian company is less than 10% of the post issue paid-up equity share capital (on a fully diluted basis) of such listed Indian company or less than 10% of the paid up value of each series of capital instruments of such listed Indian company.[4] Please note that there a distinction between foreign portfolio investment and investment by an entity registered with SEBI as a foreign portfolio investor (‘FPI’). All investments by each FPI will necessarily be foreign portfolio investment, whereas investment by entities who are not registered as FPI can also be categorized as ‘foreign portfolio investment’ depending upon the percentage of investment made. Purchase / sale of capital instruments of listed Indian company on a stock exchange by FPIs is set out in Schedule 2 of the New FEMA 20.

Foreign portfolio investment by way of a primary subscription is exempt from the reporting requirements prescribed in respect of FDI transactions. In the event foreign portfolio investment exceeds the 10% limit, such investment will stand re-classified as FDI. However, on the other hand, in the event an existing investment by a non resident in a listed Indian company falls to a level below 10% of such company’s post issue paid up equity capital (on a fully diluted basis), such investment will continue to be treated as FDI.

v. Definition of ‘Indian entity’: The tern Indian entity has been defined to mean an Indian company and an LLP.[5]

vi. Definition of ‘Investment Vehicle’: The Master Directions clarify that venture capital funds established in the form of a trust, company or a body corporate and registered under the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 will not be considered as investment vehicles for the purposes of the New FEMA 20.[6] Prior Government approval would be required for making foreign investments in venture capital funds established as trusts.

vii. Definition of ‘Listed Indian Company’: Listed Indian Company has been defined to mean an Indian company which has any of its capital instruments listed on a recognized stock exchange in India.[7] Accordingly, an Indian company which has only its non-convertible debentures listed on a stock exchange would not be considered as a Listed Indian Company.

viii. Acquisition through a rights or bonus issue: While the conditions relating to acquisition of capital instruments (other than warrants) by way of rights or bonus issue continue to remain the same, it have been clarified that the conditions would also apply to subscription to capital instruments issued as a rights issue that are renounced by the person(s) to whom they were offered.[8]

Further, a person resident outside India exercising any rights in respect of capital instruments issued when he / she was resident in India, can exercise such rights on a non-repatriation basis (i.e. the original status of the holding will not change even in the event the residential status of the holder changes).[9]

Similarly, an individual resident outside India exercising an option granted pursuant to an employee stock option scheme when he / she was resident in India, can hold the shares so acquired on exercising the option on a non-repatriation basis.[10]

ix. Transfer of capital instruments: Transfer by way of sale of capital instruments by a non-resident Indian (‘NRI’) to non-residents other than NRIs no longer requires prior RBI approval, subject to certain conditions.

x. Reporting Requirements: The onus of filing Form FC-TRS for transfers on a recognized stock exchange will now vest with the non-resident party and not the relevant Indian company.[11] The New FEMA 20 has further clarified that in case of transfer of repatriable capital instruments by a non-resident transferor to another non-resident transferee on non-repatriable basis, the onus of such filing would vest with resident transferor / transferee or the non-resident holding capital instruments on a non-repatriable basis, as the case may be. It is also clarified that a transfer of capital instruments between a non- resident transferor holding such instruments on non-repatriable basis and a resident transferee would not attract such a reporting requirement.[12]

Further, Form FC-TRS is now required to be filed with the authorised dealer bank with 60 days of transfer of capital instruments or receipt / remittance of funds, whichever is earlier.[13]

xi. Downstream investments: While the definition of ‘downstream investments’ under the Erstwhile FEMA 20 only considered indirect foreign investments by one Indian company into another Indian company, the definition has now been revised to include investments by Indian companies, LLPs or investment vehicles (each, an Indian entity), in the capital instruments or the capital (as the case may be), of another Indian company or LLP.[14] Further, downstream investments are now required to be reported by way of a Form DI within 30 days of such investment to the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Promotion. However, the format of this Form DI is yet to be specified by the RBI.[15]

xii. Clarifications regarding reporting and pricing guidelines: In addition to the above, the New FEMA 20 has further clarified that capital instruments of any Indian company held by another Indian company which is not owned and not controlled by resident Indians or is owned and controlled by persons resident outside India (‘FOCC’), can be transferred to:[16]

(a) a person resident outside India without any requirement to adhere to pricing guidelines, provided however such transfer is reported by way of Form FC-TRS;

(b) a person resident in India, subject to adherence with pricing guidelines only; and

(c) another FOCC, without any requirement to adhere to pricing guidelines or to the reporting requirements.

xiii. Rate of dividend on preference shares: Under the New FEMA 20, the ceiling limit of 300 basis points over the prime lending rate of State Bank of India on the rate of dividend on preference shares or convertible preference shares issued under the said regulations has been done away with.

xiv. Alignment with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013: In addition to the above, the New FEMA 20 has attempted to align several provisions with those of the Companies Act, 2013, in order to address ambiguities that existed under the Erstwhile FEMA 20. A few of such alignments include:

(a) the definitions of ‘employees’ stock option’ and ‘sweat equity shares’ have been aligned with the corresponding definitions under the Companies Act, 2013; and

(b) timeframe for allotment of capital instruments has been reduced from 180 days to 60 days.

xv. Late submission fee for delayed filings: The New FEMA 20 states that delay in complying with reporting requirements (including Forms FC-GPR and FC-TRS) will now attract late submission fee (‘LSF’) of such amount as may be determined by the RBI in consultation with the Central Government. Paragraph 12 of Part IV of the Master Direction on Reporting under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 provides for the quantum of LSF for regularizing reporting delays without undergoing the compounding procedure as under:

Amount involved in reporting
LSF as a % of amount involved*

Maximum amount of LSF applicable
Up to 10 million

0.05%
Rs.1 million or 300% of amount involved, whichever is lower.

More than 10 million

0.15%
Rs.10 million or 300% of amount involved, whichever is lower.

* The LSF would be doubled every 12 months.
The LSF shall be applicable for the transactions undertaken on or after November 7, 2017.

xvi. New forms to be filed:

(a) A Indian company issuing employee stock option to, inter-alia, persons resident outside India who are its employees / directors, is required to submit Form –ESOP within 30 days of such issuance.[17]

(b) An LLP receiving amount of consideration for capital consideration and acquisition of profits shall submit Form LLP (I) within 30 days of receipt of amount of consideration.[18]

(c) The divestment of capital contribution between a resident and non-resident in case of an LLP shall be reported in Form LLP (II) to the authorised dealer within 60 days from the date of receipt of funds.[19]

(d) An Indian start-up company issuing Convertible Notes to a person resident outside India shall report such inflows to authorised dealer bank in Form CN within 30 days of such issue.[20]

[1] Regulation 2(v) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.2 of the Master Directions.
[2] Regulation 2(xviii) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.9 of the Master Directions.
[3] Regulation 2(xvii) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.6 of the Master Directions.
[4] Regulation 2(ix) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.7 of the Master Directions.
[5] Regulation 2(xxv) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.11 of the Master Directions.
[6] Paragraph 2.14 of the Master Directions.
[7] Regulation 2(xxxi) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 2.16 of the Master Directions.
[8] Explanation to Regulation 6 of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 6.11.4 of the Master Directions.
[9] Proviso to Regulation 6 of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 6.11.2 of the Master Directions.
[10] Proviso to Regulation 7 of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 6.12.2 of the Master Directions.
[11] Regulation 13.1(4)(b) of New FEMA 20.
[12] Regulation 13.1(4) of New FEMA 20.
[13] Regulation 13.1(4) of New FEMA 20.
[14] Regulation 4 of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 9 of the Master Directions.
[15] Regulation 13.1(11) of New FEMA 20.
[16] Regulation 14(5)(c) of New FEMA 20 read with Paragraph 9.6 of the Master Directions.
[17] Regulation 13.1(5) of New FEMA 20.
[18] Regulation 13.1(7) of New FEMA 20.
[19] Regulation 13.1(8) of New FEMA 20.
[20] Regulation 13.1(12) of New FEMA 20.

View More

IBC Amendment: Legislating for Moral Hazard with a Broad Brush – Take 2

Published In:IBC Update - January 2, 2018 [ English ]

The President of India promulgated an ordinance on November 23, 2017 amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) (‘Ordinance’). Please refer to our previous edition of Inter Alia update attached herewith (readers may benefit from a second read of our previous edition before considering this update). A key change brought in by the Ordinance was the introduction of eligibility criteria for resolution applicants with an express prohibition on certain persons from submitting a resolution plan for a corporate debtor in a corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’) and also preventing such persons from purchasing the corporate debtor’s assets in liquidation.

Some market participants argued that these new eligibility criteria were too restrictive and may disqualify applicants whose participation in the IBC resolution process could be economically and strategically important for all stakeholders.

In this backdrop, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament (“Bill”) on December 29, 2017 by Mr. Arun Jaitley, the Finance Minister, to replace the Ordinance. The Bill has now been passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha (Lower and Upper House of the Parliament respectively). When the Bill is approved and signed by the President of India and then notified, it will amend some of the provisions of the IBC recently introduced by the Ordinance. The key changes proposed are set out below:

1. Who must be eligible?

The eligibility criteria for submitting a resolution plan under the Ordinance applied to the applicant or any person acting jointly with such person. The Bill requires that any person acting in concert with the applicant must also meet the eligibility criteria.

While ‘acting jointly’ may have been interpreted to be restricted to a joint applicant or equivalent, ‘persons acting in concert’ will be interpreted to have a wider import. The interpretation of this phrase as used in other Indian laws will be referred to. Resolution applicants, insolvency professionals and members of committees of creditors will carefully consider this much expanded scope and eagerly await jurisprudence to clarify the reach of this term.

2. Some disqualifications now time bound

The Bill clarifies that ineligibility on account of: (a) being a willful defaulter, (b) being disqualified to act as a director, and (c) prohibition by the Securities and Exchange Board of India from trading in securities or accessing the securities market, will only subsist as long as the person suffers from such ‘deficiency’ and not thereafter.

3. Disqualification for being classified as a non-performing asset (‘NPA’)

The Bill clarifies that in order to ascertain if one year has elapsed from classification of an account as an NPA (resulting in disqualification), the relevant look-back period will be from the date of the commencement of the CIRP of the corporate debtor. The interpretation of the language of the Ordinance was that the look-back period started from the date of submission of a resolution plan. This may help would-be-applicants that are involved with companies that have only recently become stressed.

The Bill clarifies that this ‘disqualification’ also applies to the promoter of the corporate debtor (whose account is so classified) and to anyone in management or control of the corporate debtor. Many stakeholders were already interpreting the language in the Ordinance to mean this. The clarification is, nonetheless, helpful.

The Ordinance indicated that any person affected by such ‘NPA disqualification’ may cure such ineligibility by making payments of all overdue amounts with interest thereon. The Bill clarifies this. There has been some suggestion in the Parliamentary debate on the Bill and speeches of Government officials that payment of overdue interest may be enough to avail of this cure. However, the text of the Bill which refers to “overdue amounts with interest” suggests otherwise and this now remains a matter left for interpretation by the relevant lenders.

The Bill also permits a resolution applicant who is otherwise ineligible due to this disqualification to remain an eligible resolution applicant if such person makes payment of the overdue amounts with interest within 30 days (or such shorter period permitted by the committee of creditors).

4. Preferential, undervalued or fraudulent transactions; and now extortionate credit transactions

The Bill clarifies that this ‘disqualification’ also applies to the promoter of the corporate debtor (in which such transactions took place) and to anyone who has been in management or control of such corporate debtor. Some stakeholders were already interpreting the language in the Ordinance to mean this. The clarification is, nonetheless, helpful. The Bill also adds extortionate credit transactions to the list of disqualifications.

5. Connected persons – now a global check with some exceptions

The Ordinance listed a number of disabilities in the context of Indian law. The Ordinance also listed any ‘corresponding disabilities’ under any foreign law as a relevant disability. This ‘foreign disability’ test did not seem to apply to connected persons under the Ordinance. The Bill will extend this ‘foreign disability’ test to connected persons also.

Under the Ordinance, connected persons included the holding company, subsidiary company, associate company or a related party of the relevant person. As all connected persons also need to pass the eligibility test, this became a challenge for some ‘bona fide’ applicants. The Bill provides that the extension of connected persons to include holding companies, subsidiary companies, associate companies or related parties will not apply to a scheduled bank, a registered asset reconstruction company or a registered alternate investment fund.

6. Disqualifications in respect of Guarantors

The Ordinance disqualified any person who had executed an enforceable guarantee in favour of a creditor in respect of a corporate debtor under CIRP. This provision was recently interpreted by a Court to refer to guarantees which had been invoked but remained unpaid. The Bill seems to narrow the scope of this disqualification – which may assist persons involved with corporate debtors that have become stressed more recently.

To conclude, the Bill seeks to reduce some of the rigour of the disqualifications contained in the Ordinance while raising the bar and widening the impact in other respects. The eligibility criteria remain restrictive and may end up disqualifying some key players.

Separately, on December 31, 2017 the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Fast Track Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2017 (“Amendments”). The Amendments clarify that the term “dissenting financial creditor” will also include financial creditors who abstained from voting for the resolution plan approved by the CoC. Many stakeholders were already interpreting the language in the IBC and the regulations to mean this (including in relation to payment of liquidation value to such creditors). The clarification is, nonetheless, helpful. Additionally, the Amendments (i) omit the requirement to state the liquidation value of the corporate debtor in the information memorandum; (ii) mandates all stakeholders to keep the liquidation value of the corporate debtor confidential; and (iii) provides for submission of resolution plan within the time given in the invitation for the resolution plans. Many members of the CoC were concerned that general publication of liquidation value could depress bids. This amendment attempts to alleviate this concern.

View More

Changes in Investment in Debt Securities by Foreign Portfolio Investors

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) recently issued a notification dated June 15, 2018, in supersession of the RBI notifications dated April 27, 2018 and May 1, 2018, for providing some operational flexibility as well as transition path for investments by Foreign Portfolio Investors (‘FPIs’) in debt (‘Notification’). Below is a summary of the key changes brought about by this notification:

i. Reduced minimum residual maturity for corporate bonds:  The minimum residual maturity requirement for investments by FPIs in corporate bonds has reduced from three years to one year (subject to the condition that short-term investments[1] in corporate bonds by a FPI, calculated on an end-of-day basis, must not exceed 20% of the total investment of that FPI in corporate bonds). Investments: (a) made in security receipts issued by asset reconstruction companies (‘SRs’); or (b) made on or before April 27, 2018, must not be included to calculate such limit.

ii. Single/ Group investor wise concentration limits: This notification imposes the following investor and group wise limits for investments in corporate bonds:

· Per ‘issue’ limit: FPIs can invest in any issue of corporate bonds subject to a cap of 50% of such issue. If such limit is already breached by investments made by an FPI and/or its investor group, such FPIs may not make further investments in such issue until such limit is met. This requirement is not applicable in respect of investments by FPIs in SRs.

· Per ‘corporate’ limit: As on April 27, 2018, FPIs cannot have an exposure of more than 20% of its entire corporate bond portfolio to a single corporate (this includes exposures to related entities of the corporate). If the exposure exceeds 20%, the FPI cannot make further investments in that corporate / group until the above concentration limit is met. Investments in new corporate bonds made by the FPI after April 27, 2018 (in corporates other than those referred to in para a) above) will have to meet the 20% corporate limit from April 1, 2019 onwards. FPIs registering after April 27, 2018 are permitted to comply with this requirement by: (a) March 31, 2019; or (b) six months from the date of registration, whichever is later. The restrictions mentioned above in respect of corporate bonds are not applicable to investments by multilateral financial institutions and to investments by FPIs in SRs.

iii. Relaxation of norms for pipeline investments: Investment transactions by FPIs in corporate bonds that were under process but had not materialised as on April 27, 2018 (pipeline investments), will be exempt from the ‘per issue’ limit and ‘per corporate’ limits described above, subject to the custodian of the FPI reasonably satisfying itself that: (a) the major parameters such as price/rate, tenor and amount of the investment have been agreed upon between the FPI and the issuer on or before April 27, 2018; (b) the actual investment will commence by December 31, 2018; and (c) the investment is in conformity with the extant regulations governing FPI investments in corporate bonds prior to April 27, 2018.

iv. Concentration limits per category of FPI: The following limits for the relevant category, inter alia, have been prescribed by this notification for investments by FPIs in Central Government securities (‘G-secs’), State Department Loans (‘SDLs’) and corporate debt securities: (i) 15% of the prevailing limit; and (ii) 10% of the prevailing limit.

v. Minimum residual maturity for G-secs: The Notification permits FPIs to invest in G-secs (including in treasury bills and SDLs) without any minimum residual maturity requirement, provided that investments by a FPI in securities with residual maturity less than one year, will not exceed 20% of the total investment of that FPI in that category.

vi. The cap on aggregate FPI investments in Central G-secs has been increased from 20% to 30% of the outstanding stock of that security.

vii. FPIs have been prohibited from investing in partly paid instruments.

[1] Investments with residual maturity up to one year.

View More

Know Your Client Requirements for FPIs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, by way of its circular dated April 10, 2018, prescribed the following key changes to the existing Know Your Client (‘KYC’) requirements for FPIs:

i. Identification and verification of beneficial owner (‘BO’) should be in accordance with Rule 9 of Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 (‘PMLA Rules’). Accordingly, the BOs of FPIs having a company or trust structure should be identified on controlling ownership interest and control basis, and in case of partnership firms and unincorporated association of individuals, should be identified on ownership or entitlement basis.

ii. The materiality threshold for identification of BOs on controlling ownership interest will be: (i) 25% in case of a company; and (ii) 15% in case of a partnership firm, trust and unincorporated association of persons. In respect of FPIs from ‘high risk jurisdictions’, intermediaries may apply lower materiality threshold of 10% for identification of BOs and also ensure compliance with KYC documentation as applicable for category III FPIs. This threshold will first be applied at the FPI level, and next look through principle will be applied to identify the BO of the material shareholder / owner entity level. When no BO is identified, the BO will be the senior managing official of the FPI

iii. Non Resident Indians (‘NRIs’) / Overseas Citizens of India (‘OCIs’) / resident Indian cannot be BOs of FPIs. However, if an FPI is Category II investment manager of other FPIs and is a non-investing entity, it may be promoted by NRIs / OCIs.

Clubbing of investment limits for FPIs will also be based on the abovementioned manner of identification of BOs.

View More

Amendments to the SEBI Listing Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

The key amendments introduced by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) on May 9, 2018 to the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (‘Listing Regulations) are as follows:

i. Any person or entity belonging to the promoter or promoter group holding 20% or more of the shareholding in the listed entity is now deemed to be a ‘related party’.

ii. Payments made by the listed entities to related parties with respect to brand usage/royalty amounting to more than 2% of consolidated turnover of the listed entity as per the last audited financial statements, will be considered to be a material related party transaction.

iii. The definition of ‘independent director’ has been amended to exclude: (i) any director who is or was a member of the promoter group of the listed entity; and (i) any director who is not a non-independent director of another company on the board of which any non-independent director of the listed entity is an independent director.

iv. At least one independent woman director is required to be appointed on the Board of the top 500 listed entities by April 1, 2019, and of the top 1000 listed entities by April 1, 2020.

v. The threshold for determining whether a subsidiary is a ‘material subsidiary’ has been reduced from 20% to 10% of the consolidated income or net worth of the listed entity and its subsidiaries in the previous accounting year.

vi. Additional requirements have been imposed in relation to age limits for non-executive directors, eligibility criteria for the chairman of the board, quorum for board and committee meetings, remuneration of directors and other related matters.

vii. No person can be a director on the Board of more than eight listed companies (with effect from April 1, 2019) and seven listed companies (with effect from April 1, 2020).

viii. Listed companies are now required to include clear threshold limits, duly approved by the Board of Directors, in their materiality policy for related party transactions and such policy must be reviewed once every three years.

View More

Implementation of Certain Recommendations of the Committee on Corporate Governance

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has issued a circular dated May 10, 2018 (‘Circular’) that provides for implementation of certain recommendations of the committee on corporate governance under the chairmanship of Uday Kotak. The following provisions will now apply to entities whose equity shares are listed on a recognized stock exchange:

i. Disclosures on Board Evaluation: A listed entity may consider including observations about Board evaluation of the current year, the previous year’s observations and any actions taken pursuant to the same and proposed actions based on the current year’s observations as part of its disclosure on Board’s evaluation.

ii. Group Governance Units: If a listed entity has several unlisted subsidiaries, it may monitor their governance through a dedicated group governance unit or governance committee comprised of members of its Board and a strong and effective group governance policy.

iii. Medium term and long term strategy: The listed entity may consider disclosing its medium-term and long-term strategy under the management discussion and analysis section of the annual report, within limits of its competitive position and for a time frame as set by the board of directors. Additionally, the listed entity may articulate a clear set of long-term metrics specific to the company’s long term strategy to allow for appropriate measurement of progress.

View More

Guidelines for Preferential Issue of Units by InvITs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI issued a circular dated June 5, 2018 (‘Circular’) setting out guidelines for preferential issue of units by InvITs.As per the Circular, listed InvITs may make a preferential issue of units to an institutional investor subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:

i. Conditions for preferential issue: (a) Unitholders of the InvIT have to pass a resolution approving the preferential issue; (b) InvIT must be in compliance with the minimum public unitholding requirements, conditions for continuous listing and disclosure obligations; (c) No preferential issue of units by the InvIT should have been made in the six months preceding the relevant date and the issue will be completed within 12 months of the authorizing resolution; (d) The preferential issue of units can be offered to a minimum of two and maximum of 1000 investors in a financial year.

ii. Placement document: The preferential issue of units by an InvIT will be done on the basis of a placement document, which must contain disclosures as specified in the Circular. While seeking in-principle approval from the recognised stock exchange, InvIts to furnish a copy of the placement document, a certificate issued by its merchant banker or statutory auditor confirming compliance with the provisions of this Circular along with any other documents required by the stock exchange

iii. Pricing: The preferential issue is required to be made at a price not less than the average of the weekly high and low of the closing prices of the units quoted on the stock exchange during the two weeks preceding the relevant date. The InvIT cannot allot partly paid-up units. Further, the prices determined for preferential issue will be subject to appropriate adjustments, if the InvIT: (i) makes a right issue of units; and (ii) is involved in such other similar events or circumstances, which in the opinion of the concerned stock exchange, requires adjustments.

iv. Restriction on allotment: No allotment can be made to any party to the InvIT or their related parties except to the sponsor.

v. Restriction on transferability: The units allotted under preferential issue cannot be sold by the allotee for a period of one year from the date of allotment, except on a recognized stock exchange.

View More

Guidelines for Issuance of Debt Securities by REITs and INVITs

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI had recently permitted Real Estate Investment Trusts (‘REITs’) and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (‘InvITs’) to issue debt securities by amending the SEBI (REIT) Regulations, 2014 (‘REIT Regulations’) and the SEBI (INVIT) Regulations, 2014 (‘InvIT Regulations’). SEBI has issued guidelines for issuance of such debt securities by REITs and InvITs by its circular dated April 13, 2018 (‘Circular’) which provides that REITs and InvITs issuing debt securities must follow the provisions of SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities Regulations), 2008 (‘ILDS Regulations’) in the following manner:

i. Restriction in Regulation 4(5) of the ILDS Regulations on issue of debt securities for providing loan to or acquisition of shares of any person, who is party of the same group or under the same management and the requirement for creation of a debenture redemption reserve, will not apply to issue of debt securities by REITs and InvITs;

ii. Compliances to be made under Companies Act in terms of the ILDS Regulations, will not apply to REITs / InvITs for issuance of debt securities, unless specifically provided in the Circular.

For the issuance of debt securities, REITs / InvITs will appoint one or more SEBI registered debenture trustees, other than the trustee to the REIT / InvIT issuing such debt securities. Further, the securities will be secured by the creation of a charge on the assets of the REIT / InvIT or holding company or SPV, having a value which is sufficient for the repayment of the amount of such debt securities and interest thereon. The Circular also provided for certain additional disclosure and compliance requirements.

View More

IBC Exemptions introduced under the Delisting Regulations and Takeover Regulations

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, as on May 31, 2018, notified the amendments to the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 (‘Delisting Regulations’) and the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (‘Takeover Regulations’) to provide that, with respect to a listed entity, the Delisting Regulations and the Takeover Regulations will not be applicable to a transaction proposed to be undertaken pursuant to a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC’). The key amendments have been set out below:

i. The Delisting Regulations will not be applicable to delisting of equity shares of a listed entity made pursuant to a resolution plan, if such a plan: (i) lays down a specific procedure to complete the delisting of such shares; or (ii) provides an exit option to the existing public shareholders at a price specified in the resolution plan. However, the exit to shareholders should be at a price which is not less than the liquidation value as determined in accordance with the Section 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, after paying off dues in the order of priority as set out in the IBC. If the existing promoters or any other shareholders are proposed to be provided an opportunity to exit under the resolution plan at a price, then the delisting should be at a price which is not less than the price at which such promoters or other shareholders, directly or indirectly, are provided exit.

ii. The prohibition set out under the proviso to Regulation 3(2) of the Takeover Regulations, which restricts an acquirer from acquiring shares or voting rights in a target company, which would result in the aggregate shareholding of the acquirer, along with persons acting in concert with it, exceeding the maximum permissible non public shareholding i.e. 75%, will not be applicable to an acquirer proposing to acquire shares pursuant to a resolution plan approved under the IBC.

View More

Enhanced Disclosure and Transparency Norms for Credit Rating Agencies

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI issued a circular dated May 30, 2018 (‘Circular’) setting out guidelines to enhance the governance, accountability and functioning of Credit Rating Agencies (‘CRA’).

i. Review of Ratings All cases of requests by issuers for review of the rating(s) provided to their instrument(s) by the CRA are required to be reviewed by a rating committee of the CRA that will consist of a majority of independent members[1].

ii. Disclosures for non-acceptance of Ratings: All non-accepted ratings have to be disclosed on the CRA’s website for a period of 12 months from the date of such rating being disclosed as a non-accepted rating.

iii. Rationalisation of Disclosures: CRAs are required to upload a rating summary sheet presenting a snapshot of the rating actions carried out during the half-year on their websites, on a half-yearly basis, within 15 days from the end of the half-year (March / September). These ratings must be segregated into securities and financial instruments other than securities.

[1] Persons not having any pecuniary relationship with the CRA or any of its employees.

View More

Clarification on Clubbing of Investment Limits of Foreign Government / Foreign Government related entities

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, by way of its circular dated April 10, 2018 (‘Circular’), issued certain clarifications in relation to clubbing of investment limits of foreign Governments and their related entities viz. foreign central banks, sovereign wealth funds and foreign Governmental agencies registered as foreign portfolio investors (‘FPIs’) in India. The key clarifications are set out below:

i. In case of the same set of underlying beneficial owner(s), the holding of all foreign Government and its related entities from the same jurisdiction, as well as foreign Government agencies forming part of the same investor group, is required to be cumulatively below 10% of the total paid-up capital of the Indian company;

ii. If the Government of India enters into treaties with other sovereign Governments specifically recognizing certain entities to be treated distinctly, SEBI may, during the validity of such treaties, recognize them as such for the purpose of investment limits applicable to FPIs;

iii. The investment by foreign Government/ its related entities from provinces/ States of countries with federal structure will not be clubbed if such provinces/ States have different beneficial owners identified in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005.

Lastly, the Circular clarifies that in case of a breach of the investment limits, the FPIs are required to divest their holdings within five trading days from the date of settlement of trades causing the breach. Alternatively, at the FPI’s option, such investment may be considered as a foreign direct investment.

View More

Monitoring of Foreign Investment limits in listed Indian companies

Published In:Inter Alia - Quarterly Edition - June 2018 [ English Chinese japanese ]

SEBI has, by way of its circular dated April 5, 2018 (‘Circular’), issued guidelines for monitoring of foreign investment limits (based on the paid-up equity capital of the company on a fully diluted basis) in listed Indian companies. The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘FEMA’), read with the regulations issued thereunder, prescribes the various foreign investment limits in listed Indian companies such as the aggregate FPI limit, the aggregate NRI limit and the sectoral caps. The onus of compliance with these foreign investment limits rests on the Indian company.  In order to facilitate compliance by listed Indian companies, SEBI formulated a framework with effect from June 1, 2018.

The necessary infrastructure and IT systems for monitoring the limits in Indian listed companies are required to be implemented and housed at the depositories i.e. National Securities Depository Limited and Central Depository Securities Limited. Companies will have to appoint any one depository as its ‘Designated Depository’ for monitoring the foreign investment limits. The stock exchanges will provide the data on the paid-up equity capital of an Indian company to such company’s Designated Depository.

A red flag will be activated whenever the foreign investment is within 3% or less than 3% of the aggregate FPI / NRI limits or the sectoral cap. Once a red flag has been activated for a given company, the foreign investors will take a conscious decision to trade in the shares of the company, with a clear understanding that in the event of a breach of the aggregate FPI / NRI limits or the sectoral cap, the foreign investors will be liable to disinvest the excess holding within five trading days from the date of settlement of the trades.

View More

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Regulation 2019 | India

Introduction

In India, cryptocurrencies have started gaining popularity since around 2013, when small-scale businesses began accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment. Since then, cryptocurrencies have grown into a means of investment, evidenced by the emergence of cryptocurrency exchanges in India.

The first regulatory response in the context of cryptocurrencies was when the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) issued a press release – on December 24, 2013 (“Press Note 1”). The RBI (which is in charge of monetary policy, regulation of financial markets and exchange control related issues) was careful in terms of neither sanctioning, nor prohibiting, cryptocurrencies; rather, all that Press Note 1 constituted was a caution to users, holders and traders of ‘virtual currency’, of potential risks associated with cryptocurrencies.

Almost immediately after the issuance of Press Note 1, several Bitcoin exchanges such as ‘Buysellbitco.in’ and ‘INRBTC’ temporarily shut operations. The Enforcement Directorate (“ED”, which enforces exchange control regulations) undertook raids on the proprietor of ‘Buysellbitco.in’ to examine if transactions being carried out on its platform violated foreign exchange control regulations.

While Press Note 1 and the ED’s actions caused a setback in the popularity of cryptocurrency transactions, this was only temporary; ultimately, cryptocurrencies weren’t banned or prohibited, and India witnessed a steady rise in transactions in cryptocurrency, tracking the global increase in similar activities.

The RBI released warnings similar in scope to Press Note 1 on February 1, 2017 (“Press Note 2”) and December 5, 2017 (“Press Note 3”) reiterating its caution, and went one step further to clarify that it (i.e. the RBI) has not provided any entity with any licence or sanction to transact with cryptocurrency.

It should be noted that the government does distinguish between Bitcoin and its underlying technology, i.e., blockchain. Despite the issuance of the press notes cited above, the RBI has issued a White Paper on ‘Applications of Block Chain Technology to the Banking and Financial Sector in India’ in January 2017, which views the application of blockchain technology by banks favourably. The RBI has also indicated that it may create a domestic ledger platform involving National Payment Corporation of India similar to existing platforms (such as RTGS, NEFT and IMPS). Towards this end in particular, the RBI, in September 2017, announced that it had taken steps to create such a platform, and also filed three patent applications in this regard.

Along similar lines, the Indian Finance Minister, in his Budget Speech on February 1, 2018 stated that although the Indian government does not recognize Bitcoin as legal tender, it does encourage the use of blockchain technology in payment systems.

The Budget Speech has several times been cited as the precursor to regulation of cryptocurrency in India, although it is certainly not the sole reflection of the Indian government’s attitude to cryptocurrency. Since the RBI’s press releases, the government has constituted an inter-disciplinary committee (which includes representatives from the RBI) to examine: (i) the present status of cryptocurrency in India and globally; (ii) the existing global regulatory and legal structures governing cryptocurrency; (iii) measures to address issues relating to consumer protection and money laundering.

These developments initially suggested a positive approach towards the regulation of cryptocurrency, in that it was expected, in some quarters at least, that the RBI and the government would officially permit the use of cryptocurrencies.

All that changed with RBI’s circular dated April 6, 2018 (“Circular”), as a result of which the dealing of cryptocurrency in India today has been substantially impeded. Through the Circular, the RBI banned all entitles regulated by it (i.e., banks, financing institutions, non-banking financing institutions, payment system providers and the like) from dealing in, or facilitating any dealings in, cryptocurrencies. These entities were given a three-month period within which all accounts dealing with cryptocurrency would have to be shut down.

As a consequence, while the government has not banned cryptocurrency in India per se, it has certainly made it quite difficult for participants to conduct transactions using traditional banking channels.

No other regulator in India has issued any directions concerning cryptocurrencies.

Press releases as recent as July, 2018, indicate that the government will clarify its stance on cryptocurrency and is working with various industry participants to issue detailed guidelines, although timing in this regard remains uncertain.

Indian Supreme Court on cryptocurrency

Along with the Executive contemplating regulation of cryptocurrency, several stakeholders have also approached the judiciary by filing petitions before the Indian Supreme Court (“SC”) in order to compel the government to provide clarity.

The two primary petitions seeking to address the legality of cryptocurrency were filed by: (i) Vijay Pal Dalmia and Siddharth Dalmia through civil writ petition 1071 of 2017 on June 2, 2017 (“Dalmia Petition”); and (ii) Dwaipayan Bhowmick through civil writ petition 1076 of 2017 on November 3, 2017 (“Bhowmick Petition”).

The Dalmia Petition was filed against the Union of India (through the cabinet secretary), Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Finance and the RBI (“Respondents 1”), seeking an order to direct Respondents 1 to “restrain / ban the sale / purchase of or investment in, illegal cryptocurrencies and initiate investigation and prosecution against all parties which indulge in the sale / purchase of cryptocurrency.”

The grounds for the stated petition, as available on public sources, was based on:

(i) the anonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions which makes them well-suited for funding terrorism, corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, etc.;

(ii) production and introduction of new cryptocurrency being generated by private parties, without the intervention of the government, and hence violating the Constitution;

(iii) use of cryptocurrency being in contravention of several laws such as FEMA and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;

(iv) ransomware attacks having occurred through the use of Bitcoin;

(v) illegal cryptocurrency providing an outlet for personal wealth that is beyond restriction and confiscation;

(vi) cryptocurrency exchanges encouraging undeclared and anonymous transactions, making it difficult for government authorities to identify such transactions; and

(vii) the fact that trading of cryptocurrencies permits players to bypass prescribed KYC norms.

The Bhowmick Petition was filed against the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, SEBI, RBI, Income Tax Dept. (through its secretary) and Enforcement Directorate (through its joint director) seeking an “issuance of direction to regulate the flow of bitcoins as well as requiring the constitution of a committee of experts to consider prohibition/regulation of bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies”.

The grounds for the petition, as reflected in public sources, inter alia include:

(i) Bitcoin trading/transactions, being unregulated, lack accountability;

(ii) investigators can only track Bitcoin holders who convert their Bitcoin to regular currency;

(iii) counterfeiting of cryptocurrency is not an issue so long as the miners keep the blockchain secure;

(iv) bitcoins may be used for trade and other financial activities without accountability, having an effect on the market value of other commodities;

(v) conversion of Bitcoin into foreign exchange does not fall under the purview of the RBI, making such transactions highly unsafe and vulnerable to cyber attacks;

(vi) presently, no regulator has the power to track, monitor and regulate cryptocurrency transfers;

(vii) cryptocurrency has the potential to support criminal, anti-social activities like money laundering, terrorist funding and tax evasion; and

(viii) use of cryptocurrency could result in widespread adverse financial implications if left unchecked.

Subsequent to the aforementioned petitions, certain industry participants have filed writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the RBI’s Circular and reiterated the need for clarity on regulation. Other stakeholders, such as the Internet and Mobile Association of India have filed intervention applications in the Bhowmick Petition in order to draw attention to the impact that any restrictive regulation on cryptocurrencies may have on their businesses.

To date, while the Supreme Court has admitted these petitions, the matters remain sub judice, offering limited insight on the judiciary’s stance. Nevertheless, the arguments made (as publicly reported) indicate that there is a degree of acknowledgment that various risks are presented by the continuing lack of regulation around cryptocurrencies.

Is cryptocurrency valid currency in India?

The Indian Parliament has enacted the: (i) Reserve Bank of India, 1934 (“RBI Act”) regulating inter alia bank notes; and (ii) Coinage Act, 2011 (“Coinage Act”) regulating coins, and these remain the only statutes that define and recognise legal tender.

Per section 26 of the RBI Act, “[E]very bank note shall be legal tender at any place in India for payment, or on account for the amount expressed therein, and shall be guaranteed by the Central Government.” The central government specifies and approves the denomination value, form and material of such bank notes and the RBI has the sole right to issue bank notes in the country. Similarly, section 6 (1) of the Coinage Act provides legal sanction to coins that are made of any metal or other material as approved by the Central Government. Bank notes and coins therefore encompass the entire universe of physical legal tender available in India.

Under the existing framework therefore, there is no sanction for cryptocurrencies as legal tender.

Is cryptocurrency a valid payment system in India

In India, prepaid instruments and payment systems are regulated by the Payments and Settlement Act, 2007 (“PSSA”). Prior to the enactment of PSSA, a working group on electronic money set up by the RBI, issued a report in July 11, 2002 (“Report”), which defined electronic money as “an electronic store of monetary value on a technical device used for making payments to undertakings other than the issuer without necessarily involving bank accounts in the transaction, but acting as a prepaid bearer instrument“.

These products may be classified into two broad categories, that is: (a) pre-paid stored value card (sometimes called “electronic purse” or “e-wallet”); and (b) pre-paid, software-based product that uses computer networks (sometimes referred to as “digital cash” or “network money”). It was highlighted that the stored value card scheme typically uses a microprocessor chip embedded in a physical device (such as a plastic card) while software-based schemes typically use specialised software installed on a personal computer.

The aforementioned definition may seem wide enough to include cryptocurrency in its scope. However, this must be read in conjunction with the PSSA, which does not explicitly define electronic money, but regulates payment systems that effect electronic funds transfer. These payment systems include “systems that enable payment between a payer and beneficiary, involving clearing, payment or settlement service or all of them, but does not include a stock exchange”. Such systems include credit cards, debit cards, smart cards, and money transfer operations.

In addition to the PSSA, the RBI has also issued the ‘Master Direction on Issuance and Operation of Prepaid Payment Instruments’ dated October 11, 2017 (“PPI Regulations’) that regulate prepaid wallets. Prepaid wallets may be issued by bank or non-bank entities to facilitate the purchase of goods and services, including financial services, remittance facilities, etc., against the value stored on such instruments.

In order to fall under the purview of the above, the instrument in question must store some monetary value. Cryptocurrencies may not have any value stored on them and their value (if any) is contingent on market speculation. Consequently, their issuance is not likely to be construed as regulated electronic money, or a valid payment system, as is currently understood by Indian regulation. Consequently, associated compliance requirements such as obtaining RBI registration, the requirement to establish an entity incorporated in India, the requirement to comply with AML regulations etc., are not applicable.

Are cryptocurrency cross-border trades valid?

Cryptocurrencies are easily capable of being traded on a cross-border basis and are, generally speaking, exchangeable into fiat currency. Under the RBI Master Directions – Liberalised Remittance Scheme dated January 1, 2016, an Indian resident individual may remit up to US$ 250,000 per year towards a permissible current or capital account transaction, or both.

A permissible current account transaction includes inter alia remittance towards:

(i) private visits, business travel, or remittance by tour operators;

(ii) fee for participation in global conferences and specialised training;

(iii) remittance for participation in international events/competitions (towards training, sponsorship and prize money);

(iv) film shooting;

(v) medical treatment abroad;

(vi) disbursement of crew wages, overseas education, remittance under educational tie-up arrangements with universities abroad;

(vii) remittance towards fees for examinations held in India and abroad and additional score sheets for GRE, TOEFL, etc;

(viii) employment and processing, assessment fees for overseas job applications;

(ix) emigration and emigration consultancy fees;

(x) skills/credential assessment fees for intending migrants;

(xi) visa fees, or processing fees required for registration of documents with other governments; or

(xii) registration/subscription/membership fees to international organisations.

A permissible capital account transaction includes inter alia remittance towards: (i) investment in foreign securities; (ii) foreign currency loans; (iii) transfer of immovable property; (iv) guarantees; (v) export, import or holding of currency notes; (vi) loans and overdrafts; (vii) maintenance of foreign currency accounts overseas; (viii) insurance policies; (ix) capital assets; (x) sale and purchase of foreign exchange derivatives.

As is evident from the above, payment for cryptocurrency is not per se listed as a permitted activity. Nevertheless, it may have been possible for an individual to broadly declare the remittance of funds towards investments, without specifying that the intent was to invest in cryptocurrency. At present, given the financial blockage imposed by RBI’s Circular, if a banking institution were to examine the purpose of the remittance further or trace such remittance to its ultimate use, the individual may be held liable for violating foreign exchange regulations (at the very least, the banking institution in question would be unable to facilitate the transaction).

Closely associated with cross-border transactions are anti-money laundering regimes that require periodic reporting and declarations to be made prior to undertaking the transaction. While Indian money-laundering regulations only apply to specific regulated entities such as banks, financial institutions, securities market intermediaries, etc., as a means to address concerns relating to money laundering, several cryptocurrency participants, such as cryptocurrency exchanges, have imposed self-regulatory measures such as complying with standard ‘know your customer’ obligations.


Conclusion

Regulatory uncertainty does not seem to have hindered industry participants from applying creative alternatives to capitalise on the Indian cryptocurrency market. For instance, cryptocurrency exchanges are exploring the option of setting up a ‘peer to peer’ platform to act as an intermediary between entities trading in cryptocurrency. As a proof of concept, it can be argued that businesses in India are keen to adopt blockchain and cryptocurrency, evidenced by various banks exploring the use of blockchain to facilitate cross-border payments and large business houses contemplating issuing their own cryptocurrency.

Given the burgeoning market and technological potential, the Indian government is likely to seek to strike a balance in its approach. It will be interesting to witness whether the government recognises the need for such technology by providing for regulation similar to the United States or Singapore governments which have imposed their taxation regime on cryptocurrency or, in the alternative, choose to nip this disruptive technology in the bud, like China, which has banned cryptocurrency.

View More