Disclosure of shareholders’ pacts: Jo wada kiya wo bataana padega

Scope of Clause 5A of Schedule III.A.A, r/w Reg 30A

Vinod Kothari, Managing Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

The spate of new disclosure requirements introduced by Reg 30 of the Listing Regulations includes one of the most controversial pieces – disclosure of shareholders’ agreements which may impact or are designed to impact the management or control of a listed entity. This requirement is applicable not only to the pacts entered into after the effective date of the amendment, but also to existing agreements, which, by reg. 30A, need to be bared by the contracting parties to the company, and the company in turn, will need to upload this information to the public. There are views circula that the entire body of such agreement has to be made public.

We cannot miss the fact that a sizeable portion of the capital of listed companies in India is held by families. An OECD document says nearly half of the listed companies’ capital in India is held by promoter families.

Naturally, anything that pierces, peeps in or lifts the veil of family arrangements is as challenging as any attempt to get into anyone’s privacy. Note that privacy concerns are not in any way less important for promoter families, than for yours or mine.

Therefore, evidently, this issue has raked up a lot of controversy. Compliance Officers are even facing the query as to whether a will is also required to be disclosed.    

Read more

LODR Reg 30 changes: Clause-by-clause guide to implementation

Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [487.87 KB]

Statutory dues cannot override section 53: Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Rainbow ruling

– Barsha Dikshit | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Introduction 

Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) has created a waterfall citing priority of dues. Whether it is distribution in liquidation process or resolution plan – both processes would need to honour the priorities under Section 53 of IBC. However, in September, 2022, in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) held that by virtue of the ‘security interest’ created in favour of the Government under GVAT, the State is a ‘secured creditor’ as per the definition in IBC. Hence, as workmen’s dues are treated pari passu with secured creditors’ dues, so should the debts owed to the State be put at the same pedestal  as the debts owed to workmen under the scheme of section 53(1)(b)(ii). [Read our detailed analysis on Rainbow Papers ruling here]. As such, this ruling led to anomalies in interpretation, as it shuffled the already well-settled view on priorities of tax dues vis-a-vis secured creditors. 

Interestingly, the recent ruling of SC in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 7976 of 2019] has confined the applicability of Rainbow Papers to its own factual circumstances, thereby, providing relief to all stakeholders, especially IPs undertaking liquidation/resolution processes, who started receiving demands from tax authorities on the strength of Rainbow Papers.

Read more

Responsibility by rod: MCA adjudication orders deal punches of penalty for CSR breaches

– Vinod Kothari | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

If the intent of CSR provisions coded in the law was to promote socially responsible conduct on the part of companies, that lesson of responsibility is being taught the very hard, indiscriminately harsh way – by imposing penalties of 2X of the amount involved in CSR breaches, even if the breach was a pure timing mismatch. By now, there are several such adjudication orders – purely as an example, is  where the order clearly notes that there has been no failure on the part of the company to spend the failed amount of Rs 14.50 lacs. The amount was indeed spent, as intended for “ongoing projects”, but there mere segregation of this money into a separate bank account, required to be done within 30 days, was missing. Applying the provisions of sec. 135 (7) which provides for a “penalty of twice the amount” which failed the segregation requirement, though it did not fail the spending requirement.

There are several points that arise here: segregation of the amounts meant to be spent for ongoing projects is merely a ring-fencing requirement, such that companies are aware of the purpose for parking the money, and such money is indeed not commingled with the company’s own funds. If the funds are indeed spent for the purpose for which they are to be segregated, the failure to segregate is, at the most, the failure of the method and not the ultimate result. The failure was transient, and only a timing issue, and not a substantive failure. Therefore, even if punishable, the punishment could not have been the maximum amount provided by the law.

Read more

BRSR Core: SEBI comes up with additional disclosures and assurance on Core matters

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [708.86 KB]

Workshop on Regulatory Framework for New-age NBFCs

Register Here : https://forms.gle/C2DQCp5BrAGu9Nry5
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [267.25 KB]

Regulation 30: Disclosure of Regulatory and similar Actions

– Palak Jaiswani | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Apparently with a view to make disclosure more stringent and widen the scope of disclosures, SEBI introduced two new clauses pertaining to regulatory actions, as clause 19 and 20, in Schedule III.A.A, as a part of SEBI (Listing Regulations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023,  with effect from July 14, 2023.

Newly inserted clauses 19 and 20 in Para A Part A of Schedule III cover the regulatory and similar actions which are required to be disclosed irrespective of the materiality thresholds prescribed.

There is a huge confusion as to what sort of regulatory actions are to be covered in item 19 and 20. Trivial fines and penalties have begun coming up on stock exchange reporting. Hence, it is very important to ascertain the type of regulatory actions that fall within the ambit of either of these two clauses. This article intends to understand the scope and coverage of the aforesaid clauses.

Read more

KYC/AML risk categorisation of customers

Key Points as per the RBI’s Directions on Risk Management under the KYC and PML Regime

-Anita Baid | Vice President | anita@vinodkothari.com

In line with the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) directions on risk management under the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards, Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are required to categorize their customers into low, medium, and high-risk categories. This risk categorization plays a crucial role in determining the level of due diligence to be undertaken by the NBFC while establishing and maintaining relationships with customers. Here are some key points to consider regarding the risk categorization process for legal entities (corporate borrowers, LLPs, trust, etc.) as well for individual borrowers:

Read more

NBFC- Enterprise Risk Assessment

-Subhojit Shome, Assistant Manager | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Our Youtube video on the topic can be accessed here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFeIdb-Wkc
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [1.02 MB]

Online workshop on LODR Reg 30 changes: Clause by clause guide to implementation

On request of several of our participants, we are postponing the workshop to the 28th of July, 2023, Friday, 4pm-7pm.
Register now at : https://forms.gle/emHhuy6rNdhfCtbo7
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [135.63 KB]