SBOs behind LLPs all set to be surfaced

– Avinash Shetty, Asst. Manager & Hari Dwivedi, Executive (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) in the year 2018, introduced the provision for declaration by individuals identified as Significant Beneficial Owners (‘SBOs’) for companies under section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’). Subsequently, MCA extended the ambit of the said provisions to Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) through notification dated February 11, 2022. However, the notification prompted concerns and queries regarding the implementation of SBO provisions on LLPs. These concerns have been addressed by the recent notification dated  November 9, 2023 (‘LLP SBO Rules’). The rationale behind this extension is to align the framework for identification of SBO’s of LLPs with that of companies.

While the provisions are on similar lines as that brought for companies under the Act, however, the difference is mostly in terms of the manner of determining the SBOs in case of LLPs. In case of LLPs it is calculated based on holding of capital contribution (shares in case of companies), voting rights in respect of management or policy decisions of LLP (shares in case of companies) and right to receive or participate in distributable profits (dividend in case of companies) or any other distribution besides, the right to exercise control or significantly influence in any manner other than direct holdings.

The article explains the requirements of the LLP SBO Rules, obligations of the LLPs, and the actionables to be taken in order to comply with the requirements.

Read more

Mandatory demat for private companies: Highlights of the 27th October notification

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [355.43 KB]

You may also refer to our FAQs, detailed article and YouTube Video

Mandatory conversion of share warrants issued under CA 1956 into demat securities – Snippet on MCA Notification

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [56.11 KB]

You may also refer to our detailed article and youtube video.

Designated Persons to reveal beneficial owners:Summary of the 27th October notification

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [432.58 KB]

You may also refer to our detailed article and YouTube video on the same.

Share warrants under cloud – are companies not allowed to issue share warrants?

Share warrants are one of the widely used means to raise funds, particularly, in case of start-ups. MCA has recently notified the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (“Amendment Rules”) vide which Rule 9 has been amended to require mandatory conversion of the existing share warrants issued by public companies under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 (“Erstwhile Act”) into dematerialised form of securities. 

Following this amendment, a significant question comes up to be addressed is whether  public companies will  not  be allowed to issue share warrants altogether? We attempt to decode the implications of the present amendment in this write up.  

Actionables under the present amendment

The newly inserted sub-rule (2) and (3) to Rule 9 of the PAS Rules requires every unlisted company to – 

  1. File the details of existing share warrants with the ROC in form PAS-7 within 3 months from the commencement of the Amendment Rules, i.e., by 27th January 2024,
  2. Require bearers of the share warrants to surrender the same and issue dematerialised shares in the name of such bearer within 6 months from the commencement of the Amendment Rules, i.e., by 27th April, 2024, and
  3. Convert the unsurrendered share warrants into demat shares and transfer the same to IEPF

The company shall be required to issue notice for the bearers of share warrants in form PAS-8 on its website as well as two newspapers – in vernacular language, having wide circulation in the district and in English language having wide circulation in the state in which the registered office of the company is situated. 

Share warrants covered under the present amendment

In the context of the newly inserted sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, the term share warrants is to be interpreted in a much restricted sense. The provision refers to “share warrants prior to commencement of the Companies Act, 2013 and not converted into shares”, which implies share warrants issued under the Erstwhile Act only. In this regard, one may refer to section 114 of the Erstwhile  Act that allowed public companies to issue “bearer warrants” entitling the bearer of such warrants to the shares specified therein. The same was referred to as “share warrants” under the said Act, and the shares contained therein can be transferred through mere delivery of the warrant. 

The present amendment requires mandatory surrender of such “share warrants” in the form of “bearer warrants” against issuance of shares in dematerialised form. 

Permissibility for issuance of  share warrants under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”)? 

As mentioned above, the “share warrants” referred to under the Amendment Rules are limited to the bearer warrants issued in accordance with the Erstwhile Act, and do not extend to all share warrants which companies issue under the various provisions of law. 

In general context, share warrants are actually written options to subscribe to the shares of a company on pre-agreed terms at a future date. Such warrants are fairly common in the corporate world on account of the benefits associated with the same, and the present amendment cannot be said to rule out the possibility of issuance of such share warrants. Share warrants are directly or indirectly recognised under various provisions of law, for instance: 

  1. The definition of “securities” as provided for in section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act also includes “rights or interest in securities”. Share warrants are, in fact, a right to acquire securities at a future date, and therefore, well covered under the definition of securities
  1. The SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 contains specific provisions with respect to issuance of share warrants.
  2. The Foreign Exchange Management (Non Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 also refers to the term “share warrants” within the overall definition of “equity instruments” and contains specific provisions with respect to the same. 
  3. The Act refers to the conversion of “warrants” as a permissible mode for issuance of shares during the restricted period post buyback u/s 68(8) of the Act. It also contains references to employee “stock options”, which, by nature are equivalent to share warrants. 

While the Act does not mention at several places under it about share warrants, however, at few places, like the provisions under section 68 dealing with buy back of securities as well as  reference to employee “stock options”, which, by nature are equivalent to share warrants are given the Act.  

Therefore, there are no explicit provisions that prohibit the issuance of share warrants by unlisted companies, and the same, being a “security” can very well be issued by a company, whether listed or unlisted, in compliance with the applicable provisions of law to meet the required funding as well as investment objectives. 

Concluding remarks 

The Amendment Rules aim at the wiping out of the bearer share warrants, since the legal and beneficial ownership of the shares are non-traceable in such a case. However, that does not eliminate the concept of share warrants as a whole, that are issued to an identified set of persons, and follows a due procedure laid down in the law for transfer of such warrants. Although not expressly defined under the Act, the concept of share warrants is legally recognised under various laws and are being widely issued by Indian companies, whether listed or unlisted, including private companies. The current set of amendments will have no impact on the permissibility of issuing share warrants issued under the Act and other laws as mentioned hereinabove.

Designated to reveal beneficiary identity: all companies mandated to name one

– MCA requires every company to designate person responsible for providing information with respect to beneficial interest in shares 

– Payal Agarwal, Senior Manager | corplaw@vinodkothari.com 

The concept of “beneficial owner” or BO is well-established under the Companies Act, 2013 by way of section 89 and 90 read with the rules made thereunder. The primary onus of declaration of beneficial interest lies on the person holding such beneficial interest. For the purpose of assigning responsibility to one or more person with respect to the compliance with the said provisions, Rule 9 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 (“MGT Rules”) has been amended vide the Companies (Management and Administration) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 introducing the concept of “designated person” for the purpose of the said section. The amendment has been notified and made applicable from the date of its publication in the official gazette, i.e, 27th October, 2023. 

Functions of a designated person

The concept of “designated person” has been brought in vide sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the MGT Rules. It requires “every company” to designate a person to be responsible for “furnishing, and extending co-operation for providing, information to the Registrar or any other authorised officer with respect to beneficial interest in shares of the company.” Therefore, a person, identified as a designated person under this rule, would be expected to be aware of, and therefore, take all reasonable steps to become aware, of the person holding “beneficial interest” in the shares of the company. 

The applicability of the requirement to identify a designated person is not limited only to such companies that have received declarations with respect to “beneficial interest”, but extends to every company. It is upon the ROC/ other authorities to seek information with respect to beneficial interest from any company, and any such information, as and when sought, will be required to be provided by the designated person identified under this rule. 

Who can be a designated person? 

Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 deals with the person qualified to be a designated person. It requires one of the following to act as a “designated person”: 

  1. CS of the company, if the company is required to appoint a CS (as per section 203 of the Act), or 
  2. any KMP of the company (as defined u/s 2(51) of the Act), or
  3. every director of the company, in case the company does not have a CS or other KMPs. 

Therefore, a company may, acting through its board of directors, preferably through a duly passed board resolution in this regard, designate the CS, or any of the KMPs or directors of the company to act as a designated person. The use of the term “every director” does not imply that all directors shall be identified as “designated person”, rather, it would mean that either of the directors can be designated under the aforesaid rule. 

“Deemed” designated person 

The provisions are applicable immediately, and therefore, till the time a company designates a person for compliance with the aforesaid, the following persons shall be deemed to be designated person: 

  1. CS of the company, if the company is required to appoint a CS (as per section 203 of the Act)
  2. In case a CS has not been appointed, every Managing Director or Manager of the company, 
  3. In the absence of both (a) and (b), every director of the company. 

Disclosure of details of a designated person 

The details of the designated person are required to be disclosed in the annual return. The annual return is an e-form filed with ROC, and the present change would require a modification in the existing format so as to facilitate the provision of such information. Further, since the provisions are applicable from 27th October, 2023, the disclosure should be applicable for the annual return filed for FY 23-24 and onwards. 

Any changes in the designated person is also required to be intimated to the ROC in e-form GNL-2. No timeline has been specified for filing the same, but should be filed within a reasonable period of time. 

The introduction of the concept of “designated person” with respect to the “beneficial interest” in the shares of a company, will have the impact of assigning responsibility and accountability on the designated person with respect to compliance with the provisions of the Act relating to beneficial interest. Recently, many companies have received advisories from the ministry to ensure compliance with the provisions of declaration of beneficial ownership, and the present amendment would act as a “single point assistance” to the authorities in their inspection of companies with respect to compliance with declaration of “beneficial interest”. 

You may also refer to our Snippet and YouTube video

Our other resources on beneficial owners can be accessed here –

  1. Registered Owner V. Beneficial Owner – A Curtain raiser
  2. SBO Declaration: Whose Responsibility Is It Anyways?
  3. MCA revisits SBO Rules
  4. Article corner on SBO

Recent regulatory developments for listed entities – critical changes under LODR and PIT Regulations

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [1.02 MB]

Stricter framework for sale, lease or disposal of undertaking by a listed entity

– Nitu Poddar | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Reg 37A of Listing Regulations requires additional voting and disclosure requirements

Keeping in view of the significance of the amendments, we are conducting a workshop on the same. Details can be accessed athttps://vinodkothari.com/2023/06/workshop-on-sebi-lodr-2nd-amendment-regulations-2023/
The article was also published by IndiaCorpLaw and can be viewed here

Disposal of an undertaking (whole or substantially the whole) can be done either as part of a scheme of arrangement or otherwise by way of slump sale / business transfer agreement (‘BTA’). Disposal, other than by way of scheme of arrangement, have so far been regulated as per section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’) which requires approval of the shareholders by way of special resolution. SEBI has prescribed approval requirement in this regard by way of introduction of regulation 37A vide SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2023 (‘Amendment Regulations’) effective from June 14, 2023 that requires listed entities to follow a stricter regime for disposal of undertaking inter alia mandating approval from majority of the public shareholders who are not interested in the transaction, disclosure of the object, commercial rationale and use of proceeds arising from such transaction. While there is an exemption provided in case of transactions with a wholly owned subsidiary (WOS), the approval regime will apply in case of disposal of undertaking by such WOS or any reduction in shareholding in the WOS subsequent to transfer of the undertaking.

The said amendment is based on the Consultation Paper rolled by SEBI on February 21, 2023. Apart from incorporating the provisions proposed in this regard in the Consultation Paper, the amendment has introduced new provisions as well. Provision with respect to seeking approval from the shareholders of the listed entity in case a WOS is used as a conduit for transfer in undertaking is a new requirement brought in through the amendment.

Read more

Understanding CSR for NGO

– Pammy Jaiswal, Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [650.02 KB]

Evolution of concept of related parties and related party transactions

-Team Vinod Kothari and Company | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [888.42 KB]

Our Resource Centre on Related Party Transactions can be viewed here