MCA paves way for e-adjudication of penalties, extends C-PACE for LLPs strike off
-Lavanya Tandon, Executive & Shreshtha Barman, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Our related resources on the topic:
-Lavanya Tandon, Executive & Shreshtha Barman, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Our related resources on the topic:
REs to update KYC details of clients
Garima Chugh, Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Read our relevant resources below
Fill the google form to register here.
Our resources on Insider Trading-
1. Mutual Fund units now under the net of insider trading regulations
2. FAQs on Insider Trading Framework for Mutual Funds
3. FAQs on Structured Digital Database
4. Prohibition of Insider Trading – Resource Centre
5. SEBI proposes to widen the definition of Connected Persons
Last updated on December 10, 2024
Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Also, refer our resource on PIT here
Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Investor protection provisions have been an inherent part of company laws in India. Whether it be S.34 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘the Act’) imposing criminal liability on directors/ promoters in case of misrepresentation in prospectus, S.35 which imposes civil liability on persons involved in mis-statement of prospectus, S. 36 which imposes criminal liability on any person who fraudulently inducing persons to invest money and so on.
Following the Satyam fiasco in India, investor protection gained further light and the Company Law Bills of 2009 as well as 2011 contained provisions for introducing class actions as a measure available to the members and depositors of the company if the affairs of the company are conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, or its members and depositors. However, it was only in 2016 that the same was introduced under S.245 of the Act.
Read more →Payal Agarwal l payal@vinodkothari.com
The Union Budget 2024 refers to permitting a flexible mode for financing leasing of aircrafts and ships, and pooled funds of private equity through a variable capital company (VCC) structure. Variable Capital Companies (VCCs), as the name suggests, are companies in which the capital is not static, that is to say, the investor has the option to withdraw capital based on the satisfaction of certain conditions. In a traditional company form of entity, the capital is static, and any reduction in capital (except buyback upto a specified extent), attracts specific procedure, including most importantly, approval from NCLT and other regulatory/ statutory authorities.
Read more: Variable Capital CompaniesGlobally, similar structures exist in various countries, known by different names, such as – Variable Capital Companies in Singapore and Mauritius, Open Ended Investment Companies (OEIC) in the UK, and a specific form of collective asset management companies in Ireland and Luxembourg.
In the context of India, the discussions around VCC are not new, the IFSCA has been exploring opportunities to bring a legislative framework for incorporation of the VCC form of entity. In fact, an Expert Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr M S Sahoo, had released a report providing recommendations for bringing a legal framework for VCCs in IFSC in October, 2022.
VCCs are a relatively new form of corporate structure, an investment vehicle housing multiple funds under one entity, while ringfencing the asset pools of each sub-fund distinctly – like a Protected Cell Company (PCC).
In jurisdictions such as Mauritius, the VCC has an option to elect to have a separate legal identity for each of its sub-fund, however, the same would require each sub-fund to be incorporated as a separate company. Even if the sub-funds are not incorporated as separate legal entities, their properties remain distinct from the umbrella fund (VCC) and any liability attributable to a specific fund is discharged solely from the assets of such a sub-fund.
Most importantly, as the name suggests, these structures have a flexibility on pay-outs to the investors. Such flexibility is provided in the form of permitting redemption of the shares of the fund at any time at a price related to the net present value of the scheme property, subject to the shares being fully paid-up.
The Report recommended VCC structure to be first introduced in IFSCs owing to the preparedness of international players in dealing with such structures since VCC structures are already existent in various other jurisdictions. Based on the functioning of the VCC-structure in IFSCs, the same may be subsequently introduced in the domestic Indian financial system too.
Under the IFSC regulatory ecosystem, VCCs are proposed to be recognised under the IFSCA Act, 2019. Additionally, the activities of the VCC should be governed by the IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022.
The Report suggests a VCC to be incorporated as a company, and the sub-funds thereof to derive their character from the VCC instead of being recognised as separate legal persons. There is a segregation of assets and liabilities at each sub-fund level, and as such, each sub-fund is bankruptcy remote from the insolvency proceedings initiated against another sub-fund.
Unlike a company which has a fixed paid-up capital, in case of a VCC, the paid-up capital, at all times, reflects the value of the net assets of the VCC.
The Report suggests VCCs may raise funds in both equity and debt form, issuing different classes of equity and debt securities to represent the interest of the holder in the specific sub-fund to which the securities relate to. The Report also proposes the introduction of “management shares” and “participating shares”, similar to the concept already prevalent in Singapore.
The recommendations suggest redemption of participating shares, carrying economic rights, at the net asset value of the scheme, subject to the shares being fully paid-up. On the other hand, for management shares, containing voting rights, the same is proposed to be irredeemable, however, the VCCs should have an option to buyback such shares with requisite approvals and following due procedure.
In view of the flexibility that VCC provides, the structure is getting increasingly popular. In Singapore, since the launch of provisions around VCCs in 2020 vide the Variable Capital Companies Act, 2018 in January, 2020, a total of 969 VCCs have been incorporated till 2022, representing around 2000 sub-funds.
Read our other articles on Union Budget 2024
Team Finserv and Corplaw | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Read our other publications on the Budget 2024:
Employment & Skilling has been identified as one of the top priorities for Vikshit Bharat in the Union Budget, 2024. To this end, the Govt has proposed a scheme that looks novel and innovative, and would supposedly encourage top 500 companies to use their CSR funds for providing internships to eligible youth. However, even if a large company takes 100 interns, it will use only Rs 6 lakh [100 X Rs 5000 X 12 – 90% govt. share] out of its CSR budget, which is trivial for a company of that size.
More details will possibly be rolled out over time, from whatever is available, it seems there is quite a lot of procedure for companies, who may opt for this scheme only at their discretion.
Read more →– Finance Bill 2024 puts buybacks to a biting tax proposal w.e.f. 1st October, 2024
-Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Among the tax law changes proposed by Finance Bill, 2024, the one on share buybacks, explained as one intended to remove tax inequity, is perhaps the most unexplainable. The proposed change, by introduction of a new sub-clause (f) to section 2 (22) [deemed dividend], and simultaneous amendments to sec. 46A and sec. 115QA, not only shifts the tax burden from companies to shareholders, but surprisingly, brings to tax the entire amount paid on buyback, irrespective of the excess realised by the shareholder. It leaves the cost of shares to be claimed as capital loss and set off against potential capital gains, of course only if such gains arise within the prescribed timelines for carry forward and set off.
Buyback of shares is the only way a company seeks to scale down its capital. The proposed amendment makes it impossible for companies to reduce their capital base by returning capital not needed, as the only other way is through reduction of share capital, which is subject to shareholders’, creditors’, and NCLT approval. It is surprising that this amendment by the very same Budget which proposes to introduce the novel concept of “variable capital companies”.
Read more →