The Key to Loan Transparency : RBI frames KFS norms for all retail and MSME loans

All-inclusive APR disclosure; third-party payments also included; no lender-induced changes during the validity period of KFS

-Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

(Updated as on May 1, 2024)

The RBI vide its Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 08, 2024 announced its decision to mandate Regulated Entities (REs) to provide Key Fact Statement (KFS) for retail and Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME) loans.

Following the aforesaid, RBI issued a notification dated April 15, 2024 (Circular) to “harmonise” the instructions in this regard for all REs.

Since the intent of the RBI is to harmonise similar requirements, the KFS Circular overrides similar extant requirements in case of lending by banks to individuals, and digital lending.

Contents

Meaning and Intent
Scope and Applicability
Contents of KFS
Meaning of Retail Lending
Meaning of MSME Lending
Validity period and Cooling off period
Annualised Percentage Rate
Other Requirements

Meaning and Intent

1. What is KFS?

  • A crisp, clear and key information about loan terms. KFS typically includes details such as the all-in-cost of the loan, interest rates, fees, repayment terms, and any associated risks.
  • Because KFS is standardised, it enables borrowers to make comparison with terms offered by other lenders.
  • Plus, it is at-a-glance view, enabling the borrower to avoid the legalese. Allows loans terms to be compared in a simple, transparent and comparable (STC) manner.

2. How will KFS help transparency?

The intent is to have simple transparent, and comparable (STC) terms of the loan communicated to the customer upfront. The standardised format provides is simple and concise and has all the necessary details of the loan – annual percentage rate, fees, recovery mechanism, and associated risks in a straightforward format.

3. Has the format of KFS and other disclosures been prescribed?

Yes, the format for KFS has been prescribed in Annex A of the Circular. Further, formats for computation of APR and amortization schedule to be given to the borrower has also been prescribed in Annex B and C of the Circular respectively.

Scope and applicability

4. Which all entities are covered by the new requirement?

The following entities will be covered under the scope of the Circular –

  • All Commercial Banks (including Small Finance Banks, Local Area Banks and Regional Rural Banks, excluding Payments Banks)
  • All Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks, State Co-operative Banks and Central Co-operative Banks
  • All Non-Banking Financial Companies (including Housing Finance Companies)

5. In what kind of loans will KFS be mandatorily applicable?

  1. Loans by scheduled commercial banks to individual borrowers. Para 2 (b) of the erstwhile regulations Display of information by banks stands repealed.
  2. Digital lending by any regulated entity. Para 5.1 and 5.2 of the Guidelines on Digital Lending stands repealed. For meaning of digital lending, see our write up.
  3. Microfinance loans whether by MFIs or other entities. Para 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the RBI (Regulatory Framework for Microfinance Loans) Directions, 2022  stands repealed: For the meaning of microfinance loan, see our write up.
  4. Retail Lending by all Regulated Entities (REs). For the meaning of retail lending see Q 20
  5. Lending to MSMEs loans by all REs: For meaning of MSME loans see Q 22.

Coverage of the Circular

6. Will the KFS norms be applicable on Housing Loans as well?

In case of housing loans extended by HFCs, sharing of most important terms and conditions (MITC) are applicable (Para 85.8 read with Annex XII of the HFC Master Directions). MITC is akin to KFS, however, the format of KFS is more focused on interest rate and other charges as well as a few qualitative terms of the loan, whereas MITC provides several other relevant details.

The Circular is addressed to HFCs as well. Further, meaning of “retail lending” (see below) includes home loans as well. In the absence of any other clarification, we would advise lenders to prepare MITC as well as KFS in case of home loans.

6A. Whether the Circular has to be complied with in case any loan is advanced to MSMEs?

The Circular is applicable in case of all retail and MSME term loan products extended by all REs. However, in our view if the RE doesn’t distinguish between MSME and other categories of borrowers for the same loan product, then there is no requirement to provide KFS only to MSME borrowers. In this case, the lender should also not avail the benefit of any guarantee scheme provided in case of MSME lending. 

The Circular in our view only seems to apply in case the RE has a separate MSME loan product.

7. What happens to the existing circulars on Digital Lending and Microfinance Lending?

The existing provisions for KFS and APR in the Digital Lending Guidelines, MFI Directions and Display of Information by Banks circular shall stand repealed.

8. When does the new requirement become applicable?

The Circular is applicable with effect from October 1, 2024 to all new retail and MSME term loans sanctioned. Further, digital loans, MFI loans and bank finance extended to individuals post the said applicability date would also require to be aligned with the new requirement.

It would, therefore, appear that extant requirements continue to apply from now until 30th September.

It would actually be better for lenders to transition into the new requirement before 1st October, at least on a parallel basis – this will serve as a dry run upto the new requirement from 1st October.

9. In case of banks, what is the applicability of this Circular?

The KFS Circular applies to banks for (a) all loans to individuals, as covered by Display of information by banks; (b) any loans to MSMEs; (c) any microfinance loans; (d) any digital loans.

10. Whether loans under digital lending need to comply with the Circular or will they continue to follow extant guidelines?

The Circular applies to digital loans as well. In fact, it repeals Para 5.1 and 5.2 of the digital lending guidelines dealing with APR and KFS provisions. However, until October 1, 2024, the existing guidelines may continue to be followed.

11. In case of co-lending transactions, is the compliance on the originating co-lender or the funding co-lender?

While specific details of co-lending arrangements are required to be shared with the borrower; the borrower interface is typically done by the originating co-lender. Hence, the originating co-lender should be making the requisite disclosures. Funding co-lenders may ensure that the originating co-lender is making the requisite disclosures.

Contents of KFS

12. What are the contents/format of KFS?

  • Unique Proposal Number : this would be specific to the RE and shall be provided to each borrower for each loan offered
  • Type of loan offered:  for example, home loan, auto loan, personal loan, etc
    Sanctioned Loan Amount: If the sanctioned amount is available for drawdown in tranches or in phases, the same may be specified. Similarly, if the sanctioned amount not drawn within a particular date will remain committed, etc. may be specified.
  • Disbursal Schedule: Often, disbursement may be linked with acquisition of an asset, or progressive construction (say, in case of home loans). The same may be specified here.
  • Loan Term: Digital lenders sometimes offer choice of tenure, and different interest rates for different tenures. The idea of KFS is to provide for maximum comparability – hence, arcane structures or optionalities should be minimised.
  • Type of Installments (Monthly/half-yearly/early)
  • Number of Equated Periodic Instalments (EPIs)
  • Amount of EPI
  • Period after which the EPI will commence post-sanction: For example, 30 days after disbursement. in case a moratorium is provided, the same should be specified.
  • Type of interest rate (fixed/floating/hybrid)
  • In case of floating rate loans following are to be disclosed – Reference Benchmark, Benchmark rate, Percentage of spread, Final rate charged to the borrower, Reset periodicity of benchmark and spread rate, impact of change in reference benchmark,
  • Following fees/charges are to be disclosed –
    • Payable to the RE
    • Payable to third party through RE: See further guidance on this below
  • Annual Percentage Rate :
    • This is the IRR (note this is not XIRR or effective rate of return after compounding to a year) taking care of all the items of costs included in the APR.
  • Contingent Charges such as penal charges, foreclosure charges, charges for switching loan from floating to fixed or vice-versa, etc.: These charges are not collected upfront or are not mandatorily imposed on the borrower; these are contingent on happening of certain events, say default. The rates of these charges shall be disclosed. However, shall not be a part of APR, and accordingly, these charges do not have to be converted into an annualised rate.
  • Qualitative information
    • Clause of loan agreement relating to engagement of recovery agents
    • Clause of loan agreement which details grievance redressal mechanism
    • Phone number and email id of the nodal grievance redressal officer
    • Whether the loan is, or in future maybe, subject to transfer to other REs or securitisation
    • Details relating to co-lending – Name of co-lenders and blended rate of interest
    • In case of digital loans – Cooling-off period, details of LSP acting as recovery agent

13. KFS is intended to be a “standardised format”. What is the significance of the format being standardised? Does the lender have the discretion to add/delete fields?

The Circular prescribes for a “standardised format” for KFS. The intent behind this standardisation is to enhance transparency and to facilitate the  comparability of the loan terms offered by different lenders. The RBI refers to the KFS as a “standardised format”. Therefore, in our view, the comparability of the KFS will be compromised if it was loaded with new details or subjectivities not envisaged in the standard format.

14.Can the lender, for instance, add clauses like “this is not a sanction letter; the grant of the loan is eventually subject to sanction by the lender’s internal credit committee”, or similar conditionalities?

It is important to note that the format of the KFS is standardised. Therefore, the KFS is expected to remain limited to the fields given in the standardised format. However, the KFS may be an annexure to a sanction letter – see below.

15. Is the present practice of issuing sanction letter redundant? Can a lender issue a sanction letter in addition to KFS?

The KFS is a summarised version of the terms of the loan. However, the grant of the loan itself may have several conditions, typically comprised in the sanction letter. The RBI’s Fair Practices Code refers to a sanction letter – NBFCs shall convey in writing to the borrower in the vernacular language as understood by the borrower by means of sanction letter or otherwise, the amount of loan sanctioned along with the terms and conditions including annualised rate of interest

Hence, first, the sanction letter does not become redundant. Secondly, if there are conditionalities or compliances relating to the loan, the same may be contained in the sanction letter. For example, the borrower may be required to complete some conditions precedent. There are normally several conditions subsequently, commonly called “post-disbursement conditions”. Each of these may be contained in the sanction letter.

15A. The charges mentioned in KFS are an amount X. The KFS also says this amount can be varied by the company. Can the variation of this amount in future be done without the borrower’s consent?

Charges mentioned in KFS may relate to charges payable at the time of the taking the loan, charges over the term of the loan, and may include contingent charges too. Para 8 of the Circular also says that whatever is not disclosed cannot be charged without the explicit of the borrower.

Therefore, 

(a) there is no question of charging something that is not a part of the KFS, without the borrowers’ explicit consent. 

(b) as for amounts already disclosed, while the company would have reserved the right to vary, however, in our view, these charges cannot be varied as this would disrupt the comparability and standardisation of the KFS. 

15B. The KFS circular applies from 1st October 2024 – can the company impose charges not already a part of the loan agreement and make them applicable before 1st October?

Since the KFS circular is coming with the perspective of fairness in practices, and given the fact that the prospective applicability date is merely to allow companies time to adhere to and transition to the new paradigm, the move as proposed will be seen as a way to take undue advantage of the applicability date.

16. Does the issuance of a KFS amount to a binding commitment on the part of the lender to lend?

The language of Explanation below clause 5 of the KFS Circular may give such an impression. It says: “Validity period refers to the period available to the borrower, after being provided the KFS by the RE, to agree to the terms of the loan. The RE shall be bound by the terms of the loan indicated in the KFS, if agreed to by the borrower during the validity period.”

However, in our view, the KFS is only the terms of the loan. The binding force of the KFS during the “validity period” is only on the terms, and not on the grant of the loan itself. If the conditions precedent for availing the loan have been satisfied, the lender will be bound by the terms as contained in the KFS; however, the grant of the loan itself is based on conditions precedent may still form part of the sanction letter.

17. Is it permissible for REs to include additional terms in the KFS alongside those outlined in the standardized format?

The purpose of requiring a standardized KFS for borrowers is to guarantee consistency in loan terms across different lenders, enabling borrowers to make fair comparisons. Therefore, we believe that REs should avoid subjectivity and strictly follow the standardized format outlined in the notification.

18. Can REs charge fees/charges not mentioned in the KFS?

The answer to this is positive as REs can charge fees/charges not mentioned in  the KFS with the explicit consent of the borrower.

19. What are Equated Periodic Installments and how are they computed?

Equated Periodic Installment (EPI) refers to a fixed amount comprising both principal and interest repayments that a borrower must pay at regular intervals over a predetermined number of periods to repay a loan fully. These payments ensure the gradual amortization of the loan. When these installments are made on a monthly basis, they are commonly known as Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs).

Meaning of Retail Lending

20. What is the meaning of retail loans?

  1. The Circular does not provide a specific definition for “Retail Lending”. Instead, it refers to the Master Direction on Interest Rate on Advances (2016) for terms not defined within the Circular. Further, the Master Direction though does not define the term “Retail Lending”, paragraph 7 uses the following language: retail loans (housing, auto, etc.). This gives the impression that the word “retail loans” is used in contradistinction to wholesale lending. In typical banking parlance, lending to companies or businesses is termed as wholesale lending, and retail lending typically refers to loans to individuals.
  1. There is a study on Retail Credit Portfolios of SCBs under Retail Credit Trends – A Snapshot which considered that retail credit refers to all loans given to the individual customers/ households for various purposes.
  2. Further, an RBI article on Dynamics of Credit Growth in the Retail Segment: Risk and Stability Concerns that analyses retail credit flows and asset quality dynamics therein across the supervised entities provides that personal or retail loans are used interchangeably in this study, and they refer to loans given to individuals for housing, loans against property, purchase of vehicles, consumer durables, loans against gold jewellery, personal loans, educational loans, credit cards, etc.
  3. While RBI regulations do not provide a specific definition for “Retail Lending”, it is evident from the intent of the circular that the Circular is to lend transparency and comparability to loan terms, particularly when addressed to a borrower who is not savvy enough to understand nuanced terms. The primary aim is to ensure that information provided to borrowers is Simple, Transparent, and Comparable (STC). Therefore, a broader interpretation of the term “retail loans” may be warranted to align with this overarching objective.
  4. Hence, retail loans may include all types of loans to individuals, including the following –
  • Vehicles/Auto loans
  • Educational loans
  • Home Loans
  • Loan against shares
  • Loan against property
  • Loan against fixed deposit, etc.

Further, it may be noted that credit card receivables, though extended to individuals, are excluded from the purview of the Circular.

21. Give some examples of loans which are not retail lending?

Some examples of loans not considered as retail lending are –

  • Business loans
  • Lines of credit – as the circular specifically refers to term loans
  • Loans to corporates (other than MSMEs)
  • Dealer financing (other than individuals)
  • Builder Finance (other than individuals)

Meaning of MSME Lending

22. What is lending to MSMEs?

Loans to entities satisfying the following conditions and holding Udyam registration as MSMEs:

 Investment in Plant & Machinery or EquipmentTurnover
Micro EnterpriseUpto 1 croreUpto 5 crore
Small EnterpriseUpto 10 croreUpto 50 crore
Medium EnterpriseUpto 50 crore Upto 250 crore

23. Are all loans to MSMEs covered under the scope of the Circular?

The Circular explicitly states its applicability solely to “MSME Term Loans”. Therefore, we understand that working capital loans or lines of credit extended by REs to MSMEs fall outside the scope of the Circular.

Validity period and Cooling off period

24. What is a Validity Period?

The validity period refers to the timeframe within which the borrower, upon receiving the KFS from the RE, can agree to the loan terms. In case the borrower accepts the terms outlined in the KFS during this validity period, the RE is bound by these terms as indicated in the statement.

25. How long should the Validity Period be?

In terms of the notification, the KFS must possess a validity period of a minimum of three working days for loans with a tenor of seven days or more, and one working day for loans with a tenor of less than seven days.

26. What if the customer does not accept the terms during the validity period?

The RE is only bound by the terms mentioned in the KFS if the same is accepted by the borrower during the validity period. Accordingly, if the borrower fails to accept the KFS terms during the validity period, the RE reserves the right to change the terms after the end of such period.

27. Where will the validity period be disclosed?

Going by the standardised format for KFS provided by RBI, there is no requirement to mention the validity period in the KFS. However, to ensure that the borrower is aware of the same, the validity period can be mentioned in the covering note or sanction letter.

28. What will be considered a Working Day?

Working days would mean Monday to Friday of the week excluding public holidays.

29. What is the difference between the validity period and cooling off period in case of digital loans?

Validity PeriodCooling off Period
Applicable for digital as well as physical loans.Applicable only for digital loans.
Pre-disbursement phasePost-disbursement phase
Provided to the borrower to accept the terms of the loan as indicated in the KFSProvided to the borrower for exiting digital loans without any pre-payment penalty in case a borrower decides not to continue with the loan.
The RE is bound by the terms of the loan if accepted by the borrower during the validity period.Grants the borrower the right to repay the principal and the proportionate APR during this period.

30. Is it necessary to provide a validity period to borrowers before approving top-up loans, even if the terms of the top-up loan are identical to those of the existing loan?

Yes, the notification is applicable from October 01, 2024. Accordingly, after this date, KFS should be provided for all top-up loans. Subsequently, following this date, KFS should be furnished for all top-up loans. As a result, borrowers must also be provided with a validity period to accept the terms of the top-up loan.

Annualised Percentage Rate

31. What is APR?

Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is the annual cost of credit to the borrower that includes interest rate and all other charges associated with the loan.

32. What are the components of APR?

The following are the components of APR –

  • Rate of interest charged from the borrower
  • Fees/charges payable to RE
  • Fees/charges payable to third party routed through RE

Excluding

  • Contingent fees/charges

33. Are charges recovered on behalf of third party also a part of the lender’s APR?

Yes, the charges that borrowers pay to the RE, which are passed on to third-party service providers based on actual expenses, like insurance or legal charges, will also be included in the calculation of APR. See the discussion below.

 33A. What is the meaning of the expression “service providers”? Can statutory charges such as stamp duty etc also be a part of APR?

The Circular uses the following language: “Charges recovered from the borrowers by the REs on behalf of third-party service providers on actual basis, such as insurance charges, legal charges etc., shall also form part of the APR and shall be disclosed separately.” In our view, the expression “service providers” has been used consciously, to refer to some entities providing services either in relation to the loan, or the subject matter of the loan. 

Stamp duty is a statutory charge and is in the nature of a tax/duty payable to the statutory authorities. It cannot be contended that the state is providing any specific service either in relation to the loan or the subject matter of the loan. Hence, in our view, it is only the charges payable in respect of services, recovered by the lender, which should be forming part of the APR.

34. Should charges not directly linked/integrated with the loan, also form part of the APR? Will the answer remain the same even if such charges are deducted from the disbursement amount ?

As regards the inclusion of charges within APR, the essential basis should be the definition of APR, defining it as “the annual cost of credit to the borrower which includes interest rate and all other charges associated with the credit facility”. Therefore, a lender providing a credit facility imposes charges, in addition to interest, by whatever name called, including for third party services which are related to the credit facility or the subject matter of the credit facility, should be forming part of the APR. This will, of course, not include contingent charges such as delinquency penalties, repossession charges, etc.

The charges imposed by lenders may, illustratively, be as follows:

  1. Processing fees;
  2. Documentation charges; 
  3. On-boarding charges;
  4. Technical and verification charges;
  5. Documents handling charges

The charges for third-party services, which are typically related to the loan or the subject matter of the loan may be as follows:

  • Insurance charges for the asset/product being funded for the lender, or personal insurance for the borrower (typically assigned to the lender), or credit insurance
  • Valuation charges for the subject matter of the loan
  • Legal charges etc

The mode of collection of these charges does not matter – that is, these may be charged separately, or may be deducted from the disbursement.

35 .Whether statutory dues would form part of APR?

See answer above.

36. If, for instance, the borrower is required to place a security deposit/cash collateral, which is free of interest, is the impact of the same also captured in the APR?

While the placing of the security deposit may impact the overall cost of the borrower, but in our view, it is inappropriate to incorporate this cashflow as a part of the loan cashflows.This is because in our view the positive and negative cash flows arising out of the loan payments and security deposit, respectively, should not be co-mingled.

37. In case of loans for vehicles, it is common practice to require the borrower to make a down payment to the supplier. Is the same also captured in the APR?

The APR is computed on the loan amount; down payment is not a part of the loan.

37A In which all cases insurance charges paid to the third party will form a part of the APR ?

We take some illustrative situations below:

  • Condition in loan agreement – borrower to insure the asset at borrowers cost; premium paid by borrower to insurance co – Will not form a part of the APR, as payment not collected by the lender
  • Event of default includes failure to insure; in which case, lender will pay and claim the money from the borrower – Will not form a part of the APR, because it is a contingent payment
  • Paid by borrower to insurance co, but with a loan from lender. – Will not form a part of the APR, as the payment is made by the borrower
  • Lender makes payment of insurance premium:
    • First year’s payment made immediately by the borrower; rest of the years are loaded on EMIs – will form a part of the APR, since the payments are being made by the lender.

37B If cash flows are not at uniform period of time, how will the APR be calculated?

If cash flows are not at uniform periods of time, lenders generally use the XIRR method to calculate interest. Note that IRR formula fails to capture non-equidistant cashflows. However, XIRR is annually compounded rate. It may be converted into a monthly rate by using “nominal” formula, or de-compounding from a year to a month, and then multiplying the result by 12.  It should be noted that XIRR is generally greater than APR.

37C In case of a demand loan, will the APR be computed based on the sanctioned amount or on the disbursed amount?

For demand loans, the APR should be calculated based on the sanctioned amount. This reflects the potential maximum cost of credit to the borrower if the borrower chooses to utilize the entire sanctioned amount.

38. Lenders quite often get payouts or subvention from third parties, say vendor, OEM, insurance companies, etc., which supplement the returns of the lender. Are these also disclosed as a part of the APR?

In our view, there is no reason to include payouts by third parties, that is, other than the borrower, as a part of the borrower’s cost of credit.

Having said this, if there are discounts/subventions being given by a vendor, the lender should make a fair disclosure of the discount, showing the same as a deduction from his cost of interest.

Graphical illustration summarising APR

Other Requirements

39. What are the disclosure requirements?

Following additional disclosures are to be made by the REs along with KFS –

  • Computation sheet of APR
  • Amortisation schedule of the loan over the loan tenor
  • KFS shall also be part of the loan agreement
  • Validity Period of KFS

40. What are the other requirements as per the Circular?

As per the Circular REs are obligated to do the following –

  • Contents of KFS shall be explained to the borrower
  • Acknowledgement shall be obtained from the borrower that he/she has undestook the contents of KFS

41. In case of digital loans how will RE be able to explain the contents of KFS to the borrower?

For digital loans, REs may have the option to exhibit a pre-recorded video within their application or present a document that elucidates the contents of the KFS.

42. What will be the impact of this circular in existing loans?

REs will not be required to issue KFS in existing loans. However, compliance with this circular will be required for any new loan or top-up loan provided to existing customers.

43. Para 7 of the Circular provides that charges recovered from the borrowers by the REs on behalf of third-party service providers on actual basis shall also form part of the APR and has to be disclosed separately. So does this imply that any amount over and above the actuals will not form a part of APR?

In case the RE is collecting charges that are over and above the actuals, the same is int he form of charges levied by the RE itself and by default should always be included in the APR computation. However, in case of collection of charges on actuals on behalf third-party service provider, the RE shall be required to provide receipt and related documents will have to be provided to the borrower, within a reasonable time.

44. The KFS also needs to disclose the phone number and email id of the grievance redressal officer. So, will it be sufficient compliance with the regulations if a generic email id of the grievance redressal cell is provided ?

As per the KFS format provided, a generic email id and phone number can be provided by the RE in the KFS subject to the customer complaints being redressed within one working day.

45. The KFS must reveal whether the loan is currently or potentially subject to transfer to another RE entity or securitization. Therefore, if an RE fails to disclose this information while providing the KFS to the borrower, does it mean the RE is barred from transferring or securitizing the loan?

In case, the RE has revealed its intention to not transfer/securitise the loan but subsequently after disbursal intends to transfer/securitise the loan, it has to obtain the borrowers approval.

46. The Circular has prescribed that if the charges/fee payable cannot be determined prior to sanction, an upper ceiling may be prescribed by the RE. How will this upper ceiling be determined by the RE ?

The upper ceiling should be mentioned by the REs considering the maximum amount of charges that can be levied.

47. The Circular also extends to all HFCs. Henceforth, do HFCs solely need to furnish the KFS, or is there still an obligation to supply the MITC to borrowers as per the HFC directions?

The HFC directions require MITC to be provided to all borrowers for home loans. Additionally, the relevant provision of the HFC directions that mandates MITC provision has not been repealed. Therefore, until further regulatory clarity is provided on the subject, HFCs are obligated to furnish both MITC and KFS to borrowers.

48. What are the actionables for REs?

The immediate actionables for an  RE shall be as follows:

  1. RE to determine the applicability of the Circular based on the loan products offered by the RE
  2. Systems need to be capacitated to make an all-inclusive computation of APR. Note that this APR computation may be different from the Effective Interest Rate as used for accounting purposes  – for example, third-party payments on actuals are not considered as a part of the loan cashflows in IndAS 109. Nor will this be relevant for amortisation of the loan for accounting purposes – if third party payments are not reported as income.
  3. The Board is to consider and take note of the Circular in the upcoming board meeting
  4. To formulate a plan for implementation of the Circular by October 1, 2024, in terms of the following:
  1. The loan journey (physical or digital, as the case may) be shall be reviewed to ensure the implementation of the requirements under the circular.
  2. The draft of KFS to be considered and adopted for sharing with the customers
  3. System changes for APR computation to be implemented in the systems
  4. The implementation of the validity period in the systems and as a part of the loan process

49. Is there a requirement to issue a new KFS at the time part pre-payment or restructuring?

In the case of pre-payment of loan, pre-payment charges, if any should be disclosed to the borrower in the KFS under contingent charges which do not form a part of the APR. Subsequently, if there is pre-payment or part pre-payment by the borrower there is no need to issue new KFS, APR or repayment schedule since the pre-payment happens at the option of the borrower. 

The intention of the Circular is to promote standardisation and comparability of loan terms. In the case of restructuring, the terms pursuant to such restructuring are borrower specific and therefore not comparable. Accordingly, we do not see a need to again provide a new KFS.

The KFS has to be provided again at the time of levy of additional charges not mentioned in the original KFS.


Our other resources on the topic are:-

  1. Transparency in lending: RBI Mandates KFS for Retail and MSME Loans
  2. RBI Regulations on Digital Lending

Watch our Webinar on the topic here:

India securitisation volumes 2024: Has co-lending taken the sheen?

Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Three rating agencies reported different numbers, but barring the exception of one, the other two hold that the volumes in FY 24 have been lower than the last peak, FY 20. FY 20 was exceptional – it was the year post ILFS, where all balance sheet lenders and investors to NBFCs rushed to off balance sheet transactions, as bankruptcy remoteness became the key objective. The next year was an exception again – Covid wave. However, FY24 was a year of brisk economic lending, and retail credit expansion. There were, therefore, strong reasons that the watermark reached in FY 20 will be crossed. However, it just remained slightly off that, or, if the numbers given by Care Ratings are to be trusted, marginally crossed the mark.

One obvious reason is the merger of HDFC with HDFC Bank. The two contributed major chunks to Direct assignment volumes. Estimated volume lost due to the merger is around INR 40000 crores[1]. However, the other instrument that has dug a shovel in securitsation/ DA volumes is the rise in co-lending.

Read more

Crowdsourcing funds faces stiff penal actions

Nuanced structuring, conduit investor or platform advertising punished with crores of penalties

(last updated November 21, 2024)

– Pammy Jaiswal, Partner | pammy@vinodkothari.com

Background

Use of digital platforms for tapping the early stage or ongoing funding is being seen more often than before, and quite obviously so, in a networked world where crowdsourcing and crowd placing of almost everything is the norm[1]. Several well-known platforms have been showcasing the immense potential to raise funds for startups from either private equity investors, reaching very often to retail investors too. Popular TV shows spotlighting investments in start-ups have turned fundraising entrepreneurs into celebrities, further fueling this trend. In such an environment, it is notable to find that crowdsourcing funds by a startups is said to breach the law and is attracting huge penalties.

It is essential to consider several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA 2013’ or ‘Act’) dealing with public issuances and private placement, along with recent orders by the RoC and SEBI. These authorities, through detailed reasoning, have imposed significant penalties for violation, highlighting that offering privately placed securities to the public—especially through online platforms—is being done in striking contravention to Act, SEBI Act as well the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-Convertible Securities) Regulations, 2021 (‘NCS Regulations’).

This article delves into the regulatory framework for private placements, instances of non-compliance, and the legal challenges highlighted by the RoC Delhi’s order as well as a recent ex-parte interim order passed by SEBI. It also explores how start-ups with innovative ideas but limited financial history can navigate these rules to raise funds without affecting enterprise and innovation.

Read more

IRDAI notifies CG Regulations, 2024

Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Guidelines for Corporate Governance (‘2016 Guidelines’) for insurers in India have been around for close to a decade now. These Guidelines were initially brought as an update to the then 2009 Guidelines for the purpose of aligning the same with the extensive changes to the governance of companies brought about by the Companies Act, 2013. As such, the new Guidelines were framed to be mostly in line with the Act of 2013 except certain provisions such as requiring the CEO to be a WTD of the Board (where the chairman is NED), prescribing fit and proper criteria for directors, requiring certain additional committees, having only profit criteria for CSR applicability, etc.

Through the years, these Guidelines have served as a valuable source of direction in ensuring corporate governance for insurers; laying down guidance for the composition, roles and responsibilities of the Board, functions of various Board Committees, appointment and remuneration of KMPs, disclosures in financial statements, etc.

Read more

Demand and call loans: Economics and regulatory considerations

Vinod Kothari | finserv@vinodkothari.com

From lenders’ perspective, demand and call loans seem to be as liquid as money in a bank fixed deposit, and yet an option to earn substantially higher interest rates. The practice of demand loans exists in the financial marketplace; at the same time, it is often commonplace in the case of intra-group loans. However, there are various risks, considerations and regulatory implications in case of such lending.

This article goes beyond Reg. 28 of the Scale Based Regulations of the RBI and discusses economics, policy issues, liquidity and credit risk considerations, both for the lender and the borrower, as well as issues like NPA treatment, expected credit losses, etc.

What is a demand/call loan?

The word “call money” is typically used in the banking sector for very short-term loans, which are callable at any time by the lender. Demand loan is a term usually associated with longer-term loans, though with no fixed repayment date, that is to say, the loan may be demanded back by the lender at any time. The following features of demand/call loans are discernible:

  • There is no fixed repayment date, but that does not mean there is no outer date for seeking repayment of the loan at all. For example, the terms of the loan may say – the lender may seek repayment of the loan at any time; however, if any earlier repayment is not demanded by the lender, the loan will be repaid on its 1st anniversary. Hence, there is an outer date, subject to the possibility of the lender demanding repayment at any time.
  • Given its nature, the loan is also puttable by the borrower, that is, repayable by the borrower at the borrower’s instance. It does not seem logical to impose a prepayment penalty for earlier voluntary repayment by the borrower.
  • Does the demand loan have to be repaid immediately upon demand? Except in the case of call loans which are very short-term loans by nature, a demand loan may provide a certain number of days after demand, for example, 14 days after demand is made by the lender.
  • Can the repayment of the loan be demanded by the lender partially? The answer seems to be affirmative; of course, the borrower may repay the whole of the loan.
  • The principal amount of the loan is payable on demand; how about the interest? The interest should still be serviced regularly. Reg 28.2 (iv) and (v) expect interest to be serviced monthly or quarterly, unless the sanctioning authority records a reason for not insisting on regular interest service.
  • In demand loans, liquidity evaluation is as equally as important as the credit evaluation of the borrower. This is quite obvious, because however strong the financial position of the borrower, if the borrower does not have access to ready sources of liquidity, he will not be able to pay on demand.
Read more

Some relief in RBI stance on lenders’ round tripping investments in AIFs

– Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

The Reserve Bank of India on 19th December 2023 issued a notification[1] imposing a bar on all regulated entities[2] (REs) with respect to their investments in AIFs. We had covered the same in our earlier write-up. The Circular has already created some bloodshed as several banks took a hit in their Q3 results. Though late, yet welcome, the RBI has now come with some relief by a March 27 2023 circular.  The following Highlights are based on the original circular, as amended by the March 27th circular :-

What has the RBI done?

  • Prohibited all regulated entities (REs), including banks, cooperative banks, NBFCs and All India Financial Institutions from making investments in Alternative Investment funds (AIFs), if the AIF has made any investment in a “debtor company”, other than by way of equity shares of the debtor company. Hence, if the AIF has made investment by way of bonds, structured capital instruments, etc., issued by a debtor company, the bar as above will apply.
  • Debtor company means a company in which the RE currently has or previously had a loan or investment exposure anytime during the preceding 12 months
  • The bar applies immediately, that is, effective 19th Dec 2023. No further investments to be made.
  • If investments already exist, the RE shall exit within 30 days, that is, by 18th Jan., 2024. Hindsight clearly shows that for most regulated entities, there was no way to cause exit, as AIF investments are evidently illiquid. Hence, most regulated entities took a hit on their P/L.
  • Further, if an RE has made an investment in an AIF, and the AIF invests in a debtor company, the RE shall make an exit within 30 days.
  • Investment by REs in the subordinated units of any AIF scheme with a ‘priority distribution model’ subject to full deduction from RE’s capital funds. See further discussion on priority distribution model below.

What was the intent?

  • Since several REs have affiliated AIFs, routing the money through AIFs to borrowers might have led to ever greening. That is, the AIF would invest the money into a debtor company, and consequently, the debtor company would keep its account as a performing asset. In essence, the AIF was acting as a stopover in the process of round tripping of the money back to a debtor company, from where it will be used to pay off the lender.

What will be the impact of the Circular?

  • Most of the larger REs have affiliated AIFs. Flow of funds to them from the RE would stop completely.
  • The sweep of the circular is wide and non-discriminatory. Not only affiliated AIFs, but any AIF in general will be dried of funding from REs. While the bar is only for those AIFs which have invested in “debtor companies”, it will be practically tough for REs to avoid overlapping investments. Given the severe implications of a breach, compliance-sensitive REs will avoid investing in AIFs.
  • There is an immediate disinvestment pressure on AIFs, as there may be overlapped investments. AIFs’ assets are mostly illiquid – ensuring exit to RE investors may be tough. In many cases, there are lock-in restrictions as well.
  • Not only has the RBI expressed concerns, SEBI also issued a consultation paper for enhancement of trust in the AIF ecosystem, citing use of AIFs for regulatory arbitrage. See our write up on the SEBI proposals.

Direct or indirect investments:

  • As the Circular is driven by concerns of round-tripping, widening the circuit by creating more stop-overs does not help. For example, if a lender invests in an AIF, which invests in an intermediate entity, which in turn invests in a debtor entity, the trail of the money is clear. Likewise, the lender may be making an indirect investment in an AIF.
  • However, where there is no round-tripping of the money to a “debtor company”, there should be no concern. For example, if a lender makes a loan to an entity, where an AIF of the group has also made investments, there is no flow of money from the lender to the AIF, for the purpose of the downstream investment by the AIF into the debtor company.

Investments through mutual funds and FOFs exempt:

  • The 27th March circular exempts instances where investments are made by lenders into mutual funds or FoFs, and those in turn have some exposure in either an AIF or in a debtor entity.

Priority distribution model or structured AIFs

  • In addition to the concerns on downstream investments by AIFs in debtor companies, the RBI also had concerns on the so-called structured AIFs or AIFs with a distribution waterfall. Whether AIFs can at all have a priority distribution waterfall is currently under SEBI examination and SEBI has stopped AIFs from using structured distribution schemes (by way of accepting fresh commitment or making investment in a new investee company) . However, several existing schemes have such models.
  • If a lender makes an investment in the subordinated units of a structured AIF scheme such investments will get deducted from the regulatory capital of the lender. The March 27 circular now clarifies that the deduction will be equally from Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. Further, it also clarifies that the subordinated exposures in the AIF schemes could be in the form of subordinated exposures, including investment in the nature of sponsor units.

Concern areas

  • Ideally, the bar should have been limited to affiliated AIFs. Affiliated AIFs could have been defined appropriately – for example, a related party, or where the investment manager, or sponsor is a related party of the RE. Extending the bar to all AIFs is quite far from the intent of the circular – which is, admittedly, to curb evergreening. It is difficult to see how unrelated AIFs can be used by an RE to evergreen, as investment decisions of these AIFs are not exercised by the investors.
  • Ideally, the bar should have been limited only to Cat 1 and Cat 2 AIFs. Cat 3 AIFs, widely known as hedge funds, typically play in equity long/short strategies, or do other leveraged trades. REs find such investment a useful way to diversify their funds into hedge funds. Hedge fund investments are common by institutional investors all over the world; an outright curb on these investments by REs is, once again, beyond the stated intent. Notably, given the wide range of investments that Cat 3 AIFs make, avoiding an overlap with the RE’s borrowers will be quite impractical.
  • Practical implementation of this circular, if at all a RE invests in an AIF, will be quite tough. AIFs will have to share their potential investment list, which will be against any investment manager’s choice. Assuming there is an overlapped investment, the RE will have to exit within 30 days, which will create liquidity issues for AIFs, in addition to challenging the lock-in restrictions.
  • Most of the regulated entities took a provision in the 3rd quarter. The 27th March circular of the RBI gives some relief by saying that the provision will be required only to the extent of the downstream investment in a debtor entity.

In our view, there is a need to review the regulatory mechanism for AIFs, as currently, AIFs are being used as instruments of regulatory arbitrage.


[1] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12572&Mode=0

[2] Commercial Banks (including Small Finance Banks, Local Area Banks and Regional Rural Banks), Primary (Urban) Co-operative Banks/State Co-operative Banks/ Central Co-operative Banks, All-India Financial Institutions, Non-Banking Financial Companies (including Housing Finance Companies)


Other articles related to the topic:

  1. Trust, but verify: AIFs cannot be used as regulatory arbitrage (updated on October 9, 2024)
  2. FAQs on Specific Due Diligence of investors & investments of AIF
  3. RBI bars lenders’ investments in AIFs investing in their borrowers
  4. AIFs ail SEBI: Cannot be used for regulatory breach
  5. SEBI’s standard approach, standardising valuation for AIFs
  6. Comparison between non-deposit accepting NBFC – Investment and Credit Company (NBFC-ND-ICC), Core Investment Company (CIC) and an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF)
  7. Snippet on credit of existing & issue of new units of AIFs in demat form
  8. SEBI amends framework for Large Value Funds

Call for papers – Wadia Ghandy Award for Structured Finance Research, 2024

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [203.79 KB]

For more information regarding the 12th Securitisation Summit –

Overview of sustainability-linked loans

-An emerging and promising financing substitute

Surabhi Chura | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

There has been a growing emphasis on sustainability across various sectors including finance, especially, with a growing mandatory requirement of disclosure of sustainability practices by companies around the world. Various sustainability-linked finance products are designed to promote the ESG objectives of the borrower while providing financial solutions.

Traditionally, loans have remained the most common way of raising finance, and sustainable finance is no exception to the same. These loans may be labelled as green loans, social loans, sustainable loans etc. Various organisations have issued voluntary guiding principles around the same[1]. A commonality in these loans is the restriction on the “use of proceeds” – that are directed towards the green, social or sustainable objectives of the borrower. Another form of sustainable finance through loans is Sustainability-linked Loans (SLLs), where the loan contains certain sustainability-linked terms. Contrary to typical green finance products, which allocate funds for designated green projects or assets, SLLs align the loan conditions with the sustainability performance of the borrower.

Other instruments of raising sustainable finance can be through the issuance of labelled bonds or GSS+ bonds. Read more about the same in our article – Sustainable finance and GSS+ bonds. One of the more recent innovative ways of financing sustainability objects of the borrower can be through Sustainability-linked derivatives.

Read more

Single Corporate Group focused FPIs & Large value FPIs to disclose granular details of beneficial ownership

Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

August 2, 2024 (original article dated October 31, 2023)

SEBI Circular, effective 1st November 2023, required FPIs to provide the details of their beneficial owners without applying any threshold in the shareholding or on layers of intermediate entities until all the natural persons are identified. An enabling provision to this effect had also been inserted as Reg. 22(6) in SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019 effective from 10th August 2023. SEBI vide circular dated 27th July, 2023, had also mandated all non-individual FPIs to obtain Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) number by 23rd January 2024[1]. However, LEI could not address the requirement of additional disclosures as the LEI data stops at the parent entity level and does not provide the details of natural persons in control of the entity.

As to what could be the trigger for these regulatory changes may be anybody’s guess, but tacitly, the SEBI circular dated 24th August, 2023[2] (Circular) introducing some significant changes in beneficial ownership details by FPIs, made several admissions. It seemingly admitted that the disclosure of beneficial ownership by FPIs took advantage of technicalities by structuring the holding of natural persons to less than 10%. It also admitted that several FPIs had concentric investments in a single corporate group, making it apparent that these FPIs were used as conduits for investing in a single entity, and therefore, there may be affiliation between the FPIs and the controlling shareholders.

Briefly stated, the changed norms required FPIs, which have either (a) 50% or more of their Indian equity AUM in a single corporate group; or (b) hold along with investor group more than INR 25,000 Crore of equity AUM in Indian markets, to disclose their beneficial ownership, drilled down to the natural person level, irrespective of the percentage of holding, unless eligible for exemption.

These requirements, though effective from 1st November 2023, gave a time frame of 90 calendar days for existing FPIs to re-adjust their holdings. Meaning, FPIs had time till 29th January 2024 to realign their investment within the threshold prescribed in order to avoid providing the details of the beneficial owner as required under the Circular. Post 29th January 2024, FPIs whose investment continued to exceed the threshold as mentioned above were required to disclose the details of beneficial owners within 30 trading days ending on 12th March 2024, which if not provided led to cancellation of the FPI registration license and in the interim, blocking of account for further purchase of equity securities and restricted voting rights in investee companies. 

Mandatory Beneficial Ownership (‘BO’) disclosure

The new norms differed from the erstwhile norms, where BO disclosure was required if a natural person’s beneficial holding exceeded the threshold as prescribed under PML (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005, as indicated below:

Figure I  – Threshold under PML (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005

The new norms required mandatory disclosure of BO, irrespective of the percentage of holding by the BO. No matter how many layers of entities covered the identity of the BO, FPIs had to identify the natural persons holding any ownership, economic interest, or exercising control, if the FPIs fall in either of the 2 categories discussed below, unless exempted.

FPIs covered under the Circular

  1. Single Corporate Group focused FPIs:

If, instead of investing in a diverse pool of assets, an FPI has concentrated into a single corporate group, there are apparent concerns that the FPI is being used as a facade for making investments into a single entity. Thus, if on an AUM basis, more than 50% of the AUM of an FPI is in a “single corporate group”, the FPI has to provide the BO disclosure unless exempted (refer discussion below).

Intent: As per SEBI BM Agenda, the intent is to ensure there is no circumvention of minimum public shareholding norms or disclosures under SAST Regulations or investing funds routed through land border sharing countries and therefore, the need to obtain granular information around the ownership of, economic interest in, and control of FPIs with concentrated equity holdings in single companies or corporate groups.

Meaning of single corporate group: SEBI did not provide any clarity on single corporate group and left it to the stock exchanges/depositories. Rather than limiting to the existing law, BSE/NSE[3] identified a single corporate group more practically. Apart from entities having common control i.e. holding, subsidiary, associate, joint venture, and entities where promoters have major shareholding, entities which are mentioned on the website or in the annual report of the entity as a group company, have also been considered as a part of the group.

Basis this definition, BSE on its own identified the companies forming part of a single corporate group and asked the listed entities to confirm the name of the group as identified by BSE by sending communication in terms of Para 16 of the SEBI Circular that requires Stock exchanges/ Depositories to maintain a repository containing names of companies forming a part of each single corporate group and disseminate the same publicly on their websites[4].

  1. Large sized FPIs:

FPIs with an AUM of more than INR 25,000 crore, either individually or along with their investor group[5], may pose a systematic risk in the Indian markets. It will be more concerning if such FPIs are tacitly controlled by unfriendly nations, and therefore, SEBI mandated BO disclosure from such FPIs too.

Intent: As per SEBI BM Agenda, the intent was to examine from the perspective of DPIIT Press Note 3 of April 17, 2020 (although not applicable to FPI investments), if the FPI route could potentially be misused to circumvent the stipulations of the same and disrupt the orderly functioning of Indian securities markets by their actions by having a substantial number of investors from countries that share land borders with India. It is likely that the FPI with a large Indian equity portfolio may itself be situated out of a non–land bordering country, the first level/ intermediate investors in such FPIs may be based out of land–bordering countries. This reiterated the need to obtain granular information around the ownership of, economic interest in, and control of such FPIs.

Exemption from BO disclosure

  1. Single Corporate Group (‘SCG’) focused FPIs
  1. Investment in SCG is insignificant compared to global investment

There might be cases where the FPI has taken exposure over an SCG only, however, may have investments globally as well and the percentage of Indian investments might be quite less when compared with its overall global investment. In such a scenario, there are fewer chances of FPIs being used as a conduit for avoiding compliance or hiding the identity of the BO. Therefore, the FPIs which are holding more than 50% of their Indian AUM in an SCG and such investments are less than 25% of their global AUM, are exempt from providing the BO disclosure.

  1. No identified promoter in SCG

SEBI vide circular[6] dated 20th March, 2024, further exempted SCG focused FPIs meeting the following conditions:

  • The apex company does not have identified promoter;
  • Such FPI holds not more than 50% of its India equity AUM in the corporate group, after excluding its holding in the apex company with no identified promoter.
  • The composite holdings of all such FPIs (having SCG exposure) in the apex company with no identified promoter, is less than 3% of its total equity share capital,

Intent: As per the Consultation Paper the intent is that if FPI has exposure in SCG with no identified promoter in the apex company, there is no risk of circumvention of minimum public shareholding provision and may be exempted from the disclosure requirement. Further, there is a possibility that even though the apex company itself has no identified promoter, the FPI might still hold a significant part of its portfolio in group companies that have an identified promoter and therefore if their holding in the group is not significant exemption can be granted.

Fig. II Exemption from disclosure requirement in case there is no promoter in SCG.

  1. Large sized FPIs,

FPIs whose Indian AUM is more than INR 25,000 crore and their investments in India are less than 50% of their overall global investments are exempt from providing such disclosure since the probability of such FPIs being used as a facade to obtain control over Indian markets is quite less.

  1. General Exemption

FPIs that have a wide investor base or are backed by the government or government related investors do not pose any risk to Indian markets or the probability is quite low, and therefore the following categories of FPIs are exempt from providing BO disclosure. Also, if the investors in FPI fall under the below mentioned categories, then identification of BO for such investors will not be required. In case the constituents of Large sized FPIs fall under below mentioned category, their holding will also not be aggregated with their investor group to calculate the limit of Rs. 25,000 Crore.

Figure III – List of exempted FPI[7]

The below figures provide a gist of the scenarios where FPIs are required to provide the disclosure

Figure IV – Flowchart depicting the scenarios that would warrant additional disclosures

Responsibility of DDPs/Depository

The FPIs are put under the obligation to ensure compliance with the SEBI Circular, i.e. providing the BO disclosure and monitoring the concentration limit in a single corporate group and the equity investments in India. Additionally, DDPs are also required to monitor the same and intimate the FPIs wherever they breach the criteria and once the registration of FPI is invalidated as a result of non-disclosure, the Depository will intimate the investee listed company to freeze the voting rights of such FPIs to the extent of actual shareholding or shareholding corresponding to 50% of its equity AUM on the date its FPI registration is rendered invalid, whichever is lower (refer the example below).

To ensure that there is no regulatory arbitrage amongst DDPs, a standard operating procedure (SOP)[8] has been framed & followed by all the DDPs to independently validate the conformance of FPIs with the conditions and exemptions prescribed. The SOP is based on the application of the core principles of minimising Type II errors i.e. where legitimate FPIs and their investors face challenges of onerous regulatory requirements) without adding to Type I errors i.e., where FPIs that may be breaching regulations, circumvent the need to make disclosures that would bring such breaches to light, through the ‘trust – but verify’ route.

Responsibility of a Listed Entity

The FPIs whose registration is rendered invalid as a result of non-disclosure are restricted from casting their vote and it is the responsibility of investee listed company to ensure that the voting rights of such FPIs are freezed to the extent of actual shareholding or shareholding corresponding to 50% of equity AUM on the date its FPI registration is rendered invalid, whichever is lower. The said information will be provided by the depository to the investee listed entity/its RTA. The following example clarifies calculation of extent of shareholding to be freezed.

Eg. FPI XYZ has 60 shares of Company A and 40 shares of Company B as on May 13, 2024, and the FPI fails to make the additional disclosures, thereby rendering its FPI registration invalid from May 13, 2024. Thereafter, FPI’s voting rights shall be restricted to shareholding corresponding to 30 shares of Company A and 20 shares of Company B.

Suppose as on July 01, 2024, the FPI has liquidated some shares and holds 15 shares of Company A and 30 shares of Company B. As on this date, the FPI will be able to exercise voting rights corresponding to 15 shares of Company A but only 20 shares of Company B (maximum permissible voting rights in Company A).[9]

The listed entities were required to intimate the details of their corporate group to the stock exchanges and any change is to be intimated within 2 working days of the effective date of such change[10].

The non-compliant FPIs are also restricted from purchasing further equity shares, however, the responsibility is not upon the listed entity to not issue equity shares to such FPIs. The DDPs/Custodian will block the account of FPIs for further purchases and they cannot participate in any corporate action which increases the equity shareholding such as rights issue, FPOs, etc. However, credit as a result of any involuntary corporate actions such as bonus issue, scheme of arrangement, etc will be allowed.

Conclusion

SEBI had stated that there cannot be sustained capital formation without transparency and trust. The Circular is a move to foster trust and increase transparency in the Indian Capital markets. The Circular does not seem to be a hindrance to genuine FPIs, though operational challenges might be faced by the FPIs in identifying the BOs.


[1] 180 days from the date of issue of the SEBI Circular.

[2] The said circular was approved in the SEBI Board meeting dated 28th June, 2023

[3] Circular dated 30th November 2023

[4] NSE – https://www.nseindia.com/regulations/listing-compliance

BSE – https://www.bseindia.com/static/about/corporate_group_repository.aspx

[5] Investor group means FPIs which, directly or indirectly, have common ownership of more than 50% or common control.

[6] The said exemption was approved in the SEBI Board meeting dated March 15, 2024

[7] Exemption to University Funds fulfilling certain conditions granted vide SEBI Circular dated August 01, 2024

[8] https://av.sc.com/in/content/docs/in-sop-for-granular-reporting.pdf

[9] Calculation manner as provided in SOP

[10] BSE Circular dated 09th February, 2024


Fractional property shares: Come either as Small REIT, or wind up

Avinash Shetty & Kaushal Shah | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Updated as on 21st March, 2024

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [200.46 KB]

Read our other resources on REITs here:

  1. Fractional ownership schemes: Distinguishing between investment schemes and shared ownership of real assets
  2. CG norms for REITs and InvITs aligned with equity-listed entity
  3. Residual income from REITs and InvITs now covered under section 56 of Income-tax Act.
  4. REIT and InvIT unitholders with 10% aggregate holding get Board nomination rights