Diktat of demat for private companies 

MCA notifies mandatory dematerialisation for securities of private companies

Two major amendments have been notified by MCA on 27th October, 2023 impacting all companies, and majorly the private companies. These include the Companies (Management and Administration) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2023 introducing the concept of “designated person” with respect to beneficial interest in shares of a company[1] and the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 (“PAS Amendment Rules”). The PAS Amendment Rules encompass two major amendments: (i) with respect to the bearer share warrants under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956, and (ii) mandatory dematerialisation for all private companies excluding small companies. In this write-up, we briefly discuss the amendments with respect to mandatory dematerialisation of securities for the private companies and the implications thereto.

Regulatory basis of present amendment

Sub-section (1A) was inserted under Section 29 of the Companies Act 2013 (“the Act”) facilitating the Central Government to prescribe such class or classes of unlisted companies for which the securities shall be held and/ or transferred in dematerialised form only. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said section, Rule 9B has been inserted vide the PAS Amendment Rules specifying the requirement of mandatory dematerialisation of securities issued by private companies.

Applicability of mandatory dematerialisation on private companies

The mandatory dematerialisation requirement is applicable on all securities of every private company, excluding small companies[2] and government companies. The provisions are applicable with immediate effect, and a timeline of 18 months is provided from the closure of the financial year in which a private company is not a small company for the compliance with the mandatory dematerialisation requirements.

For example, a private company (other than a company that is a small company as on 31st March, 2023) is required to comply with mandatory dematerialisation of securities within a period of 18 months from the end of FY 22-23, i.e., on or before 30th September 2024.

In case a company ceases to be a small company after 31st March, 2023, the timeline of 18 months triggers from the close of the financial year in which it ceases to be a small company. Therefore, if a company ceases to be a small company at any time during FY 23-24, the timeline of 18 months will trigger from 31st March, 2024 and therefore, shall be complied with by 30th September 2025.  

Applicability on a wholly-owned subsidiary

Rule 9B of the PAS Rules, enforcing mandatory dematerialisation of the securities of private companies, is applicable on all private companies other than the following: 

  1. Small company, and  
  2. Government company

In case of unlisted public companies, sub-rule (11) of Rule 9A extends a similar exemption from dematerialisation requirements. The said sub-rule covers the following public companies – 

  1. Nidhi company, 
  2. Government company, and 
  3. A wholly owned subsidiary

It is important to note that a wholly owned subsidiary, though exempt from the dematerialisation requirements under Rule 9A, similar exemption does not extend to a private company under Rule 9B. Therefore, currently it seems that a wholly-owned subsidiary, incorporated in the form of a private company, is not exempt from dematerialisation requirements. 

Further, for a private company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a public company, and therefore, a deemed public company, it remains an open question as to whether it will be exempt under sub-rule (11) of Rule 9A or the provisions of Rule 9B will apply.

The position may be summarised as below – 

Nature of wholly-owned subsidiaryNature of holding company Applicability of dematerialisation provisions 
Public company Public company Exempt under Rule 9A(11)
Public company Private company Exempt under Rule 9A(11)
Private company Private company Covered under Rule 9B as of now
Private company Public company The same being a deemed public company, there is no clarity on whether Rule 9A applies or Rule 9B. 
If considered to be a private company – covered under Rule 9B 
If considered to be a public company – exempt in terms of Rule 9A(11)

Compliances applicable to private companies

A private company, covered under the provisions of mandatory dematerialisation shall –

  1. Issue all securities in dematerialised form only;
  2. Facilitate dematerialisation of all existing securities (as and when request is received from the holder of such securities);
  3. Ensure that the entire holding of its promoters, directors and KMPs are held in dematerialised form only, prior to making any offer for issuance or buyback of securities

Apart from the aforesaid, the compliances applicable to an unlisted public company under sub-rule (4) to (10) of Rule 9A are also applicable to private companies. These include –

  1. Application with depository for dematerialisation of all existing securities and securing ISIN for each type of security;
  2. Inform the existing security holders about the facility of dematerialisation;
  3. Make timely payment and maintenance of security deposit with the depository, RTA and STA as may be agreed between the parties;
  4. Complies with all applicable regulations, directions and guidelines with respect to dematerialisation of securities of a private company;
  5. File a return in form PAS-6 with ROC on a half yearly basis within 60 days from conclusion of each half of the financial year, with respect to reconciliation of the share capital of the company;
  6. Bring to the notice of the depositories, any difference in the issued capital by the company and the capital held in dematerialised form;
  7. The grievances of any security holders under this rule (Rule 9B) to be filed with IEPF Authority, and the same, in turn, shall initiate any action against a depository or depository participant or RTA or STA, as may be required, after prior consultation with SEBI.

Compliances applicable to the holders of securities of a private company

As for persons holding securities of a private company, while the mandatory dematerialisation cannot be enforced by the private company, the same is expected to be taken care of by way of sub-rule (4) of Rule 9B that requires –

  1. Dematerialisation of securities by the securityholder, before the transfer of such securities; and
  2. Subscription to the securities issued by a private company, in dematerialised form only

Therefore, the mandatory dematerialisation of securities of a private company is ensured through placing restrictions on both a private company and the holders of securities issued by the same.

Consequences of non-compliance 

There are no specific penal provisions governing the non-compliance with the provisions of section 29 of the Act read with Rule 9B of the PAS Rules, and therefore, general penal provisions under section 450 of the Act should apply. 

Section 450 specifies the following: 
“If a company or any officer of a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, or any condition, limitation or restriction subject to which any approval, sanction, consent, confirmation, recognition, direction or exemption in relation to any matter has been accorded, given or granted, and for which no penalty or punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees, and in case of continuing contravention, with a further penalty of one thousand rupees for each day after the first during which the contravention continues, subject to a maximum of two lakh rupees in case of a company and fifty thousand rupees in case of an officer who is in default or any other person.”

Implications of the present amendment

The existence of shell companies and personification of shareholders is not a rare scenario, and such a situation is likely to be more common in case of a private company, unlike a public company. Historically, dematerialisation of shares is looked upon by the government as a means to curb black money[3]. As for listed companies and unlisted public companies[4], the dematerialisation of securities is already a mandatory requirement. With the present amendments being notified, the private companies have also been covered by the mandatory dematerialisation requirements.

As on 31st January, 2023, more than 14 lac companies registered with MCA comprising 95% of the total active companies are private companies, out of which approximately 50,000 companies are small companies[5]. Thus, with the mandatory dematerialisation for private companies coming into existence, a large number of companies will be forced to move towards dematerialisation of shares. Further, while the company can be held accountable for the mandatory dematerialisation of securities held by promoters, directors and KMPs, given the closely held nature of private companies, barely any securityholder (particularly shareholders) will remain outside the purview of the same.

Further, it is clarified that, in no way such a mandatory dematerialisation for private companies can be taken to mean that the restriction on transfer of shares of such a company is relaxed, and adequate systems can be implemented at the depository’s level to ensure compliance with the basic distinguishing characteristic of a private company and thereby have filters before executing any transfer of securities.

You may also refer to our Snippet, FAQs and YouTube Video


[1] Read our article on the same here – https://vinodkothari.com/2023/10/companies-to-disclose-designated-person-with-respect-to-beneficial-interest-in-shares/

[2] As per the definition under the Act read with the rules made thereunder, a small company means a company, other than a public company, having paid up share capital not exceeding Rs. 4 crores and turnover not exceeding Rs. 40 crores. Further, the following cannot be a small company –

(A) a holding company or a subsidiary company;

(B) a company registered under section 8; or

(C) a company or body corporate governed by any special Act.

[3] https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/legal-trends/government-looking-to-dematerialise-shares-of-unlisted-cos-to-curb-black-money-2382347.html

[4] https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Physical-to-demat-a-move-from-opacity-to-transparency.pdf

[5] As per MCA Monthly Information Bulletin – January, 2023

AML/ CFT Compliances Expand – RBI Further Amends KYC Master Directions

– Chirag Agarwal | Executive | finserve@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI” or “Regulator”) plays a pivotal role in India meeting its anti-money laundering (AML) and combating financing of terrorism (CFT) obligations as part of its membership with the Financial Actions Task Force (FATF). As the Regulator of the credit sector and payment systems it does so by  ensuring the implementation of robust and up-to-date Know Your Customer (KYC) norms vide its  Master Direction – Know Your Customer (KYC) Direction, 2016 (“KYC Directions”). With a possible FATF evaluation around the corner, on October 17, 2023, the RBI introduced significant amendments to these KYC directives through its notification titled – Amendment to the Master Direction on KYC (“Amendment”), impacting various regulated entities, including Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs).

Read more

Consolidated NBFC Regulations for all Scales and Functions

– Anita Baid, Vice President | anita@vinodkothari.com

Updated as on 09.11.2023

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued a notification outlining a new regulatory framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) on October 19, 2023 (‘SBR Framework’). The RBI has played a crucial role in regulating the NBFC sector over the years. With the sector’s evolution and changing dynamics, the regulator has been proactive in amending regulations. Previously, NBFCs were classified into two categories: systemically important and non-systemically important. However, starting from October 2022, the RBI introduced a new classification system based on layers: base, middle, upper, and top.

The reclassification introduced some progressive changes but also created certain ambiguities in the applicability of regulatory rules. Specifically, the terms “base layer” and “middle layer” were related with non-systemically important (non-SI) and systemically important (SI) NBFCs. When classifying NBFCs based on asset size, those with assets under Rs. 500 crores were considered non-SIs, while those with assets over Rs. 500 crores were classified as SIs.

However, the SBR Framework introduced a different set of criteria. According to this framework, NBFCs with assets less than Rs. 1000 crores are categorized as Base Layer entities, while those with assets exceeding Rs. 1000 crores are classified as Middle Layer entities. This creates a gray area for NBFCs with assets falling between Rs. 500 crores and Rs. 1000 crores.

To address this issue and provide a more streamlined regulatory framework, the RBI has issued the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Company – Scale Based Regulation) Directions, 2023 (‘SBR Master Directions’).

The SBR Master Direction, effective immediately, intends to consolidate the various regulations for NBFCs of different scales and functions in one place. The consolidation has streamlined various regulations issued under the SBR Framework governing the different layers of NBFCs. It brings clarity to compliance requirements and ensures that all NBFCs operate within a framework that is consistent and transparent. The SBR Master Directions is divided into sections for different categories of NBFCs, based on size as well as function:

  1. Regulations for Base Layer;
  2. Regulations for Middle Layer (this would be in addition to the regulations for BL);
  3. Regulations for Upper Layer (this would be in addition to the regulations for BL and ML);
  4. Regulations for Top Layer (to be specifically communicated upon classification in TL);
  5. Specific Directions for MFIs this is in addition to the regulations based on layers);
  6. Specific Directions for Factors and NBFCs registered under Factoring Act (this is in addition to the regulations based on layers);
  7. Specific Directions for IDFs (this is in addition to the regulations based on layers).

Further, the specific regulations issued by the RBI would still be relevant and continue to be applicable for Housing Finance Companies, Core Investment Companies, NBFC-P2P, NBFC-Account Aggegator, deposit taking NBFCs, Residuary Non-Banking Companies, Mortgage Guarantee Companies and  Asset Reconstruction Companies. Additionally, based on the classification under the SBR Framework (BL or ML), the relevant provisions of the SBR Master Directions shall be applicable. 

Previously, under the SBR notification dated October 22, 2021, the RBI clarified that all references to NBFC-ND (non-systemically important non-deposit taking NBFC) would now be referred to as NBFC-BL, and all references to NBFC-D (deposit-taking NBFC) and NBFC-ND-SI (systemically important non-deposit taking NBFC) would be known as NBFC-ML or NBFC-UL, depending on the case.

Furthermore, it specified that existing NBFC-ND-SI with asset sizes of ₹ 500 crore and above but below ₹1000 crore (except those necessarily categorized as Middle Layer) would be reclassified as NBFC-BL.

However, upon an initial review of the SBR Master Directions, it appears that certain guidelines that were typically applicable to NBFC-SI and should logically apply to NBFC-ML are explicitly retained for NBFCs with asset sizes exceeding ₹ 500 crores. Here is a list of such guidelines:

  1. Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets dated June 07, 2019, as amended from time to time would be applicable on all NBFCs-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset size of ₹500 crore and above. It may be noted that there are specific norms for restructuring of advances by non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore
  2. Non-Cooperative Borrowers identification shall be done by all NBFC-Factors, NBFCs-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset s.ize of ₹500 crore and above.
  3. Refinancing of Project Loans to any existing infrastructure and other project loans by non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore.
  4. Framework for Revitalizing Distressed Assets in the Economy shall apply to non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore.
  5. Early Recognition of Stress and Reporting to Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC) reporting by all NBFC-Factors, NBFC-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset size of ₹500 crore and above. 

As the financial landscape continues to evolve, the RBI’s proactive approach ensures that the NBFC sector remains well-updated. 

Upon further perusal of the SBR Master Directions, it can be noticed that there are certain regulations that were issued under the SBR Framework that have not been consolidated, such as follows:

  1. Compliance Function and Role of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) – NBFCs
  2. Implementation of ‘Core Financial Services Solution’ by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)

Further, there are specific master directions on information technology framework, fraud reporting, etc. that have not been consolidated. It may also be noted that para 4.2 clarifies that the SBR Master Directions consolidate the regulations as issued by Department of Regulation (DoR); any other directions/guidelines issued by any other Department of the RBI, as applicable to an NBFC shall continue to be adhered to. Accordingly, the aforesaid regulations that were issued by the Department of Supervision (DoS) or Department of Non-Banking Supervision (DNBS) have not been consolidated and are neither listed in the Repeal Section of the SBR Master Directions. There does not seem to be any reason for the aforesaid regulations to be repealed, and hence, it seems that only those circulars and notifications that are issued by the DoR have been considered while compiling the regulations, including those introduced under the SBR Framework. Considering that there are standalone notifications on the aforesaid issued by the DoS or DNBS, therefore, the said regulations should also continue to be applicable.


Our YouTube Series realting to the topic: Tattva

Our Resources on SBR can be accessed here:

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]

Samagrata – September, 2023

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [1.11 MB]

Visit our Website: https://vinodkothari.com/

Our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@vinodkotharicompany

Clog on redemption of mortgage after publication of sale notice – SC reiterates word of law u/s 13(8)

– Team Resolution | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( ‘SARFAESI Act’) provides methods that can be undertaken by a secured creditor to recover its dues in case of a default.

Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act being an important section contains provisions relating to ‘Enforcement of Security Interest’. Sub-section (2) and (4) of section 13 describes the manner and timeline within which the creditor can enforce its rights to recover the dues against a Non-Performing Asset (‘NPA’). While, on one hand, the creditor has a right to sell the secured asset; in juxtaposition is the right of the borrower to have the property released on repayment of dues. These rights are in conflict with each other and therefore, there is a need to have clarity around the point of time at which the borrower would lose the right of redemption and the lender’s right of sale becomes absolute.

At this stage, section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act comes into picture. The present provision of section 13(8) states that where any default has been made by the borrower in terms of repayment of the dues, the amount outstanding if repaid by the borrower at any time before the date of publication of auction notice by the creditor, such a creditor shall not have any further right to transfer or to take any other step in relation to transfer of such secured asset. On a contrary, the earlier provision stated that the right of the borrower to redeem the mortgaged property shall be available till the date fixed for sale or transfer.

The provision of section 13(8) has often been debated upon wherein, several High Courts have held different views. However, a recent ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Celir Llp v Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd.[1] , has clarified the position and scope of section 13(8) before and after the amendment.

Read more

Decoupling from direct assignments, Indian securitisation moves the global way

– Vinod Kothari, Director | vinod@vinodkothari.com

The data for securitisation transactions in India for the first half of FY24 are just out, and some remarkable features are:

  • Sharp growth – nearly 40% on YoY basis, to cross Rs 100000 crores H1FY24.
  • Proper securitisations, that is, PTC transactions, register almost 90% growth
  • Direct assignment volumes may further reduce relatively, post the merger of HDFC into HDFC Bank
  • Asset-backed securities as an asset class increased share from 45% in FY 23 to 53% in FY 24.

With this, securitisation markets in India have truly started moving towards maturity. The so-called direct assignment/DA (now under regulations termed as Transfer of Loan Exposures) was a market aberration and was a convenient way for lenders to shift priority sector loan exposures. During the half year, the impact of the HDFC Ltd-HDFC Bank merger might have had some impact; it will see more impact going forward, as the bulk of the DA business was accounted for by the erstwhile duo. Further, co-lending has emerged as a very convenient alternative to direct assignments.

Read more

THE NEW FDI POLICY – MIX OF RELIEF AND BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCES AND LIMITATIONS

– Soma Bagaria & Nidhi Ladha

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [225.69 KB]

Implementation of Compliance Function by NBFC-ML

Eliza Bahrainwala, Executive| eliza@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [77.82 KB]


Our related resources on the topic:-

  1. Enhanced Corporate Governance and Compliance Function for larger NBFCs
  2. Compliance Risk Assessment

Our Resource Centre on SBR:

Cyber security incidents to be reported quarterly to stock exchanges

Circular differs from the discussion in SEBI Board meeting

– Aisha Begum Ansari | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Brief background

With business operations going digital, the threat of cyber attacks have increased considerably. Effective from April 2019, the Risk Management Committee of a listed entity was mandated by SEBI to discharge the function for laying down a framework for identifying the cyber security risks. In case of financial sector entities, the requirements laid down by the sectoral regulators are stricter and elaborate[1].

Additionally, the companies are required to report the cyber security incidents to an agency called Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (‘CERT-In’) which is established in terms of section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and comes under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (‘MEITY’).

Present Circular

Since, the cyber security incidents are material in nature and may be relevant for the investors, SEBI vide its notification dated June 14, 2023 inserted reg. 27(2)(ba) in the Listing Regulations mandating the listed entities to disclose the details of cyber security incidents or breaches or loss of data or documents in its quarterly Corporate Governance (CG) report filed in terms of Reg. 27 (2) effective from July 13, 2023. Pursuant to the same, the stock exchanges, on September 29, 2023, released a format for disclosure of cyber security incidents in the quarterly CG report commencing from quarter ended September 30, 2023 , which covers the following:

  • Confirmation on any instance of cyber security incident or breach or loss of data or documents during the quarter;
  • Date of the event;
  • Brief details of the event.

This article analyzes the above requirement in light of the proposal made in the consultation paper, discussion in SEBI Board meeting agenda and the gaps arising therefrom .

Read more