Posts

SEBI proposes to ease HVDLEs from equity linked CG norms 

Several proposals on the way to ease compliance

-Pammy Jaiswal, Partner & Sourish Kundu, Executive (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction:-

The applicability of CG norms (on a COREX basis) was extended to HVDLEs i.e. entities having an outstanding value of listed non-convertible debt securities of Rs. 500 Crore and above, by SEBI vide its notification dated 7th September, 2021. Following the extension thread for mandatory applicability of Corporate Governance (CG) norms under SEBI Listing Regulations (LODR) on High-Value Debt Listed Entities (HVDLEs) from FY 23-24  to FY 24-25  and again postponing it from 1st April, 2025, SEBI released another Consultation Paper (CP) on 31st October, 2024 containing several proposals to ease the compliance burden of HVDLEs.  A similar CP was issued earlier on 8th October, 2024 to review the CG norms primarily focusing on related party transactions (RPTs) [Our analysis on the same can be read here].

While the intent behind the CG norms being made applicable was to protect debenture holders and assimilate corporate governance amongst such issuer entities, the complexities associated with its implementation hindered the ease of doing business and increased the compliance burden manifold. The current CP delves into the comments received on the previous proposal as well as the issues that HVDLEs have been facing in practically implementing the CG norms (i.e. Regulations 16 to 27 of LODR, 2015). While it discusses the much needed and critical areas (CG chapter, mandatory committees, RPTs, etc.) where HVDLEs can be considered to be relieved and not be kept on the same pedestal as that of the equity listed entities, however, for some provisions (included for max no. of directorship, committee membership, XBRL filings, etc.), HVDLEs have been proposed to be roped in at par with entities with their specified securities listed. While each of the proposals have been discussed in detail below, a snapshot of the same can be seen in the diagram below:

Proposals relaxing CG Norms for HVDLEs 

  1. Providing In-Principle Declaration or obtaining No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from NCD holders in connection with RPTs:

One of the most crucial concerns for HVDLEs was the impossibility of compliance when it came to securing approvals for RPTs. The same was highlighted by SEBI in its earlier CP dated 8th February, 2023 wherein it was mentioned that 104 out of 138 HVDLEs as of 31st March, 2022,   comprised of shareholders with more than 90% of them being related parties (RPs). 

The current proposal is set against a reference to a banking transaction wherein the lender reserves the right to allow the borrower to enter into any transaction that might be unfavorable to the lender such as entering into RPTs. Thus, HVDLEs being of the nature of a borrower and the debenture holders being the lenders, it is paramount to protect the latter’s interests by enforcing such provisions as may be necessary and safeguarding them through a debenture trustee. 

In view of the same, the proposition has the following features:

  • Either provide an upfront declaration in the offer document with respect to the amount of RPTs proposed to be entered over the tenure of the NCDs along with the percentage of the same when compared with the issue size or obtain an NOC from the debenture trustee, who in turn needs to obtain it from the debenture holders (the majority not being related to the issuer) for all the material RPTs as and when they are required to be transacted;
    • VKCo Comments – Until the fine print of the regulations is rolled out, it is understood that only the broader limits of the estimated RPTs are required to be mentioned unless otherwise finer details are required which can become extremely difficult for these entities.Further, for the alternative requirement, there does not seem to be any incentive to first approach the debenture trustee and thereafter the trustee to approach the NCD holders, which can actually be done directly.
  • monitoring of the issue proceeds by a credit rating agency; and
  • declare the following in the offer document upfront and be maintained over the tenure of the NCDs:
    • debt-equity ratio, 
    • debt service coverage ratio; 
    • interest service coverage ratio and;
    • such other financial/ non-financial covenants 
  • VKCO Comments – Both the aforesaid proposals do not serve the exact purpose of maintaining controls over RPT. Also, these are also reflected in the financials to some extent.
  1. Introduction of a separate chapter for the governance of HVDLEs

LODR in its present form consists of 12 Chapters, each having its purpose and application. As far as the CG norms are concerned, HVDLEs are required to follow the provisions primarily centered around equity listed entities which, inter alia, relate to the composition of the Board of Directors, the constitution of various specialized committees, stipulations regarding RPTs and so on. Having said that, these provisions are not completely relatable to HVDLEs since the majority of these entities are purely debt listed without any other security being listed. Accordingly, it has been proposed to introduce a separate chapter on CG norms for HVDLEs distinct from the existing one for equity listed entities. 

VKCO Comments: While this proposal is noteworthy, however, instead of rolling out a new chapter, there could have been certain modifications in the existing regulations by way of a proviso to align with the needs of an HVDLE. Further, one also needs to wait to see the fine print of the provisions once the same is issued.

  1. Increase in threshold for being identified as an HVDLE 

Based on the data provided by NSDL as of 31st March, 2024, the number of pure debt listed entities with an outstanding of more than Rs. 500 crores is 166 (comprising of an aggregate outstanding of Rs. 13.54 lakh crores), of which 112 entities are those having an outstanding of more than Rs. 1,000 crores (comprising of an aggregate outstanding of Rs. 13.16 lakh crores). 

Further, referring to SEBI’s circular dated 19th October, 2023 in which the threshold limit of outstanding long-term borrowing was enhanced from  Rs.100  crore to Rs.1,000 Crore for the purpose of being identified as a Large Corporate called for introspection at the existing threshold of being identified as an HVDLE. Aligned with its objectives of tightening the regulatory regimes for debt listed entities and at the same time promoting ease of doing business in the corporate bond market, the proposal suggests doubling the limit from the present threshold of Rs. 500 crores to Rs. 1,000 crores.  

VKCo Comments: The proposal to enhance the extant threshold is encouraging in terms of governing the maximum value of outstanding debt while at the same time achieving the same without bearing the burden of compliance by an increased number of purely debt listed entities. Subsequently, effective implementation of such a proposal aligns it with the identification criteria of Large Corporates. 

  1. Introduction of “sunset provisions” for non-applicability of CG norms: 

The extant Regulation 3(3) of SEBI (LODR), 2015 provides for the applicability of the CG norms even when the value of the outstanding debt securities falls below the specified threshold forever. The same is in contradiction with respect to the period of applicability as compared to its equity counterpart wherein Regulation 15(2)(a) provides that the norms will have to be complied till such time that the equity share capital or net-worth of the listed entity falls and remains below the specified threshold for a period of three consecutive financial years. Accordingly, for the purpose of aligning the non-applicability, a similar sunset provision for HVDLEs too has been proposed. The proposal outlines that the CG norms shall continue to remain in force for HVDLEs till such time the value of outstanding debt listed securities (reviewed on the cutoff day being 31st March of every financial year) reduces and remains below the defined limits for a period of three consecutive financial years and further ensuring compliance within a period of six months from the date of a subsequent increase in the value above the trigger. The proposition also provides for disclosing such compliances in the Corporate Governance compliance report to be submitted on and following the third quarter of the trigger. 

VKCO Comments: The proposal is welcome since it clearly sets the HVDLEs free from the barrier of once an HVDLE so always an HVDLE. This proposal sets a clear nexus between the compliance and the size of the debt outstanding, for the protection of which in the very first place, the compliance triggered.

  1. Certain mandatory committees made optional

Regulations 19, 20 and 21 of LODR mandate the constitution of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC), Stakeholders Relationship Committee (SRC) and Risk Management Committee (RMC) respectively and provide for their composition, the number of meetings to be held, quorum, duties and responsibilities, among other things. The proposal recognises the difficulties of constituting multiple committees by HVDLEs and therefore, extends the option of either establishing such committees or ensuring delegation and discharge of their functions by the Audit Committee in the case of NRC and RMC and by the Board of Directors in case of SRC. 

VKCo Comments: Given the close construct of debt listed entities, it is often observed that the constitution of such committees becomes more of a hardship than in smoothening compliance and discussing specific matters. Accordingly, it looks appropriate to redirect the functions of NRC and RMC to the Audit Committee and that of the SRC to the Board. 

  1. Exemption to entities not being a Company

Several entities are not incorporated in the form of companies and therefore, are regulated by specific acts of the Parliament. The rationale behind this move lies in the fact that the administration of these entities is governed by such specific Acts subject to approval from the concerned Ministries. An exclusion on similar lines was granted to equity listed entities by way of Regulation 15(2)(b) which was later omitted w.e.f. 1s September, 2021 vide notification dated 5th May, 2021.

Further, it is awaited as to how effective and permanent such an exemption would be, but SEBI’s working group has proposed for dispensation of entities like NABARD, SIDBI, NHB, EXIM Bank and such other entities fulfilling the criteria as laid out above and application of CG norms to the extent that it does not violate their respective regulatory framework formulated by the concerned authorities. 

VKCo Comments: While SEBI refers to the introduction of similar exclusion for equity listed entities, however, it has also mentioned the subsequent amendment wherein the same was omitted. In any case, the instant proposal is a welcome change since it will help such entities to give preference to their principal statutes and not an ancillary one like LODR. 

Proposals to equate certain CG Norms for HVDLEs to that of equity listed entities: 

  1. Count HVDLEs under no. of directorships, and memberships of Committees:

    The extant provisions of Regulation 17A of LODR and Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013 limit the number of directorship positions that a person can hold, with appropriate sub-limits being set out with respect to public companies and equity listed companies. Similarly, Regulation 26 of the SEBI (LODR), 2015 places ceiling limits on the number of memberships and chairmanships that a person can hold in committees across all listed entities, with explicit exclusion for such positions held in HVDLEs. 

    The instant proposal is for including the directors in HVDLEs as well as committee membership and chairpersonship positions held in HVDLE just as equity listed entities are included. 

    The same has been proposed in view of the fact that directorship is a significant position in any company and therefore, multiple directorships beyond a reasonable limit are likely to inhibit the ability of a person to allocate appropriate time to play an effective role in delivering its responsibilities including the timely repayment of debt.. 

    Further, the initial proposal for inclusion of HVDLEs in max no. of directorship allows a period of six months or till the next AGM to ensure compliance. 

    VKCO Comments: The rationale completely aligns with the proposal made and seems to be justified.

    1. Compulsory filing of CG Compliance Report in XBRL format:

    Pursuant to Regulation 27(2), which mandates the submission of a quarterly report on complying with CG norms by listed entities, the format of the report has been supervised by Annexure 3 under Section II-B of the Master Circular for compliance with the provisions of SEBI (LODR), 2015 by listed entities in case of equity listed entities and Annexure VII-A under Chapter VII of the Master Circular for listing obligations and disclosure requirements for Non-convertible Securities, Securitized Debt Instruments and/or Commercial Paper in case of HVDLEs. The issue arises from the practice adopted by HVDLEs in the instant case, where filings made on the website of the stock exchange have been made in PDF format thereby affecting the readability and clause-wise compliance monitoring. Unlike the above-mentioned proposals which aim at bringing about relaxations for HVDLEs, this particular proposal tightens the regime by binding the XBRL format that is consistent with what is being filed by equity listed entities, for the report to be submitted on a quarterly basis. 

    VKCo Comments: This proposal is with an objective to align and standardize the filing of quarterly CG compliance report for bringing parity as in the case of equity listed entities. 

    1. Voluntary submission of Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR):

    This proposal originates from SEBI’s endeavour to inculcate good CG practices in HVDLEs, to be at par with equity listed entities. It is supported by Regulation 34(2)(f) which requires the top 1,000 listed entities (based on market capitalization) to include a BRSR in their annual report. It is pertinent to note in this respect that publishing of BRSR by HVDLEs is voluntary and not a mandatory requirement unless such an HVDLE also satisfies the criteria of the above-stated regulation. 

    VKCo Comments: The inclusion of a voluntary provision in the legislation with respect to a comprehensive report like BRSR is not likely to be submitted given the huge details under the BRSR. However, an opportunity to submit BRSR can be a game changer for an HVDLE from the perspective of being able to raise funds based on its reporting standards in this regard. 

    Concluding Remarks:

    The proposal under the CP provides hope for a breather when it comes to compliance with CG norms and at the same time introduces certain new requirements to maintain uniformity whether it is for the XBRL filing or inclusion of directorship and committee membership as well as chairmanship in an HVDLE for the max no. of such positions. It will also be interesting to see what is rolled out under the new chapter for HVDLEs as well as the fine print of provisions as far as RPT controls are concerned.

    Refer to our related resources below:

    Welcome Aboard Mr. 0101101: Inducting AI in corporate boardroom

    -Harshita Malik | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

    From zeroes and ones, to limitless possibilities, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has traversed a remarkable journey from theoretical concept to pervasive reality, revolutionizing industries, societies, and daily life. AI has significantly impacted various aspects of our daily lives and industries, including agriculture, finance, education, transportation, and entertainment. Corporate governance is also experiencing this transformation. This article provides an insight as to where AI stands in between the boardroom strife.

    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

    Corporate Governance: Miles Travelled and Miles to go

    Get your very own copy here

    Discover a comprehensive guide to Corporate Governance, offering an insightful journey through its evolution and key concepts. This book provides in-depth coverage across various areas, making it an essential read for professionals. Key highlights include:

    • Covers the complete ecosystem of corporate governance – board and its committees, independent directors, auditors, proxy advisors and shareholders
    • Extensive coverage on significant aspects such as conflicts of interest, information symmetry and corporate transparency
    • Futuristic focus: covers use of technology in corporate governance like the use of AI boardroom decisions
    • Sustainability and business responsibility covering directors’ liability for climate change, sustainability financing, reporting and CSR.
    • Substantial coverage on insider trading and related party transactions with guidance to practical implementation of complex provisions
    • Global coverage to understand international best practices with focus on Indian legislation so as to make a wider context for the readers.
    • Several chapters are supported by extensive, well-classified FAQs
    • Regulatory information updated till 30th June, 2024; Registered readers will be provided updates upto a limited time [check inside the Book for google form link]

    AGENDA – Felicitation meet-cum-Panel Discussion on Corporate Governance

    Register Here for the Panel Discussion on Corporate Governance

    Loader Loading…
    EAD Logo Taking too long?

    Reload Reload document
    | Open Open in new tab

    Download as PDF [144.04 KB]

    Felicitation Meet and Panel Discussion on Corporate Governance – from 1988 to Now

    Register here

    Agenda for the Panel Discussion

    About the Book

    Live on Youtube

    Loader Loading…
    EAD Logo Taking too long?

    Reload Reload document
    | Open Open in new tab

    Download as PDF [2.03 MB]

    Growing relevance of Audit Committee and IDs

    For boosting corporate governance framework

    – Pammy Jaiswal, Partner | pammy@vinodkothari.com

    Background

    In the era where the regulators are constantly bringing amendments to secure the stake and protect the interest of shareholders (including the stakeholders), it becomes imperative to understand the role, function and relevance of one such board committee being the ‘Audit Committee’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AC’) which has been given the responsibility to oversee and monitor several crucial matters after the board of directors. These functions are in the nature to ensure transparency and accountability (pillars of corporate governance) to a large extent. It has been seen in several cases in the past that lapses on the part of this committee often leads to major scams and corporate scandals.

    In this paper, the author has tried to explain the idea and intent of the law makers behind introducing the concept of the AC, its expected role and function in ensuring and boosting corporate governance given the terms of reference suggested under applicable laws in India with a brief global comparison.

    The entire Paper as was published by SSRN can be read here

    Governance by technology: The future of corporate governance

    – Pammy Jaiswal, Partner and Payal Agarwal, Senior Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

    ‘Corporate governance’ (‘CG’) is difficult to define but easy to describe. It is understood by the principles and practices that are comprised in it, under regulations, standards and best practices. Corporate governance continues to evolve, for reasons not difficult to understand. First, companies, over time, have become immensely powerful in an ever-integrated and networked economy. Two, experience with operation of companies over time have given precedents of misuse of managerial power,  conflicts of interest, opacity in reporting, lack of balance in meeting diverse stakeholder needs, and lately, ESG concerns. Every major corporate scandal leads to a fresh thinking on corporate governance principles, which is quite understandable for an adaptive process. The key objectives of corporate governance are accountability, transparency, objectivity, responsibility, etc. Globally, the concept of CG has been explained widely, just as under the OECD Principles on Corporate Governance[1] explains it to be ‘a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.’  Further, the UK Corporate Governance Code 2018[2] also refers to the definition coined by the Cadbury Committee which defined the aforesaid term to mean ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled. Boards of directors are responsible for the governance of their companies. The shareholders’ role in governance is to appoint the directors and the auditors and to satisfy themselves that an appropriate governance structure is in place.

    Read more

    CLC recommends major reforms in corporate laws for ease of doing business

    – MCA’s move to standardise, streamline and digitize

    – Payal Agarwal, Senior Executive | Vinod Kothari & Company (payal@vinodkothari.com)

    The Report of the Company Law Committee – 2022 (“CLC Report”) has proposed various important amendments to the existing Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”) and some in the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (“LLP Act”). The recommendations touch a wide array of elements under the Act – be it the association/ cooling period of directors, auditors, KMPs, etc. or corporate actions such as mergers, transfer of unclaimed monies to IEPF on account of buyback etc., de-clogging of NCLTs for restoration of company’s name after having been dissolved as defunct, setting up of specialized company law Benches of NCLT for dealing with matters of economic importance such as corporate restructuring, and specialized IBC cases or cases involving public interest. The recommendations also seek restoration of some meaningful provisions of the erstwhile CA 1956.While some suggestions pertain to ease of compliances and moving towards digitization with respect to certain compliances of a company, others pertain to building a robust corporate governance framework including alignment of the law with various provisions with SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (“Listing Regulations”).
    This is the 3rd CLC Report in the series of recommending changes to the 2013 Act, several reforms in the Act had been suggested in past by the CLC Report 2016, Committee to Review Offences Under Act of 2018 and CLC Report 2019. A brief summary of the issues under hand and the recommendations along with proposed amendments have been provided for as an Annexure to the CLC Report itself, and therefore, we find it useful to discuss only some of the recommendations which require analysis.
    Applicability
    The Committee report, if accepted by the Government, will potentially lead to an Amendment Bill, and therefore, there will be an enactment by a law of the Parliament. Once passed, it is expected that several of the amendments will require extensive rule-making, as there are references in several provisions to “class or classes of companies”. Thus, while we get a broader view of the direction into which the law will move, but as they say, the devil lies in the detail. We will get to know the details, hopefully divine and not devilish, only when the Bill is available for review.

    Read more

    Enhanced Corporate Governance and Compliance Function for larger NBFCs

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

    RBI has been concerned with the adverse regulatory arbitrage posing systemic risk in the NBFC sector. In order to align the regulatory provisions with the objective of preserving financial stability and reducing systemic risks, a scale based regulatory framework has been introduced which is to be effective from October 1, 2022. The SBR is a calibrated and graded regulatory framework proportional to the systemic significance of NBFCs.

    Read more