Posts

SEBI: Insider trading norms should apply to fund managers

Additionally invites comments on the applicability in case of units of pooled investment vehicle

Vinita Nair | Senior Partner, M/s Vinod Kothari & Company

Life of shareholders’ approval for material related party transactions

Making sense of SEBI’s 8th April clarification

Vinod Kothari & Vinita Nair | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

It has been 5 months since notification of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2021 making major recast of the regulatory processes on related party transactions;  the 8000 odd corporates consisting of the bulk of India’s financial as well as real sector continue to decode, interpret, and implement the revised framework. On the advocacy front, companies continue to make representations to, seek clarifications from SEBI ((including through stock exchanges). There is no doubt that SEBI,  as a regulator, is open to interface with companies and is often receptive to useful suggestions.

Within a span of 10 days, the 8th April clarification is the second clarification on the approval for material related party transactions (‘material RPTs’). SEBI circular dated March 30, 2022 provided a one-time relaxation by allowing companies to seek prior approval for material RPTs at the first general meeting convened after April 1, 2022. This time the clarification vide SEBI circular dated April 8, 2022 pertains to the validity term of the prior approval of shareholders for material RPTs. The circular has been rolled out, clearly,  in response to the representations made seeking clarity. The issue in hand is the insistence of the new RPT framework requiring prior approval of shareholders if the materiality threshold is crossed, which, now, has an absolute monetary frontier of Rs 1000 crores as well. So, when do companies seek shareholders’ approval, if they clearly estimate the value of the transactions with a related party crossing the frontier? The 30th March circular granted a time upto the first general meeting in FY 22-23, but what about the next financial year? Not to see their transaction volumes suddenly hitting the Rs 1000 crores limit, do companies necessarily have to get shareholders’ approval before the beginning of the financial year? For most companies, the usual routine process of shareholders’ approval is through the annual general meeting, which happens around the July-September period. But what about continuing transactions from April, till the AGM date?

It seems that the SEBI’s circular of 8th April was trying to answer this question. However, as companies try to decipher and knit-pick each word of the regulator, they may possibly be left with so many different questions after reading the 8th April circular.

We had, in our earlier write up titled ‘New Materiality Thresholds for RPTs: Nagging questions on shareholders’ approval’, done a detailed analysis of transactions and contracts and discussed various aspects of shareholders’ approval for material RPTs. In this article,  we intend to help companies to avoid any “confusification”, and see the 8th April circular as SEBI’s attempt to help companies to implement the process of shareholders’ approval, without affecting business and commercial considerations.

A.  The hierarchy of RPT approval:

  1. The audit committee (‘AC’) is the first and unarguably the most relevant point of control on RPTs. This remains the case even under the new RPT framework.
  1. AC approves RPTs in three ways:
    • An omnibus approval for small value transactions, if the value per transaction is within Rs 1 crore (or lesser value if so fixed by the AC).
    • Omnibus approval for recurring transactions, which are commonly bunched up together by type of transaction, and by a related party (such that all transactions of the same type, and with the same entity are bundled together), and taken for omnibus approval. In almost consistent corporate practice, this approval is done before the beginning of the financial year, for the ensuing financial year.
    • A specific approval for isolated or specific transactions, which continue to arise from time to time, and are generallying non-recurring in nature, or were otherwise not taken for approval as a part of the omnibus approval.
  1. Unless the transactions are failing either of the two tests – ordinary course of business,  and arms’ length, the transactions are not taken to the board of directors. Further, if the transactions are not crossing the materiality thresholds (all transactions during a financial year, with a related party, exceeding the lower of 10% of last financial year’s consolidated turnover, or Rs 1000 crores), they are not taken to shareholders. Of course, if the board so feels appropriate, particularly in cases where transactions are not in ordinary course or are failing the arms’ length test, the board may refer the transactions to shareholders’ approval, even where not mandated by the law.
  1. Thus, the board will come into picture on failure of ordinary course of business and/or arms’ length test, or when the transactions are expected to cross the materiality threshold.
  1. Shareholders’ approval is to be taken only where transactions are material, or material transactions are undergoing material modification.
  1. As per settled corporate practices, shareholders’ approval may be given (a) by a postal ballot; or (b) at a meeting of shareholders. The meeting may be the annual ritual, that is, the AGM, or an extra-ordinary one, EOGM.

B.  Manner of seeking shareholders’ approval:

  1. What do shareholders approve? A single transaction, a single contract, multiple transactions, or multiple contracts, or an unspecified bunch of transactions and contracts with one party, or unspecified transactions and contracts with unspecified parties?
  1. Since the framework for shareholders’ approval, till April this year, permitted post facto approval, most companies would have actually gone for a post-facto approval, for all that has been done, and for all that is expected to be done, and commonly as a part of the AGM resolutions. However, from this financial year, the process changes to a prior approval – hence, the practices in this regard are yet to standardize. This is possibly where SEBI was trying to be of assistance.
  1. SEBI circular of 30th March eliminates any possibility of blanket, non-speaking and non-specific approvals for transactions, and particularly so if the particulars of related parties themselves are not disclosed. Hence, as regards the granularity of the details is concerned, it should be clear that companies need to provide as much granular details as may make the process of shareholders’ approval meaningful. Unless there is a blind trust between the shareholders and the management (which, of course, is not good corporate governance), the shareholders as the approving body will like to know as much as needed for a meaningful and informed seal of sanction.
  1. However, there may be various modes of shareholders’ approval:
    • Series of similar transactions (for example, purchase of goods, sale of goods, services, financial transactions, etc) with a related party, with an estimated value during a financial year. This is, perhaps, what SEBI has referred to in 8th April circular as omnibus shareholders’ approval, as there is no concept of ‘omnibus shareholder’s approval’ in Reg. 23.
    • A particular contract, whether limited to a financial year, or spanning over more than one financial year, where the particulars of the contract, along with the definitive term over which it will run, have been disclosed to the shareholders for their approval.
    • A particular (or some particular) contracts or transactions taken to shareholders for approval, and the rest of the transactions left for the power of the AC to approve by way of omnibus approval.
  1. So, do shareholders’ approval have to be limited to a particular financial year, or may span across financial years? There is no doubt that materiality thresholds are to be tested for a financial year; therefore, generally speaking, the shareholders’ approval is sought for transactions during a financial year. The exception to this is the approval of a specific multi-year contract, where the contract itself is approved by the shareholders.
  1. The process of annual omnibus approval by the AC is already standardized, with almost 8 years of sections 177 and 188 of the Companies Act. However, it is quite clear that it is a lot easier to call the AC meeting and get an approval for transactions before the onset of the financial year; will that be the case with shareholders’ approval too? Lest companies, in every case, have to necessarily insist for an approval before the start of the financial year, SEBI was trying to be helpful in its 8th April circular.
  1. So, in our view, this is what SEBI was trying to say (and the pieces that remain unsaid, which we deduce, for the sake of a comprehensive understanding)
    • Companies may take shareholders’ approval by postal ballot, EOGM or AGM. The fact that the 8th April circular does not refer to postal ballot does not intend denial of postal ballot as the mode of shareholders’ franchise.
    • If companies take material RPTs for shareholders’ approval in AGM of 2022, does it necessarily have to pertain to transactions done in FY 22-23, or can it cover recurring transactions during the part of FY 23-23, upto the AGM 23 date? This is where SEBI is trying to help by saying in the affirmative.
      • However, companies need to understand that if the shareholders’ resolution intends to cover the period upto the next date of AGM, it should be worded accordingly.
      • There will also be a question of the underlying AC approval, because the omnibus approval of the AC would only be for FY 22-23 – we deal with this question separately below.
    • However, many companies have already taken shareholders’ approval, either by way of postal ballots or by EOGM (more likely the former). In this case, Para 5 of the 8th April Circular says that the approval will be valid only for 1 year. Does it, therefore, imply that the companies which prepared ahead of the SEBI’s clarificatory circular, and took shareholders’ approval, will now be regretting their actions, because they are mandating a similar exceptional approval year after year?
      • In our view, it will be perfectly in order to take any such approval for the needed modification in the coming AGM, and have the AGM extend the validity of the shareholders’ approval upto the date of the next AGM.
  1. Now, the lurking issue is – if the AC would have granted approval only for transactions during the ensuing financial year, is SEBI intending to shift the entire basis of RPT approvals, from financial year to the AGM-to-AGM period? That cannot be the case, as the entire basis of RPT controls is based on transaction’s volume during a financial year, compared to the turnover of the last financial year. ACs commonly see the trend of volumes achieved during a financial year, and accordingly scale up or scale down their omnibus approval limits. So, if the AC, for example, has given an omnibus approval for transactions during FY 22-23, can the AGM give an approval for transactions beyond FY 22-23, upto the AGM 23?
    • In our view, the shareholders’ approval, and that by the AC, operate in two different fields. The AC is the basic point of control and approval. Shareholders simply set out peripheries of related party transactions, and approve deviations, if any, from ordinary course of business and arms’ length principles. The fact that shareholders have approved, say, transactions upto a limit of Rs 5000 crores, does not absolve the AC from its own threshold-level scrutiny as well are review.
    • Therefore, there is no conflict between the AGM approving transactions from AGM to AGM, and the AC continuing to review, authorize and scrutinize transactions on FY basis. One cannot contend that the approval by the AGM of transactions beyond FY 23 amounts to approval for something which is not even proposed by the AC, because the AC will still continue to approve transactions for each financial year.
    • By way of abundant clarity, the language of the shareholders’ resolution may state that the approval by the shareholders, of transactions within specified limits, from the AGM to AGM (and possibly, in case of AGM 22, from 1st April 2022 to AGM 23), is without prejudice to the need for the AC to approve, authorize and review transactions on a financial year basis.
    • AC approval will be continued to be obtained on a financial year basis.

Click here to access our article corner on Related Party Transactions


FAQs on RPT regulatory framework as amended by the 6th LODR Amendment

– Team Vinod Kothari & Company | corplaw@vinodkothari.com (as on January 19, 2023)

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [637.19 KB]

LODR changes on Independent Directors – Things to do before 1st Jan., 2022

– CS Aisha Begum Ansari | CS Pieyusha Sharma | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

SEBI (LODR) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2021 | Corrigendum dated August 6, 2021

NSE Circular dated December 22, 2021 | BSE Circular dated December 22, 2021

Detailed write-ups:

1.Recent amendments relating to independent directors

2.SEBI notifies substantial amendments in Listing Regulations

3.New year brings stricter norms for appointment of IDs

4.FAQs on recent amendments under the Listing Regulations

Enhanced disclosures for RPT approvals under LODR

SEBI accepts WG proposal for detailed review

Ajay Kumar K V | Manager (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

Related Party Transactions (‘RPTs’) involve conflict of interest and may consist of a potential means to transfer funds under the smoke screen of an unrelated party, however, for the benefit of certain related persons. Taking this fact into cognizance, SEBI constituted a Working Group in November 2019 to review the policy structure and gaps pertaining to RPTs in the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations (‘Listing Regulations’), 2015 vis-à-vis the Indian Accounting Standards and the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’).  The Working Group made recommendations on expanding the scope of RPs and RPTs, as well as enhancing disclosures before the audit committee (‘AC’), shareholders, and to the exchanges (‘SEs’).

Consequently, SEBI in its meeting held on 28th September 2021[1] considered and approved the amendments to Listing Regulations in line with the recommendations of WG. The decisions have been implemented vide two separate notifications.

SEBI, vide its notification dated November 9, 2021[2], amended Regulation 23 of the Listing Regulations thereby making significant changes in the definition of Related Parties (‘RPs’), RPTs including the approval mechanism for material RPTs, etc. A detailed analysis of the said amendment can be read here.

However, the provisions with respect to the information to be placed before AC and shareholders for seeking their approval, as well as half-yearly disclosures to stock exchanges were not made part of the aforesaid amendment. These amendments have been introduced vide SEBI circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CMD1/CIR/P/2021/662 dated 22nd November 2021[3] (‘SEBI Circular’).

The Circular broadly provides for the following –

  • Information to be placed before AC;
  • Information to be provided to shareholders for consideration of RPTs; and
  • Format of disclosure of RPTs on a half-yearly basis

The Circular takes effect from 1st April 2022 (while the disclosure is to be triggered in the first half-year of 2022-2023, i.e., for the half-year ended 30th September 2022.)

Various practical implications and considerations arising out of the prescriptions of the Circular are discussed in this write-up.

Applicability

The Circular applies to listed entities which have listed their ‘specified securities’. Pursuant to the SEBI Listing Regulations 5th Amendment, a High Value Debt Listed Entity (‘HVDLEs’) is required to submit the disclosure on RTPs under Reg. 29(3) along with its standalone financial results for each half year.

HVDLEs are those listed entities which have listed its non-convertible debt securities and have an outstanding value of listed non-convertible debt securities of Rs. 500 crore and above as on 31st March 2021.

Thus, from the half-year ended 30th September 2022, HVDLEs are required to submit the disclosure of RPTs in the format prescribed in the SEBI Circular. Our detailed analysis of the amendments w.r.t HVDLEs can be read here.

Information to be provided to Audit Committee

The Act requires ‘relevant information’ to be placed before AC in case of omnibus approvals [refer, rule 6A of Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014 (‘MPB rules’)]; however, relevant information has not been prescribed as such. While one may refer to section 188 read with rule 15 of the MPB rules which prescribes specific information to be placed before the board and shareholders for approval of RPTs. It would be counter-intuitive to say that the information which goes to the board for RPT approval would not go to AC. By obvious interpretation, all such information which rule 15 lists out, ought to be placed before AC as well.

SEBI Circular now specifically provides for minimum information to be placed before AC for consideration/approval of RPTs, including the items as listed below. The quantum of information to be placed before AC under the revised framework is more exhaustive than what is provided in rule 15. Also, while it is the obligation of the listed entity to place these information before AC, as a corollary, it appears equally incumbent on AC to demand such information from the entity.

It may also be important to note (as we discuss below), the notice sent to shareholders for seeking RPT approval shall consist of a “summary of information provided to the audit committee” as well. Hence, all such things which are placed before AC, shall also come before the shareholders, albeit in a summarised form.

Information to be provided to shareholders

The SEBI Circular has specifically listed out the details required to be placed before the Audit Committee and the Shareholders which has far-reaching impact on listed entities. It states that a summary of the information provided by the management of the listed entity to the Audit Committee while the RPT was placed before it for approval, shall also be given to the Shareholders while seeking their approval. The probable outcome of the same can be:

  • Where the Audit Committee seeks very limited information for approval of RPTs
  • Where the Audit Committee over-step into an enquiry state where information that may not be relevant to the transaction be placed before it, giving birth to thoughts of concerns in the mind of Shareholders

Another important change is that while placing information to the Shareholders, a statement that the valuation or other external report, if any, relied upon by the listed entity in relation to the proposed transaction will be made available through the registered email address of the Shareholders instead of making the same available for physical inspection at the registered office of the company which has been the existing practice.

The definition of RP as amended vide SEBI LODR Sixth Amendment Regulations, excluded acceptance of fixed deposits by Banks/NBFCs at the terms uniformly applicable/offered to all shareholders/public from the same, however, such transactions still require disclosure in the format specified by SEBI. This seems to be counter-productive as the intent of the law is to ensure that no transaction intended to benefit the RPs get away from the scrutiny of the Audit Committee and the Shareholders. To the paradox, even such transactions that have been executed 100% at par with public shareholders/customers of the company are also required to be disclosed by every listed company.

Snapshot of details requires to be placed before the AC & Shareholders

Some of the items are briefly discussed below:

  1. Type, material terms and particulars of the proposed transaction – By type, one means the kind of transaction – whether it is a purchase or a sale or a loan, etc. “Material terms” is a common expression meaning all such terms which might affect decision-making. Similar expression appears in rule 15(1)(c) as well.
  2. Source of funds for loans/ICDs, etc. in connection with the proposed transaction (clause 4(f)(i)).
  3. Financial indebtedness incurred (clause 4(f)(ii)) – This would indicate the financial burden which the listed entity/subsidiary might be bearing to enter into RPTs. Most entities will have Bank/Financial Institution borrowings (or even other borrowings) as their liabilities; however, it would be important to establish a ‘direct nexus’ between such borrowings and the proposed transaction. As to what constitutes ‘direct nexus’, is a function of various factors depending upon facts of each case. This aspect is also related to disclosure related to ‘source of funds’.
  4. Justification for RPT to be in interest of the listed entity (clause 4(g)) – This requirement is in consonance with the earlier requirement put forth by SEBI relating to the affirmation to be given by CEO/CFO of the listed entity on a half-yearly basis in Annex IV[4] of the Corporate Governance Report to the SEs.
  5. Ratio of proposed transaction to turnover (clause 4(e) read with clause 4(i))-The percentage of the listed entity’s annual consolidated turnover, for the immediately preceding financial year, is represented by the value of the proposed transaction, which is mandatorily (in case a subsidiary is a party, standalone turnover shall be considered) to be placed for approval.  Further, the listed entity may, on a voluntary basis, provide the percentage of the counter-party’s annual consolidated turnover that is represented by the value of the proposed RPT.
  6. Any other relevant information – This is the residual clause. While it enables the entity to put such other information as may be relevant’ notably, it is also open to AC to seek any other information, which in AC’s view is relevant.

Information to be placed for approval of RPTs under the Act

Information to be placed before Board as per Section 188 read with Rule 15 of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014

  • name of the related party and nature of relationship;
  • the nature, duration of the contract and particulars of the contract or arrangement;
  • the material terms of the contract or arrangement including the value, if any;
  • any advance paid or received for the contract or arrangement, if any;
  • the manner of determining the pricing and other commercial terms, both included as part of contract and not considered as part of the contract;
  • whether all factors relevant to the contract have been considered, if not, the details of factors not considered with the rationale for not considering those factors; and
  • any other information relevant or important for the Board to take a decision on the proposed transaction.

Information to be placed before shareholders as per Section 188 read sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014

  • name of the related party;
  • name of the director or key managerial personnel who is related, if any;
  • nature of relationship;
  • nature, material terms, monetary value and particulars of the contract or arrangements;
  • any other information relevant or important for the members to take a decision on the proposed resolution

Though rule 15, as stated above, does not explicitly state the details to be placed before Audit Committee except in case of Omnibus approval of RPTs under rule 6A of MBP Rules , it can be construed that the details to be placed before the Board of directors of the Company for approval of RPTs should be placed before the Audit Committee while seeking prior approval for RPTs by the listed entity.

On a careful analysis of the above, it can be seen that the capital market regulator has made the regulatory framework of RPTs more water-tight as compared to the existing norms under the Act. The listed entities shall now place exhaustive details before the Audit Committee and the Shareholders as compared to the norms for unlisted companies in the country.

New format of disclosure of RPTs under Reg. 23(9) of Listing Regulations

The SEBI Working Group had in its report, provided a format for disclosure of RPTs on a half-yearly basis as specified under Reg. 23(9). So far, the listed entities have been preparing the disclosure as per the IND-AS 24 since the regulator had not specified a format for the disclosure of RPTs.

The SEBI has now prescribed a format for disclosure of RPTs as recommended by the Working Group. The notes to the disclosure format put forward significant questions on how listed companies will ensure compliance w.r.t RPTs.

The note 1 states, opening and closing balances, including commitments, to be disclosed for existing related party transactions even if there is no new related party transaction during the reporting period. This would mean that those transactions which are continuing in nature, even though there were no transactions during the reporting period shall be disclosed, including any commitments. The term ‘commitments’ would mean those arrangements where both the parties agree to perform their obligations under the contract.

In note 3, exemption has been granted to listed banks for disclosures with respect to related party transactions involving loans, inter-corporate deposits, advances or investments. However, the same has not been extended to listed NBFCs. This could lead to additional compliance burden for NBFCs even though they are engaged in the financial activities.

The note 9 states “Transactions such as acceptance of fixed deposits by banks/NBFCs, undertaken with related parties, at the terms uniformly applicable /offered to all shareholders/ public shall also be reported.”

SEBI had excluded acceptance of fixed deposits by Banks/NBFCs at terms uniformly applicable/offered to all shareholders/public from the definition of RPTs but had explicitly stated that such transactions shall be disclosed.

Having said that, one should interpret the said note in such a way that the requirement of disclosure is only for acceptance of deposits by Banks/NBFCs which have been excluded from the definition of RPTs and not any other transaction which have been availed by any related party at par with the general public.

Conclusion

The recent amendments to the Listing Regulations evidences the growing concern over the regulatory framework for RPTs. The definition of RPT has been widened to include a bunch of transactions that have never been in the radar when it comes to RPTs.

SEBI Circular also put forward new challenges for listed entities for ensuring absolute compliance of the revised regulatory framework for RPTs and few of the new requirements may bring concerns for NBFCs to ensure compliance. Furthermore, the disclosure requirements for RPTs under the Listing Regulations have been made more stringent and elaborative to enable enhanced public disclosure of RPTs.

 

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/media/press-releases/sep-2021/sebi-board-meeting_52976.html

[2] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/nov-2021/securities-and-exchange-board-of-india-listing-obligations-and-disclosure-requirements-sixth-amendment-regulations-2021_53851.html

[3] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/nov-2021/securities-and-exchange-board-of-india-listing-obligations-and-disclosure-requirements-sixth-amendment-regulations-2021_53851.html

[4] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/may-2021/format-of-compliance-report-on-corporate-governance-by-listed-entities_50338.html

 

Read our other articles on the subject: https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-related-party-transactions/

Other Corporate Law articles: https://vinodkothari.com/corporate-laws/

Presentation on Amended SEBI Framework on Related Party Transactions

Detailed analysis of the amendments in RPT framework pursuant to SEBI LODR (6th Amendment) Regulations, 2021: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/sebi-widens-the-sweep-of-related-party-provisions-drastically/

Article explaining the amendments in RPT framework with action points: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/sebi-notifies-stricter-norms-for-rpts/

Snapshot of SEBI LODR 6th Amendment Regulations 2021: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/snapshot-of-sebi-lodr-6th-amendment-regulations-2021/

Read our other articles on the subject: https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-related-party-transactions/

Other Corporate Law articles: https://vinodkothari.com/corporate-laws/

 

SEBI widens the sweep of related party provisions drastically

Presentation on Amended SEBI Framework on Related Party Transactions: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/presentation-on-amended-sebi-framework-on-related-party-transactions/

Article explaining the amendments in RPT framework with action points: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/sebi-notifies-stricter-norms-for-rpts/

Snapshot of SEBI LODR 6th Amendment Regulations 2021: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/snapshot-of-sebi-lodr-6th-amendment-regulations-2021/

Read our other articles on the subject: https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-related-party-transactions/

Other Corporate Law articles: https://vinodkothari.com/corporate-laws/

Snapshot of SEBI (LODR) (6th Amendment) Regulations, 2021

Presentation on Amended SEBI Framework on Related Party Transactions – https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/presentation-on-amended-sebi-framework-on-related-party-transactions/

Detailed analysis of the amendments in RPT framework pursuant to SEBI LODR (6th Amendment) Regulations, 2021: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/sebi-widens-the-sweep-of-related-party-provisions-drastically/

Article explaining the amendments in RPT framework with action points: https://vinodkothari.com/2021/11/sebi-notifies-stricter-norms-for-rpts/

Read our other articles on the subject at https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-related-party-transactions/

Other Corporate Law articles: https://vinodkothari.com/corporate-laws/