CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

32
Regulatory GLOBAL UPDATE October 2013, Volume 3, Issue 11 4 GLOBAL UPDATE ARTICLES NATIONAL UPDATE 10 10 Inside 15 15 4 Confederation of Indian Industry
  • date post

    14-Sep-2014
  • Category

    Business

  • view

    960
  • download

    4

description

Global Regulatory Update”, a compilation of global and domestic news, opinions on regulatory issues, CII initiatives and representations on regulatory issues. The Update is aimed at keeping CII membership apprised of developments in the international and domestic corporate governance and regulatory landscape.

Transcript of CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Page 1: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

RegulatoryGLOBAL

UPDATE

October 2013, Volume 3, Issue 11

4GLOBAL UPDATE

ARTICLESNATIONAL UPDATE 1010Inside

15154

Confederation of Indian Industry

Page 2: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

DISCLAIMER CLAUSE This Regulatory Update has been compiled with a view to update readers and CII membership of changes on the covered topics in the Corporate Governance & Regulatory Affairs domain in the international as well as the domestic front. The compilation must not be taken as an exhaustive coverage of announcements and news nor should it be used as professional advice. Although, every endeavour has been made to provide exhaustive information, no claim would be entertained in the event any information/data/details/text is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, at variance with official data/information/details released through other sources prior or subsequent to release of the issue. This is only a compilation and not a reproduction of announcements / articles / items. CII does not subscribe to the views expressed in the items. These reflect the author’s personal views and in the event of any violation of IPR by the subscribers, CII would not be held responsible in any manner. Further, no part of this Update may be reproduced, copied or used without the prior permission of CII.

1

DOMESTIC UPDATES

National Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

GLOBAL UPDATES

International Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ARTICLES

New Companies Act – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Facilitating Business Or…?

CII Submits detailed industry views on the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under

Companies Act, 2013

REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE

Emerging Issues in Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Contents

Page 3: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

DISCLAIMER CLAUSE This Regulatory Update has been compiled with a view to update readers and CII membership of changes on the covered topics in the Corporate Governance & Regulatory Affairs domain in the international as well as the domestic front. The compilation must not be taken as an exhaustive coverage of announcements and news nor should it be used as professional advice. Although, every endeavour has been made to provide exhaustive information, no claim would be entertained in the event any information/data/details/text is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, at variance with official data/information/details released through other sources prior or subsequent to release of the issue. This is only a compilation and not a reproduction of announcements / articles / items. CII does not subscribe to the views expressed in the items. These reflect the author’s personal views and in the event of any violation of IPR by the subscribers, CII would not be held responsible in any manner. Further, no part of this Update may be reproduced, copied or used without the prior permission of CII.

1

DOMESTIC UPDATES

National Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

GLOBAL UPDATES

International Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ARTICLES

New Companies Act – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Facilitating Business Or…?

CII Submits detailed industry views on the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under

Companies Act, 2013

REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE

Emerging Issues in Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Contents

Page 4: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

2

NATIONAL

By :

Release of 3rd and 4th tranche of draft Rules under Companies Act 2013

Standard Operating Procedure for Stock Exchanges in case of companies not complying with listing conditions

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has

hosted the 3rd and 4th tranche of

d r a f t R u l e s f o r v i e w s f r o m

stakeholders. The draft Rules cover

Deposits, SFIO, National Financial

Regulatory Authority (NFRA) and

IEPF. The rules are attached and also

available on the Ministry's website for

comments from stakeholders. The

URL of the weblink is

http://ncbfeedback.mca.gov.in/

I. SEBI UPDATES

SEBI by its circular dated September

30, 2013 has decided to do away with

the practice of suspending the trading

of shares of listed companies which

have defaulted, as the suspension has

turned out to affect the interests of

non-promoters much more than those

of the promoters. In case of non-

compliant companies, other penalties

such as imposition of fines, freezing of

shares of the promoter and promoter

group, transferring the trading in the

shares of the company to separate

category, would be taken before

suspending the shares of the

company.

The Standard Operating Procedure

('SOP') to be followed by the Stock

Exchanges will be as follows:

Imposition of fines (on per day

basis) on the company for non-

v

compliance and delay in compliance

with continuous listing conditions.

In case of non-compliance for 2

consecutive quarters, moving the

shares of the non-compliant

company to "Z" Category, where

the trades would be settled on

"Trade for Trade" basis.

In case non-compliance continues,

freezing the shares of the promoter

and promoter group.

In order to provide an exit window

to the non-promoters, after 15 days

of suspension of the trade, the non-

promoters on the first day of every

trading week for a period of 6

months would be able to trade their

shares on the "Trade for Trade"

basis.

v

v

v

DOMESTIC UPDATES

3

SEBI permits contracts for pre-emption and options in shareholders agreements

SEBI (Listing of Specified Securities on Institutional Trading Platform) Regulations, 2013

SEBI by its notification dated October

3, 2013 has permitted contracts for

incorporating clauses including right

of first refusal, tag-along or drag-

along rights contained in the

shareholders agreements or articles

of association of the companies.

The contracts entered into by listed

companies can now contain an option

for purchase or sale of securities

subject to the following:

(a) the title and ownership of the

underlying securities are held

continuously by the selling party

for a minimum period of 1 year

from the date of entering into the

contract;

(b) the price or consideration payable

for the sale or purchase of the

underlying securities pursuant to

exercise of any option contained

therein, is in compliance with all

applicable laws; and

(c) the contract has to be settled by

way of actual delivery of the

underlying securities.

The contracts permitted under this

notification shall be in accordance

with the provisions of Foreign

Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Further, this notification shall not

affect or validate any contract which

has been entered into prior to the date

of this notification.

This notification supersedes the

earlier SEBI notification, i.e., S.O.184

(E) dated March 1, 2000.

SEBI has released the SEBI (Listing of

Specified Securities on Institutional

Trading Platform) Regulations, 2013.

This is to allow listing and issue of

capita l by smal l and medium

enterprises on institutional trading

platform without initial public

offering. Under these regulations, the

minimum amount for trading or

investment on the Institutional

Trading Platform ('ITP') is to be Rs. 10

Lakh with an easier exit option for

entities such as Angel Investors,

Venture Capital Funds and Private

Equities. The regulations provide that

the company would not make an IPO

while its specified securities are listed

on ITP but can raise capital through

private placement or rights issue

without an option for renunciation of

rights.

Eligibility Criteria: To be eligible for

listing on an ITP, the SME company has

to satisfy certain conditions including

not appearing on the defaulters list of

the RBI; no pending winding up

petition; no regulatory action has

been taken against the company

within five years prior to the date of

application for listing; and the

company has at least one full year's

audited financial statements, for the

immediately preceding financial year

at the time of making l isting

application. The regulations also

provided that an SME seeking to list on

ITP needs to fulfill any of the

investment criteria which is either a

minimum investment of Rs 50 lakh in

its equity shares by a category of fund

approved by the regulator; or by a

Qualified institutional buyer or a

merchant banker with a lock-in period

of three years from the date of listing;

or an investment in the equity capital

has been made in the SME by a

specialised international multilateral

agency or domestic agency or a public

financial institution; or it has received

money from a scheduled bank for its

project financing or working capital

requirements and a period of three

years has elapsed from the date of

such financing and the funds so

received have been fully utilized.

Promoter Holding Lock-in: The

regulations require 20% of the post

listing capital to be held by the

promoters for a period of three years

from date of listing.

Exit Norms: Regarding exit norms, a

company can exit from ITP subject to

the shareholders approving the exit

proposal by a special resolution

passed through postal ballot where

90% of total votes and the majority of

non-promoter votes have been cast in

favour of the proposal, and the stock

exchange approves such exit.

A company whose securities are listed

on ITP will have to exit the ITP if its

securities have been listed for 10

years, the company has paid up capital

of over Rs 25 crore, revenue of more

than Rs 300 crore and market

capitalisation of more than Rs 500

crore.

Delisting: The company can be

delisted if it does not comply with the

corporate governance norm(s) for

more than one year or with the listing

r e g u l a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d b y t h e

recognized stock exchange.

Page 5: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

2

NATIONAL

By :

Release of 3rd and 4th tranche of draft Rules under Companies Act 2013

Standard Operating Procedure for Stock Exchanges in case of companies not complying with listing conditions

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has

hosted the 3rd and 4th tranche of

d r a f t R u l e s f o r v i e w s f r o m

stakeholders. The draft Rules cover

Deposits, SFIO, National Financial

Regulatory Authority (NFRA) and

IEPF. The rules are attached and also

available on the Ministry's website for

comments from stakeholders. The

URL of the weblink is

http://ncbfeedback.mca.gov.in/

I. SEBI UPDATES

SEBI by its circular dated September

30, 2013 has decided to do away with

the practice of suspending the trading

of shares of listed companies which

have defaulted, as the suspension has

turned out to affect the interests of

non-promoters much more than those

of the promoters. In case of non-

compliant companies, other penalties

such as imposition of fines, freezing of

shares of the promoter and promoter

group, transferring the trading in the

shares of the company to separate

category, would be taken before

suspending the shares of the

company.

The Standard Operating Procedure

('SOP') to be followed by the Stock

Exchanges will be as follows:

Imposition of fines (on per day

basis) on the company for non-

v

compliance and delay in compliance

with continuous listing conditions.

In case of non-compliance for 2

consecutive quarters, moving the

shares of the non-compliant

company to "Z" Category, where

the trades would be settled on

"Trade for Trade" basis.

In case non-compliance continues,

freezing the shares of the promoter

and promoter group.

In order to provide an exit window

to the non-promoters, after 15 days

of suspension of the trade, the non-

promoters on the first day of every

trading week for a period of 6

months would be able to trade their

shares on the "Trade for Trade"

basis.

v

v

v

DOMESTIC UPDATES

3

SEBI permits contracts for pre-emption and options in shareholders agreements

SEBI (Listing of Specified Securities on Institutional Trading Platform) Regulations, 2013

SEBI by its notification dated October

3, 2013 has permitted contracts for

incorporating clauses including right

of first refusal, tag-along or drag-

along rights contained in the

shareholders agreements or articles

of association of the companies.

The contracts entered into by listed

companies can now contain an option

for purchase or sale of securities

subject to the following:

(a) the title and ownership of the

underlying securities are held

continuously by the selling party

for a minimum period of 1 year

from the date of entering into the

contract;

(b) the price or consideration payable

for the sale or purchase of the

underlying securities pursuant to

exercise of any option contained

therein, is in compliance with all

applicable laws; and

(c) the contract has to be settled by

way of actual delivery of the

underlying securities.

The contracts permitted under this

notification shall be in accordance

with the provisions of Foreign

Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Further, this notification shall not

affect or validate any contract which

has been entered into prior to the date

of this notification.

This notification supersedes the

earlier SEBI notification, i.e., S.O.184

(E) dated March 1, 2000.

SEBI has released the SEBI (Listing of

Specified Securities on Institutional

Trading Platform) Regulations, 2013.

This is to allow listing and issue of

capita l by smal l and medium

enterprises on institutional trading

platform without initial public

offering. Under these regulations, the

minimum amount for trading or

investment on the Institutional

Trading Platform ('ITP') is to be Rs. 10

Lakh with an easier exit option for

entities such as Angel Investors,

Venture Capital Funds and Private

Equities. The regulations provide that

the company would not make an IPO

while its specified securities are listed

on ITP but can raise capital through

private placement or rights issue

without an option for renunciation of

rights.

Eligibility Criteria: To be eligible for

listing on an ITP, the SME company has

to satisfy certain conditions including

not appearing on the defaulters list of

the RBI; no pending winding up

petition; no regulatory action has

been taken against the company

within five years prior to the date of

application for listing; and the

company has at least one full year's

audited financial statements, for the

immediately preceding financial year

at the time of making l isting

application. The regulations also

provided that an SME seeking to list on

ITP needs to fulfill any of the

investment criteria which is either a

minimum investment of Rs 50 lakh in

its equity shares by a category of fund

approved by the regulator; or by a

Qualified institutional buyer or a

merchant banker with a lock-in period

of three years from the date of listing;

or an investment in the equity capital

has been made in the SME by a

specialised international multilateral

agency or domestic agency or a public

financial institution; or it has received

money from a scheduled bank for its

project financing or working capital

requirements and a period of three

years has elapsed from the date of

such financing and the funds so

received have been fully utilized.

Promoter Holding Lock-in: The

regulations require 20% of the post

listing capital to be held by the

promoters for a period of three years

from date of listing.

Exit Norms: Regarding exit norms, a

company can exit from ITP subject to

the shareholders approving the exit

proposal by a special resolution

passed through postal ballot where

90% of total votes and the majority of

non-promoter votes have been cast in

favour of the proposal, and the stock

exchange approves such exit.

A company whose securities are listed

on ITP will have to exit the ITP if its

securities have been listed for 10

years, the company has paid up capital

of over Rs 25 crore, revenue of more

than Rs 300 crore and market

capitalisation of more than Rs 500

crore.

Delisting: The company can be

delisted if it does not comply with the

corporate governance norm(s) for

more than one year or with the listing

r e g u l a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d b y t h e

recognized stock exchange.

Page 6: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

4

the member opts for appellate

arbitration then a positive

difference of 50% of the

amount mentioned in the

arbitration award or Rs. 1.5 lac,

whichever is less and the

amount already released to the

investor at clause (i) above,

shall be released to the

investor.

iii. I n c a s e t h e a p p e l l a t e

arbitration award is in favour of

the investor and the member

opts for making an application

under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 to set aside the

appellate arbitration award,

then a positive difference of

75% of the amount determined

in the appellate arbitration

award or Rs. 2 lac, whichever is

less and the amount already

released to the investor at

clause (i) and (ii) above, shall be

released to the investor.

iv. The amount payable by the

i n v e s t o r f o r a p p e l l a t e

arbitration has been reduced

from ̀ .30,000/- to ̀ 10,000/-.

To address the complaints received as

regards 'unauthorised trades', the

SEs' have to ensure that the contract

note issued by the member for

t r a n s a c t i o n s o w i n g t o n o n -

compliance of margin calls bears a

remark specifying the same and that

the member maintains a verifiable

record of having made such margin

calls and the clients not having

complied with the same.

SEBI has sought public comments on

the draft REIT Regulations by October

31, 2013 under which it has proposed

SEBI releases draft of Real Estate Investment Trusts Regulations, 2013 for public comments

SEBI- Streamlining Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism

SEBI to streamline the investor

grievance redressal mechanism and

make it more investor friendly, has by

its circular dated September 26, 2013

decided to give monetary relief to

investors having claims up to Rs.10 Lac

from the Investor Protection Fund of

Stock Exchange ('IPF').

Some of the salient features of the

initiatives include:

a) The Investor Grievance Redressal

Committee ('IGRC') in addition to

the conciliation process can decide

upon the admissibility of claims,

wherein if the complaint is not

resolved upon the conclusion of

the conciliation proceedings, the

IGRC would ascertain the claim

amount admissible to the investor,

which the Stock Exchange ('SE')

would block from the deposit of

t h e c o n c e r n e d m e m b e r .

Subsequently the SE would give 7

days from the date the member

signs IGRC's directions to inform

the SE, if he intends to move to the

next level of resolution i.e.

arbitration.

b) In case, the member does not opt

for arbitration, the SE would,

release the blocked amount to the

investor after the aforementioned

7 days.

c) In case, the member opts for

arbitration and the claim value

admissible is not more than Rs. 10

lac, monetary relief would be given

as mentioned below:

i. 50% of the admissible claim

value or Rs. 0.75 lac, whichever

is less, would be released to the

investor.

ii. In case the arbitration award is

in favour of the investor and

the listing of Real Estate Investment

Trusts ('REITs'). The REITs would

under the regulations be allowed to

list on stock exchanges through Initial

Public Offer ('IPO') and would be

allowed to raise funds further through

Follow-On Offers.

Qualified REIT: In order to be listed the

REIT would need to be first registered

with SEBI in the prescribed manner.

C o m p l i a n c e s : A m o n g s t t h e

compliances which the REIT would

have to undertake, it would be

mandatory for all REITs to declare its

net asset value at least twice a year

post listing. In case of an IPO, the size

of the assets would need to be at least

Rs 1,000, the same proposed to ensure

that initially only large assets and

established players enter the market.

The minimum initial offer size of Rs

250 crore and minimum public float of

25 per cent is specified to ensure

adequate public participation and

float in the units.

Raising Funds: The REIT would be able

to raise funds from any investors,

resident or foreign. However, initially,

till the market develops, it is proposed

that the units of REITs may be offered

only to High Net Worth individuals

/ institution and therefore the

minimum subscr ipt ion s ize is

proposed be Rs 2 lakh and unit size to

be Rs 1 lakh.

Sponsors are also expected to

compulsorily maintain a certain

percentage of holding in the REIT "to

ensure a 'skin-in-the-game' at all

times.

5

Investments: REITs will be able to

invest in properties directly or through

SPVs. The REIT would not be allowed

to invest in vacant land or agricultural

land or mortgages other than in

mortgage backed securities. The

investment would be restricted to

assets based in India.

Investor's Approval: To safeguard the

investors' interests, their approval has

been made mandatory for cases such

as certain related party transactions,

transactions who's value exceeds 15%

of the REIT's assets, change in

sponsor, change in investment

strategy or delisting of units.

SEBI in its Board meeting held on

October 5, 2013 has approved the

draft SEBI (Fore ign Portfol io

I n v e s t o r s ) R e g u l a t i o n s , 2 0 1 3

("Regulations").

The SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors)

Regulations, 2013 have been framed in

light of the provisions of SEBI (Foreign

Institutional Investors) Regulations,

1995, Qualified Foreign Investors

( Q F I s ) f r a m e w o r k a n d t h e

recommendations of the "Committee

on Rationalization of Investment

Routes and Monitoring of Foreign

Portfolio Investments".

T h e s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s o f t h e

Regulations include:

1. Existing FIIs, Sub Accounts and

Qualified Foreign Investors (QFIs)

shall be merged into a new

investor class termed as "FPIs".

2. S E B I a p p r o v e d D e s i g n a t e d

Depository Participants (DDPs)

shall register FPIs on behalf of SEBI

subject to compliance with KYC

requirements.

3. The FPI shall be registered as one

of the following:

SEBI approves draft SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2013

(a) "Category I Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include

Government and Government

related foreign investors;

(b) "Category II Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include

appropriately regulated broad

based funds, appropriately

regulated entities, broad based

funds whose investment

manager is appropriately

regulated, university funds,

u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d

endowments, pension funds;

or

(c) "Category III Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include all

others not eligible under

Category I and II foreign

portfolio investors.

4. All existing FIIs and sub accounts

may continue to buy, sell or

otherwise deal in securities under

the FPI regime.

5. All existing Qualified Foreign

Investors (QFIs) may continue to

buy, sell or otherwise deal in

securities till the period of one year

from the date of notification of this

regulation. In the meantime, they

may obtain FPI registration

through DDPs.

6. The registration granted to FPIs by

the DDPs on behalf of SEBI shall be

permanent unless suspended or

cancelled by SEBI.

7. FPIs shall be allowed to invest in all

those securities, wherein Foreign

Institutional Investors (FIIs) are

allowed to invest.

8. Category I and Category II FPIs

shall be allowed to issue, or

otherwise deal in offshore

derivative instruments (ODIs),

directly or indirectly.

SEBI - Issues pertaining to primary issuance of debt securities

SEBI has been holding discussions

with issuers and various other market

participants regarding the issues

c o n c e r n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o f

Corporate Bond Market. Based on the

suggestions received in the aforesaid

meetings, it has been decided to

implement the following measures:

I. Disclosure of Cash Flows: cash

flows emanating from the debt

securities shall be mentioned in

t h e P r o s p e c t u s / D i s c l o s u r e

D o c u m e n t , b y w a y o f a n

illustration.

II. Withdrawal of requirement to

upload bids on date-time priority:

allotment in the public issue of

debt securities should be made on

the basis of date of upload of each

application into the electronic

book of the stock exchange.

H o w e v e r , o n t h e d a t e o f

oversubscription, the allotments

should be made to the applicants

on proportionate basis.

III. Disclosure of unaudited financials

with limited review report: listed

issuers (who have already listed

their equity shares or debentures)

Page 7: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

4

the member opts for appellate

arbitration then a positive

difference of 50% of the

amount mentioned in the

arbitration award or Rs. 1.5 lac,

whichever is less and the

amount already released to the

investor at clause (i) above,

shall be released to the

investor.

iii. I n c a s e t h e a p p e l l a t e

arbitration award is in favour of

the investor and the member

opts for making an application

under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 to set aside the

appellate arbitration award,

then a positive difference of

75% of the amount determined

in the appellate arbitration

award or Rs. 2 lac, whichever is

less and the amount already

released to the investor at

clause (i) and (ii) above, shall be

released to the investor.

iv. The amount payable by the

i n v e s t o r f o r a p p e l l a t e

arbitration has been reduced

from ̀ .30,000/- to ̀ 10,000/-.

To address the complaints received as

regards 'unauthorised trades', the

SEs' have to ensure that the contract

note issued by the member for

t r a n s a c t i o n s o w i n g t o n o n -

compliance of margin calls bears a

remark specifying the same and that

the member maintains a verifiable

record of having made such margin

calls and the clients not having

complied with the same.

SEBI has sought public comments on

the draft REIT Regulations by October

31, 2013 under which it has proposed

SEBI releases draft of Real Estate Investment Trusts Regulations, 2013 for public comments

SEBI- Streamlining Investor Grievance Redressal Mechanism

SEBI to streamline the investor

grievance redressal mechanism and

make it more investor friendly, has by

its circular dated September 26, 2013

decided to give monetary relief to

investors having claims up to Rs.10 Lac

from the Investor Protection Fund of

Stock Exchange ('IPF').

Some of the salient features of the

initiatives include:

a) The Investor Grievance Redressal

Committee ('IGRC') in addition to

the conciliation process can decide

upon the admissibility of claims,

wherein if the complaint is not

resolved upon the conclusion of

the conciliation proceedings, the

IGRC would ascertain the claim

amount admissible to the investor,

which the Stock Exchange ('SE')

would block from the deposit of

t h e c o n c e r n e d m e m b e r .

Subsequently the SE would give 7

days from the date the member

signs IGRC's directions to inform

the SE, if he intends to move to the

next level of resolution i.e.

arbitration.

b) In case, the member does not opt

for arbitration, the SE would,

release the blocked amount to the

investor after the aforementioned

7 days.

c) In case, the member opts for

arbitration and the claim value

admissible is not more than Rs. 10

lac, monetary relief would be given

as mentioned below:

i. 50% of the admissible claim

value or Rs. 0.75 lac, whichever

is less, would be released to the

investor.

ii. In case the arbitration award is

in favour of the investor and

the listing of Real Estate Investment

Trusts ('REITs'). The REITs would

under the regulations be allowed to

list on stock exchanges through Initial

Public Offer ('IPO') and would be

allowed to raise funds further through

Follow-On Offers.

Qualified REIT: In order to be listed the

REIT would need to be first registered

with SEBI in the prescribed manner.

C o m p l i a n c e s : A m o n g s t t h e

compliances which the REIT would

have to undertake, it would be

mandatory for all REITs to declare its

net asset value at least twice a year

post listing. In case of an IPO, the size

of the assets would need to be at least

Rs 1,000, the same proposed to ensure

that initially only large assets and

established players enter the market.

The minimum initial offer size of Rs

250 crore and minimum public float of

25 per cent is specified to ensure

adequate public participation and

float in the units.

Raising Funds: The REIT would be able

to raise funds from any investors,

resident or foreign. However, initially,

till the market develops, it is proposed

that the units of REITs may be offered

only to High Net Worth individuals

/ institution and therefore the

minimum subscr ipt ion s ize is

proposed be Rs 2 lakh and unit size to

be Rs 1 lakh.

Sponsors are also expected to

compulsorily maintain a certain

percentage of holding in the REIT "to

ensure a 'skin-in-the-game' at all

times.

5

Investments: REITs will be able to

invest in properties directly or through

SPVs. The REIT would not be allowed

to invest in vacant land or agricultural

land or mortgages other than in

mortgage backed securities. The

investment would be restricted to

assets based in India.

Investor's Approval: To safeguard the

investors' interests, their approval has

been made mandatory for cases such

as certain related party transactions,

transactions who's value exceeds 15%

of the REIT's assets, change in

sponsor, change in investment

strategy or delisting of units.

SEBI in its Board meeting held on

October 5, 2013 has approved the

draft SEBI (Fore ign Portfol io

I n v e s t o r s ) R e g u l a t i o n s , 2 0 1 3

("Regulations").

The SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors)

Regulations, 2013 have been framed in

light of the provisions of SEBI (Foreign

Institutional Investors) Regulations,

1995, Qualified Foreign Investors

( Q F I s ) f r a m e w o r k a n d t h e

recommendations of the "Committee

on Rationalization of Investment

Routes and Monitoring of Foreign

Portfolio Investments".

T h e s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s o f t h e

Regulations include:

1. Existing FIIs, Sub Accounts and

Qualified Foreign Investors (QFIs)

shall be merged into a new

investor class termed as "FPIs".

2. S E B I a p p r o v e d D e s i g n a t e d

Depository Participants (DDPs)

shall register FPIs on behalf of SEBI

subject to compliance with KYC

requirements.

3. The FPI shall be registered as one

of the following:

SEBI approves draft SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2013

(a) "Category I Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include

Government and Government

related foreign investors;

(b) "Category II Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include

appropriately regulated broad

based funds, appropriately

regulated entities, broad based

funds whose investment

manager is appropriately

regulated, university funds,

u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d

endowments, pension funds;

or

(c) "Category III Foreign Portfolio

Investor" which shall include all

others not eligible under

Category I and II foreign

portfolio investors.

4. All existing FIIs and sub accounts

may continue to buy, sell or

otherwise deal in securities under

the FPI regime.

5. All existing Qualified Foreign

Investors (QFIs) may continue to

buy, sell or otherwise deal in

securities till the period of one year

from the date of notification of this

regulation. In the meantime, they

may obtain FPI registration

through DDPs.

6. The registration granted to FPIs by

the DDPs on behalf of SEBI shall be

permanent unless suspended or

cancelled by SEBI.

7. FPIs shall be allowed to invest in all

those securities, wherein Foreign

Institutional Investors (FIIs) are

allowed to invest.

8. Category I and Category II FPIs

shall be allowed to issue, or

otherwise deal in offshore

derivative instruments (ODIs),

directly or indirectly.

SEBI - Issues pertaining to primary issuance of debt securities

SEBI has been holding discussions

with issuers and various other market

participants regarding the issues

c o n c e r n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o f

Corporate Bond Market. Based on the

suggestions received in the aforesaid

meetings, it has been decided to

implement the following measures:

I. Disclosure of Cash Flows: cash

flows emanating from the debt

securities shall be mentioned in

t h e P r o s p e c t u s / D i s c l o s u r e

D o c u m e n t , b y w a y o f a n

illustration.

II. Withdrawal of requirement to

upload bids on date-time priority:

allotment in the public issue of

debt securities should be made on

the basis of date of upload of each

application into the electronic

book of the stock exchange.

H o w e v e r , o n t h e d a t e o f

oversubscription, the allotments

should be made to the applicants

on proportionate basis.

III. Disclosure of unaudited financials

with limited review report: listed

issuers (who have already listed

their equity shares or debentures)

Page 8: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

6

(STAs) and the Depositories / Issuer

companies (in-house STAs) for

effecting transmission of securities

h e l d i n p h y s i c a l a s w e l l a s

dematerialized mode. With a view to

make the transmission process more

efficient and investor friendly, it has

been decided that:

In case of transmission of securities in dematerialized mode, where the securities are held in a single name without a nominee, the existing threshold limit of ` 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) per beneficiary owner account has now been revised to ` 5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakh only), for the purpose of following simplified documentation, as already prescribed by the depositories vide bye-laws / operating instructions.

In case of transmission of securities held in physical mode:

a. where the securities are held in single name with a nominee, STAs/issuer companies shall follow the standardized documentary requirement

b. where the securities are held in single name without a nominee, the STAs/issuer companies shall follow, in the normal course, the simplified documentation, for a threshold limit of ` 2,00,000 (Rupees Two lakh only) per issuer company. However, the Issuer companies, at their discretion, may enhance the value of such securities.

The timeline for processing the transmission requests for securities held in dematerialized mode and physical mode shall be 7 days and 21 days respectively, after receipt of the prescribed documents.

In order to ensure that adequate disclosures are made to help investors

SEBI amends formats under SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011(Regulations).

in taking an informed decision, it has been decided to modify the formats for disclosures under regulation 29 (1), 29 (2) and 31 of the Regulations.

The RBI by its circular dated September 19, 2013 has decided to extend its permit in allowing the well managed domest ic scheduled commercial banks to open branches in Tier 1 centres of the country subject to their fulfilling certain criteria.

The banks seeking to open branches in Tier 1 centres will have to ensure that

(a) 25% of the total number of branches are opened in unbanked rural centres i.e. Tier 5 and 6 centres of the country; and

(b) the total number of branches in Tier 1 centres do not exceed the total number of branches opened in Tier 2 to 6 centres and in all the centres in the North Eastern States (including) Sikkim.

Further in case the bank is unable to open all the branches it is eligible to open, in Tier 1 centres in a year, it may carry-over and open them in the succeeding 2 years. However the shortfall in respect of opening branches in Tier 2 to 6 centres, or in unbanked rural centres (Tiers 5 to 6 centres) during the financial year, must necessarily be rectified within the next financial year.

The RBI by its circular dated September 27, 2013 has decided to consider applications from Urban Co-operative Banks ('UCB') for being treated as a 'financial institution' under Second Schedule of the RBI Act, 1934.

The UCB eligibility criteria requires the

II. RBI UPDATES

Branch Opening Regulations extended

RBI issues norms for UCBs to be included as financial institutions

who are in compliance with the

listing agreement, may disclose

unaudited financials with limited

review report in the offer

document, as filed with the stock

exchanges in accordance with the

listing agreement, instead of

audited financials, for the stub

p e r i o d , s u b j e c t t o m a k i n g

necessary disclosures in this

regard in offer document including

risk factors.

IV. Disclosure of contact details of

Debenture Trustees in Annual

Report: It has been decided to

amend the Listing Agreement for

Debt Securities as specified by

inserting a clause stating that the

companies, which have listed their

debt securities, shall disclose the

name of the debenture trustees

with contact details in their annual

report and as ongoing basis, on

their website, to enable the

investors to forward their

grievances to the debenture

trustees.

The provisions in Para I of this circular

shall be applicable for the debt

securities issued, in accordance with

SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt

Securities) Regulations, 2008, on or

after December 01, 2013. The

provisions in Para II and III of this

circular shall be applicable for the

draft offer document for issuance of

debt securit ies f i led with the

designated stock exchange on or after

November 01, 2013. The provisions in

Para IV shall be applicable from

December 01, 2013 and all stock

exchanges are advised to carry out the

a m e n d m e n t s i n t h e i r L i s t i n g

Agreement.

SEBI has reviewed the process being

followed by the Share Transfer Agents

Standardisation and Simplification of Procedures for Transmission of Securities

7

fulfillment of the following financial conditions:

a) Demand and Time Liabilities of not less than `750 crore on a continuous basis for one year;

b) CRAR of minimum 12%;

c) Continuous net profit for the previous three years;

d) Gross NPAs of 5% or less;

e) Compliance with CRR / SLR requirements and

f) N o m a j o r r e g u l a t o r y a n d supervisory concerns.

T h e R B I a f t e r r e c e i v i n g representations on account of the depreciating rupee value has by its circular dated September 25, 2013 decided to protect the exporters from the rupee fluctuations. The banks are now permitted to set monthly export credit limits for the borrowers in foreign currency based on the prevalent position of their current assets, current l iabi l i t ies and exchange rates.

Export Credit Limits in Foreign Currency

No Refinancing of ECB at a higher all-in-cost

Discontinuance of submitting details pertaining to expenses incurred in maintaining Branch Offices situated abroad

The RBI from October 01, 2013 has decided to discontinue allowing borrowers to raise ECB at a higher all-in-cost to refinance / reschedule an existing ECB. However, the borrowers can raise fresh ECB at a lower all-in-cost, subject to the condition that the outstanding maturity of the original ECB is either maintained or extended.

By its circular dated September 20, 2013, the RBI has decided to discontinue the practice of requiring the AD to submit half yearly statements in Form ORA to the Regional Off ice of RBI which constitute the details pertaining to the remittances and recurring expenses incurred by the Indian companies for maintaining their trading office / non-trading office / branch office/ representative office established abroad. However, the ADs may continue to keep records of the approvals granted for the opening of such offices by the Indian companies.

Clarification for ECB proceeds for acquisition of shares under the Government's disinvestment programme of PSUs

Lowering of maturity period for foreign currency borrowings undertaken by AD till November 30, 2013

The RBI has issued a clarification on September 30, 2013 by which the ECB can be availed for multiple rounds of disinvestment of the PSU shares under the Government disinvestment programme and not restricted to the first stage of acquisition of shares and the mandatory second stage offer to the public.

The RBI by its circular dated September 25, 2013 has decided to lower the maturity period from 3 years to 1 year for the foreign currency borrowings made by AD Category- I banks made on or before November 30, 2013 for the purpose of availing of the swap facility from the RBI. After t h e a f o r e s a i d d a t e , t h e s a i d borrowings will have to be of a minimum maturity of 3 years.

APPOINTMENTS

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr Melwyn Rego elevated as Deputy MD at IDBI Bank

Bajaj Allianz appoints Mr Anuj Agarwal as Managing Director

Mr Vikram Kirloskar is new SIAM President

Mr Ashok Vemuri appointed as CEO of iGate

Mr Ashok K. Kantha appointed as next Ambassador to China

Mr M.K. Goel appointed PFC Chairman

Mr Tom Albanese joins Vedanta Resources Holdings

Zenith Optimedia appoints Ms Anupriya Acharya as group CEO

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr V Bhaskar appointed as the C h a i r m a n o f A P E l e c t r i c i t y Regulatory Commission

NSEL appoints Mr Saji Cherian as new CEO & MD

Mr MK Lokesh is new ambassador to Switzerland

Escorts appoints Mr Nikhil Nanda as Managing Director

Ascendas appoints Mr Lee Fu Nyap as CEO of India operations

Tata Steel names Mr TV Narendran as MD; to assume operations from November 1

Hitachi Home & Life Solutions appoints Mr Shoji Tsubokuta as new MD

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr Ravi Bangar appointed as High Commissioner to Cyprus

Mr Pawan Goenka appointed as Mahindra's executive director

BPL Medical Technolgies appoints Mr Sunil Khurana as CEO

PepsiCo names Mr Sanjeev Chadha as CEO, AMEA region

NDTV appoints Mr Soli Sorabjee as independent ombudsman

SKS Microfinance reappoints Mr R Ramachandra Rao as MD & CEO

Mr Sundeep Sikka appointed chairman of AMFI

Page 9: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

6

(STAs) and the Depositories / Issuer

companies (in-house STAs) for

effecting transmission of securities

h e l d i n p h y s i c a l a s w e l l a s

dematerialized mode. With a view to

make the transmission process more

efficient and investor friendly, it has

been decided that:

In case of transmission of securities in dematerialized mode, where the securities are held in a single name without a nominee, the existing threshold limit of ` 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) per beneficiary owner account has now been revised to ` 5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakh only), for the purpose of following simplified documentation, as already prescribed by the depositories vide bye-laws / operating instructions.

In case of transmission of securities held in physical mode:

a. where the securities are held in single name with a nominee, STAs/issuer companies shall follow the standardized documentary requirement

b. where the securities are held in single name without a nominee, the STAs/issuer companies shall follow, in the normal course, the simplified documentation, for a threshold limit of ` 2,00,000 (Rupees Two lakh only) per issuer company. However, the Issuer companies, at their discretion, may enhance the value of such securities.

The timeline for processing the transmission requests for securities held in dematerialized mode and physical mode shall be 7 days and 21 days respectively, after receipt of the prescribed documents.

In order to ensure that adequate disclosures are made to help investors

SEBI amends formats under SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011(Regulations).

in taking an informed decision, it has been decided to modify the formats for disclosures under regulation 29 (1), 29 (2) and 31 of the Regulations.

The RBI by its circular dated September 19, 2013 has decided to extend its permit in allowing the well managed domest ic scheduled commercial banks to open branches in Tier 1 centres of the country subject to their fulfilling certain criteria.

The banks seeking to open branches in Tier 1 centres will have to ensure that

(a) 25% of the total number of branches are opened in unbanked rural centres i.e. Tier 5 and 6 centres of the country; and

(b) the total number of branches in Tier 1 centres do not exceed the total number of branches opened in Tier 2 to 6 centres and in all the centres in the North Eastern States (including) Sikkim.

Further in case the bank is unable to open all the branches it is eligible to open, in Tier 1 centres in a year, it may carry-over and open them in the succeeding 2 years. However the shortfall in respect of opening branches in Tier 2 to 6 centres, or in unbanked rural centres (Tiers 5 to 6 centres) during the financial year, must necessarily be rectified within the next financial year.

The RBI by its circular dated September 27, 2013 has decided to consider applications from Urban Co-operative Banks ('UCB') for being treated as a 'financial institution' under Second Schedule of the RBI Act, 1934.

The UCB eligibility criteria requires the

II. RBI UPDATES

Branch Opening Regulations extended

RBI issues norms for UCBs to be included as financial institutions

who are in compliance with the

listing agreement, may disclose

unaudited financials with limited

review report in the offer

document, as filed with the stock

exchanges in accordance with the

listing agreement, instead of

audited financials, for the stub

p e r i o d , s u b j e c t t o m a k i n g

necessary disclosures in this

regard in offer document including

risk factors.

IV. Disclosure of contact details of

Debenture Trustees in Annual

Report: It has been decided to

amend the Listing Agreement for

Debt Securities as specified by

inserting a clause stating that the

companies, which have listed their

debt securities, shall disclose the

name of the debenture trustees

with contact details in their annual

report and as ongoing basis, on

their website, to enable the

investors to forward their

grievances to the debenture

trustees.

The provisions in Para I of this circular

shall be applicable for the debt

securities issued, in accordance with

SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt

Securities) Regulations, 2008, on or

after December 01, 2013. The

provisions in Para II and III of this

circular shall be applicable for the

draft offer document for issuance of

debt securit ies f i led with the

designated stock exchange on or after

November 01, 2013. The provisions in

Para IV shall be applicable from

December 01, 2013 and all stock

exchanges are advised to carry out the

a m e n d m e n t s i n t h e i r L i s t i n g

Agreement.

SEBI has reviewed the process being

followed by the Share Transfer Agents

Standardisation and Simplification of Procedures for Transmission of Securities

7

fulfillment of the following financial conditions:

a) Demand and Time Liabilities of not less than `750 crore on a continuous basis for one year;

b) CRAR of minimum 12%;

c) Continuous net profit for the previous three years;

d) Gross NPAs of 5% or less;

e) Compliance with CRR / SLR requirements and

f) N o m a j o r r e g u l a t o r y a n d supervisory concerns.

T h e R B I a f t e r r e c e i v i n g representations on account of the depreciating rupee value has by its circular dated September 25, 2013 decided to protect the exporters from the rupee fluctuations. The banks are now permitted to set monthly export credit limits for the borrowers in foreign currency based on the prevalent position of their current assets, current l iabi l i t ies and exchange rates.

Export Credit Limits in Foreign Currency

No Refinancing of ECB at a higher all-in-cost

Discontinuance of submitting details pertaining to expenses incurred in maintaining Branch Offices situated abroad

The RBI from October 01, 2013 has decided to discontinue allowing borrowers to raise ECB at a higher all-in-cost to refinance / reschedule an existing ECB. However, the borrowers can raise fresh ECB at a lower all-in-cost, subject to the condition that the outstanding maturity of the original ECB is either maintained or extended.

By its circular dated September 20, 2013, the RBI has decided to discontinue the practice of requiring the AD to submit half yearly statements in Form ORA to the Regional Off ice of RBI which constitute the details pertaining to the remittances and recurring expenses incurred by the Indian companies for maintaining their trading office / non-trading office / branch office/ representative office established abroad. However, the ADs may continue to keep records of the approvals granted for the opening of such offices by the Indian companies.

Clarification for ECB proceeds for acquisition of shares under the Government's disinvestment programme of PSUs

Lowering of maturity period for foreign currency borrowings undertaken by AD till November 30, 2013

The RBI has issued a clarification on September 30, 2013 by which the ECB can be availed for multiple rounds of disinvestment of the PSU shares under the Government disinvestment programme and not restricted to the first stage of acquisition of shares and the mandatory second stage offer to the public.

The RBI by its circular dated September 25, 2013 has decided to lower the maturity period from 3 years to 1 year for the foreign currency borrowings made by AD Category- I banks made on or before November 30, 2013 for the purpose of availing of the swap facility from the RBI. After t h e a f o r e s a i d d a t e , t h e s a i d borrowings will have to be of a minimum maturity of 3 years.

APPOINTMENTS

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr Melwyn Rego elevated as Deputy MD at IDBI Bank

Bajaj Allianz appoints Mr Anuj Agarwal as Managing Director

Mr Vikram Kirloskar is new SIAM President

Mr Ashok Vemuri appointed as CEO of iGate

Mr Ashok K. Kantha appointed as next Ambassador to China

Mr M.K. Goel appointed PFC Chairman

Mr Tom Albanese joins Vedanta Resources Holdings

Zenith Optimedia appoints Ms Anupriya Acharya as group CEO

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr V Bhaskar appointed as the C h a i r m a n o f A P E l e c t r i c i t y Regulatory Commission

NSEL appoints Mr Saji Cherian as new CEO & MD

Mr MK Lokesh is new ambassador to Switzerland

Escorts appoints Mr Nikhil Nanda as Managing Director

Ascendas appoints Mr Lee Fu Nyap as CEO of India operations

Tata Steel names Mr TV Narendran as MD; to assume operations from November 1

Hitachi Home & Life Solutions appoints Mr Shoji Tsubokuta as new MD

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Mr Ravi Bangar appointed as High Commissioner to Cyprus

Mr Pawan Goenka appointed as Mahindra's executive director

BPL Medical Technolgies appoints Mr Sunil Khurana as CEO

PepsiCo names Mr Sanjeev Chadha as CEO, AMEA region

NDTV appoints Mr Soli Sorabjee as independent ombudsman

SKS Microfinance reappoints Mr R Ramachandra Rao as MD & CEO

Mr Sundeep Sikka appointed chairman of AMFI

Page 10: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

8

By :

GLOBAL

INTERNATIONAL UPDATES

a g a i n s t t h e d i r e c t o r s '

remuneration report.

The consultation document was

published on 2 October 2013 and the

deadl ine for responding is 6

December 2013.

Philippines - SEC has ordered listed

firms to make their annual corporate

governance reports more accessible

to the public. In line with the peer

rev iew process that is being

undertaken by corporate governance

experts within the Southeast Asian

region, all publicly listed companies

are mandated to post their annual

Philippines - Firms told to post corporate governance reports online

FRC consultation on UK Corporate Governance Code

l

l

l

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC)

is consulting on whether the UK

Corporate Governance Code requires

to be changed in light of the new

directors' remuneration reporting and

voting framework. The proposed

amendments:

Extend the clawback provisions.

Deter the appointment of non-

executive directors (NEDs) who

are also executive directors in

other companies as members of

the remuneration committee.

Specify the action companies

should take when a significant

minority of shareholders votes

corporate governance reports (ACGR)

in their respective websites,.

On 19 September 2013, the Court of

Justice of the European Union

('CJEU') gave its interpretation on

"professional diligence" as a major

element of companies' liability under

the Parliament and Council Directive

('the Unfair Commercial Practices

Directive') on the reference for a

preliminary ruling by the Austrian

Supreme Court.

The case brought before the Austrian

Supreme Court concerned an Austrian

travel agency which in its brochure

stated that it had exclusivity rights on

European Union judgment on strict liability of professionals

9

booking services for certain hotels. In

fact the hotels concerned had, by

contract, guaranteed such exclusivity

to the travel agency, but they did not

honour it. Thus the information

c o n t a i n e d i n b r o c h u r e s w a s

objectively incorrect and constituted,

from the viewpoint of the average

consumer, a misleading commercial

practice.

A r t i c l e 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) o f t h e U n f a i r

Commercial Practices Directive

provides that a commercial practice

would be considered 'unfair' if it is

contrary to the requirements of

professional diligence. In addition,

Article 6(1) also states that a

commercial practice shall be regarded

as 'misleading' if it contains false

inf ormat i on and i s t he re f ore

untruthful or is likely to deceive the

average consumer.

The CJEU ruled that if a commercial

practice satisfies all the criteria set out

i n A r t i c l e 6 ( 1 ) o f t h e U n f a i r

Commercial Practices Directive for

being categorised as a misleading

practice in relation to the consumer, it

will not be necessary to determine

whether such a practice is also

contrary to the requirement of

professional diligence, as referred to

in article 5(2)(a) of the Unfair

Commercial Practices Directive, in

order for it to be regarded legitimately

as unfair and, therefore, prohibited.

Therefore the CJEU isolated the

notion of misleading practice from the

general notion of unfair commercial

practice. It concluded that the

requirement of professional diligence

is not satisfied even by compliance in

good faith, it amounts to strict liability

for the professional.

This ruling of the CJEU sheds a new

light on the Unfair Commercial

Practices Directive since given by the

director may escape liability if he

shows that he acted honestly and

reasonably and the court considers

that, in all the circumstances, relief

ought to be granted.

The implementation report must set

out how the remuneration policy has

been implemented in the relevant

financial year. Shareholders will have

an annual advisory vote on a

r e s o l u t i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e

implementation report.

With a view to providing a balanced

benefit to authorities and companies

t o t h e e x t e n t o f c o n d u c t i n g

investigations and complying with the

filings and making the procedure less

cumbersome, the US Federal Trade

Commission ('FTC') and the Antitrust

Division of the Department of Justice

('DOJ'), have on 25 September 2013,

jointly released an updated model

waiver of confidentiality for use in civil

matters involving non-US competition

authorities. Confidentiality waivers

allow for the sharing of confidential

company information among the

competition agencies of different

countries and jurisdictions.

The model waiver has revised the

manner of how the FTC and DOJ will

Antitrust confidentiality waiver updated by US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice

need to ensure, in case of misleading

commercial practices, a very high level

of consumer protection. However this

ruling is also somewhat disorienting

for professionals which vis-à-vis

consumers will have no defense if not

by demonstrating the objective truth

of their advertising.

The recent amendments brought to

UK's Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform Act 2013 will introduce certain

new provisions to the Companies Act

2006, providing a framework for

shareholders' approval for the

director's remuneration policy.

The remuneration report must now

include two separate sections - the

r e m u n e r a t i o n p o l i c y a n d t h e

implementation report.

The company has to make payments

in terms of remunerating a current,

former or future director, as per the

remuneration policy. Any payment

which is inconsistent with an

approved policy will be held by the

recipient in trust and can be recovered

by way of a derivative action. The

amendments make the directors

jointly and severally liable for approve

payments outside the scope of the

remuneration policy to indemnify the

company against any loss resulting

from the payments. However the

UK brings changes to Companies Act, 2006

Page 11: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

8

By :

GLOBAL

INTERNATIONAL UPDATES

a g a i n s t t h e d i r e c t o r s '

remuneration report.

The consultation document was

published on 2 October 2013 and the

deadl ine for responding is 6

December 2013.

Philippines - SEC has ordered listed

firms to make their annual corporate

governance reports more accessible

to the public. In line with the peer

rev iew process that is being

undertaken by corporate governance

experts within the Southeast Asian

region, all publicly listed companies

are mandated to post their annual

Philippines - Firms told to post corporate governance reports online

FRC consultation on UK Corporate Governance Code

l

l

l

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC)

is consulting on whether the UK

Corporate Governance Code requires

to be changed in light of the new

directors' remuneration reporting and

voting framework. The proposed

amendments:

Extend the clawback provisions.

Deter the appointment of non-

executive directors (NEDs) who

are also executive directors in

other companies as members of

the remuneration committee.

Specify the action companies

should take when a significant

minority of shareholders votes

corporate governance reports (ACGR)

in their respective websites,.

On 19 September 2013, the Court of

Justice of the European Union

('CJEU') gave its interpretation on

"professional diligence" as a major

element of companies' liability under

the Parliament and Council Directive

('the Unfair Commercial Practices

Directive') on the reference for a

preliminary ruling by the Austrian

Supreme Court.

The case brought before the Austrian

Supreme Court concerned an Austrian

travel agency which in its brochure

stated that it had exclusivity rights on

European Union judgment on strict liability of professionals

9

booking services for certain hotels. In

fact the hotels concerned had, by

contract, guaranteed such exclusivity

to the travel agency, but they did not

honour it. Thus the information

c o n t a i n e d i n b r o c h u r e s w a s

objectively incorrect and constituted,

from the viewpoint of the average

consumer, a misleading commercial

practice.

A r t i c l e 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) o f t h e U n f a i r

Commercial Practices Directive

provides that a commercial practice

would be considered 'unfair' if it is

contrary to the requirements of

professional diligence. In addition,

Article 6(1) also states that a

commercial practice shall be regarded

as 'misleading' if it contains false

inf ormat i on and i s t he re f ore

untruthful or is likely to deceive the

average consumer.

The CJEU ruled that if a commercial

practice satisfies all the criteria set out

i n A r t i c l e 6 ( 1 ) o f t h e U n f a i r

Commercial Practices Directive for

being categorised as a misleading

practice in relation to the consumer, it

will not be necessary to determine

whether such a practice is also

contrary to the requirement of

professional diligence, as referred to

in article 5(2)(a) of the Unfair

Commercial Practices Directive, in

order for it to be regarded legitimately

as unfair and, therefore, prohibited.

Therefore the CJEU isolated the

notion of misleading practice from the

general notion of unfair commercial

practice. It concluded that the

requirement of professional diligence

is not satisfied even by compliance in

good faith, it amounts to strict liability

for the professional.

This ruling of the CJEU sheds a new

light on the Unfair Commercial

Practices Directive since given by the

director may escape liability if he

shows that he acted honestly and

reasonably and the court considers

that, in all the circumstances, relief

ought to be granted.

The implementation report must set

out how the remuneration policy has

been implemented in the relevant

financial year. Shareholders will have

an annual advisory vote on a

r e s o l u t i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e

implementation report.

With a view to providing a balanced

benefit to authorities and companies

t o t h e e x t e n t o f c o n d u c t i n g

investigations and complying with the

filings and making the procedure less

cumbersome, the US Federal Trade

Commission ('FTC') and the Antitrust

Division of the Department of Justice

('DOJ'), have on 25 September 2013,

jointly released an updated model

waiver of confidentiality for use in civil

matters involving non-US competition

authorities. Confidentiality waivers

allow for the sharing of confidential

company information among the

competition agencies of different

countries and jurisdictions.

The model waiver has revised the

manner of how the FTC and DOJ will

Antitrust confidentiality waiver updated by US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice

need to ensure, in case of misleading

commercial practices, a very high level

of consumer protection. However this

ruling is also somewhat disorienting

for professionals which vis-à-vis

consumers will have no defense if not

by demonstrating the objective truth

of their advertising.

The recent amendments brought to

UK's Enterprise and Regulatory

Reform Act 2013 will introduce certain

new provisions to the Companies Act

2006, providing a framework for

shareholders' approval for the

director's remuneration policy.

The remuneration report must now

include two separate sections - the

r e m u n e r a t i o n p o l i c y a n d t h e

implementation report.

The company has to make payments

in terms of remunerating a current,

former or future director, as per the

remuneration policy. Any payment

which is inconsistent with an

approved policy will be held by the

recipient in trust and can be recovered

by way of a derivative action. The

amendments make the directors

jointly and severally liable for approve

payments outside the scope of the

remuneration policy to indemnify the

company against any loss resulting

from the payments. However the

UK brings changes to Companies Act, 2006

Page 12: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

10

treat privileged information. If the FTC

and DOJ receive information from

another competition authority that

would be legally privileged in the

United States, the agencies will treat

such information as if it were

inadvertently produced and will

return, sequester or destroy that

information in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The agencies

have also asked the companies to

clearly identify privileged documents

to make privilege determinations

easier. The model waiver also makes

clear that it applies to both merger

and non-merger civil investigations

and to matters where international

cooperation between competition

authorities is involved.

The model waiver provides clarity on

the treatment of confidential

information disclosed to non-US

authorities and received by the FTC

a n d D O J b y s e p a r a t i n g s u c h

information in two sections. The

waiver provides that information

disclosed by the FTC and DOJ will be

treated as confidential by the non-US

authority in accordance with the laws

of the jurisdiction in which that

authority operates. The waiver further

provides that any information

indirectly received by the FTC and DOJ

will be treated as if it were obtained

directly by the FTC and DOJ, including

with respect to confidentiality,

destruction of documents and

e x e m p t i o n f r o m F r e e d o m o f

Information Act disclosures.

The model waiver is a reflection of the

growing international cooperation

between US and international

antitrust authorities and the desire by

the US agencies to eliminate obstacles

to co-operation with other antitrust

authorities.

UK's HM Revenue and Customs Authority introduces alternative dispute resolution mechanism

European Union upholds parental liability in cartel

The HM Revenue and Customs

Authority ( 'HMRC') has made

available a form of alternative dispute

resolution ('ADR') to small and

medium enterprises ('SME') and

individuals as a means of resolving tax

disputes in a time bound and efficient

manner.

SMEs and individuals can now apply to

HMRC to use a facilitation-based form

o f A D R i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h

outstanding tax disputes. This

involves the appointment of a trained

HMRC facilitator who will work with

the taxpayer and the HMRC case

owner in order to try to broker an

acceptable agreement. The process is

intended to be relatively informal.

HMRC will only accept cases if they are

considered to be suitable for ADR and

are within the framework of HMRC's

litigation and settlement strategy.

However, HMRC will not accept cases

for ADR if they involve issues requiring

clarification in the wider public

interest or which are linked to other

appeals.

ADR may, however, be useful mode of

reaching a negotiated settlement

which the SMEs and individual

taxpayers involved in prolonged

disputes with HMRC can now

consider.

The Court of Justice of the European

Union ('CJEU') has made it clear that

even if a parent company is unable, by

reason of the ownership structure of

the joint venture, to impose certain

decisions on the joint venture, it

remains possible for the parent to

exercise "decisive influence".

The CJEU dismissed appeals filed by

Dow Chemical Company ('Dow') and

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

('DuPont') related to the European

C o m m i s s i o n ' s ( ' C o m m i s s i o n ' )

decision in the chloroprene rubber

cartel. The CJEU upheld judgments

which found DuPont and Dow to be

jointly and severally liable for the

conduct of their 50-50 joint venture,

DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC ('DDE'),

on the basis that they each exercised

"decisive influence" over it. The CJEU

whi le dismissing the appeals,

highlighted on the reasoning of the

General Court which other than the

settled principle of 'decisive influence'

relied on a wider assessment of the

economic, organisational and legal

factors that linked DDE to both of its

t w o p a r e n t c o m p a n i e s a n d

particularly their involvement in their

joint venture, which was responsible

for supervising the business of DDE

and approving certain matters

p e r t a i n i n g t o i t s s t r a t e g i c

management.

The EU Commission has published a

proposal for regulation on indices

used as benchmarks in financial

instruments and financial contracts. It

covers a variety of benchmarks

EU Commission proposes regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts

11

including interest rate benchmarks

such as LIBOR and commodity

benchmarks, benchmarks used to

reference financial instruments

admitted to trading or traded on a

regulated venue, such as energy and

currency derivatives; benchmarks

that are used in financial contracts

such as mortgages and those that are

used to measure the performance of

investment funds. It seeks to improve

the governance and controls over the

benchmark process through prior

a u t h o r i s a t i o n a n d o n g o i n g

supervision at national and European

level, and requiring administrators to

avoid conflicts of interest where

possible.

The International Organization of

Securities Commissions ('IOSCO') has

on 18 September 2013 adopted

measures to encourage non-signatory

m e m b e r s t o s i g n t h e I O S C O

M u l t i l a t e r a l M e m o r a n d u m o f

Understanding on cooperation and

exchange of information ('MMoU')

which is an instrument used by

securities regulators globally to

establish an international benchmark

for cooperation and information

sharing.

The highlights of the measures are:

all outstanding non-signatory

m e m b e r s c a n n o t n o m i n a t e

candidates from their organisation

for election to leadership positions

from 30 September 2013;

all outstanding non-signatory

members in leadership positions

will be asked to step down from 31

March 2014;

the participation of non-signatory

m e m b e r s i n I O S C O P o l i c y

New IOSCO standard on cross-border cooperation

l

l

l

stock offerings after selling short

those same stocks.

The Competition Commission (CC) has

published changes that will open up

the UK audit market to greater

competition and ensure that audits

b e t t e r s e r v e t h e n e e d s o f

shareholders in future.

The main measures the CC has

proposed are as follows:

FTSE 350 companies must put

their statutory audit engagement

out to tender at least every ten

years. This differs from guidance

introduced by the Financial

Reporting Council (FRC) in 2012,

which encouraged companies to

go to tender on a 'comply or

explain' basis. No company will be

able to delay beyond ten years,

and the CC believes that many

companies would benefit from

going out to tender more

frequently at every five years. If

companies choose not to go out to

tender this frequently, the Audit

Committee will be required to

report in which financial year it

UK Competiton Commission finalises measures to open up audit market

l

Committees will be suspended from

30 June 2014; and

the voting rights of all remaining

non-signatory members will be

suspended from 30 September

2014.

The resolution will restrict the non-

signatories' ability to influence key

IOSCO decisions due to the limited

support they can provide to IOSCO's

enforcement efforts.

T h e S e c u r i t i e s a n d E x c h a n g e

Commission ('SEC') has reached a

settlement with 22 of the 23 firms

a g a i n s t w h i c h i t a n n o u n c e d

enforcement actions for short selling

violations.

The firms charged in the enforcement

actions are alleged to have bought

offered shares in a follow-on public

offering after having sold short the

same security during the restricted

period which the law prescribes to be

5 days prior to the date of the public

offering. The enforcement action

shows the commitment of the SEC

towards preventing firms from

improperly participating in public

l

SEC announces settlements in enforcement actions for short selling

Page 13: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

10

treat privileged information. If the FTC

and DOJ receive information from

another competition authority that

would be legally privileged in the

United States, the agencies will treat

such information as if it were

inadvertently produced and will

return, sequester or destroy that

information in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The agencies

have also asked the companies to

clearly identify privileged documents

to make privilege determinations

easier. The model waiver also makes

clear that it applies to both merger

and non-merger civil investigations

and to matters where international

cooperation between competition

authorities is involved.

The model waiver provides clarity on

the treatment of confidential

information disclosed to non-US

authorities and received by the FTC

a n d D O J b y s e p a r a t i n g s u c h

information in two sections. The

waiver provides that information

disclosed by the FTC and DOJ will be

treated as confidential by the non-US

authority in accordance with the laws

of the jurisdiction in which that

authority operates. The waiver further

provides that any information

indirectly received by the FTC and DOJ

will be treated as if it were obtained

directly by the FTC and DOJ, including

with respect to confidentiality,

destruction of documents and

e x e m p t i o n f r o m F r e e d o m o f

Information Act disclosures.

The model waiver is a reflection of the

growing international cooperation

between US and international

antitrust authorities and the desire by

the US agencies to eliminate obstacles

to co-operation with other antitrust

authorities.

UK's HM Revenue and Customs Authority introduces alternative dispute resolution mechanism

European Union upholds parental liability in cartel

The HM Revenue and Customs

Authority ( 'HMRC') has made

available a form of alternative dispute

resolution ('ADR') to small and

medium enterprises ('SME') and

individuals as a means of resolving tax

disputes in a time bound and efficient

manner.

SMEs and individuals can now apply to

HMRC to use a facilitation-based form

o f A D R i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h

outstanding tax disputes. This

involves the appointment of a trained

HMRC facilitator who will work with

the taxpayer and the HMRC case

owner in order to try to broker an

acceptable agreement. The process is

intended to be relatively informal.

HMRC will only accept cases if they are

considered to be suitable for ADR and

are within the framework of HMRC's

litigation and settlement strategy.

However, HMRC will not accept cases

for ADR if they involve issues requiring

clarification in the wider public

interest or which are linked to other

appeals.

ADR may, however, be useful mode of

reaching a negotiated settlement

which the SMEs and individual

taxpayers involved in prolonged

disputes with HMRC can now

consider.

The Court of Justice of the European

Union ('CJEU') has made it clear that

even if a parent company is unable, by

reason of the ownership structure of

the joint venture, to impose certain

decisions on the joint venture, it

remains possible for the parent to

exercise "decisive influence".

The CJEU dismissed appeals filed by

Dow Chemical Company ('Dow') and

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

('DuPont') related to the European

C o m m i s s i o n ' s ( ' C o m m i s s i o n ' )

decision in the chloroprene rubber

cartel. The CJEU upheld judgments

which found DuPont and Dow to be

jointly and severally liable for the

conduct of their 50-50 joint venture,

DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC ('DDE'),

on the basis that they each exercised

"decisive influence" over it. The CJEU

whi le dismissing the appeals,

highlighted on the reasoning of the

General Court which other than the

settled principle of 'decisive influence'

relied on a wider assessment of the

economic, organisational and legal

factors that linked DDE to both of its

t w o p a r e n t c o m p a n i e s a n d

particularly their involvement in their

joint venture, which was responsible

for supervising the business of DDE

and approving certain matters

p e r t a i n i n g t o i t s s t r a t e g i c

management.

The EU Commission has published a

proposal for regulation on indices

used as benchmarks in financial

instruments and financial contracts. It

covers a variety of benchmarks

EU Commission proposes regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts

11

including interest rate benchmarks

such as LIBOR and commodity

benchmarks, benchmarks used to

reference financial instruments

admitted to trading or traded on a

regulated venue, such as energy and

currency derivatives; benchmarks

that are used in financial contracts

such as mortgages and those that are

used to measure the performance of

investment funds. It seeks to improve

the governance and controls over the

benchmark process through prior

a u t h o r i s a t i o n a n d o n g o i n g

supervision at national and European

level, and requiring administrators to

avoid conflicts of interest where

possible.

The International Organization of

Securities Commissions ('IOSCO') has

on 18 September 2013 adopted

measures to encourage non-signatory

m e m b e r s t o s i g n t h e I O S C O

M u l t i l a t e r a l M e m o r a n d u m o f

Understanding on cooperation and

exchange of information ('MMoU')

which is an instrument used by

securities regulators globally to

establish an international benchmark

for cooperation and information

sharing.

The highlights of the measures are:

all outstanding non-signatory

m e m b e r s c a n n o t n o m i n a t e

candidates from their organisation

for election to leadership positions

from 30 September 2013;

all outstanding non-signatory

members in leadership positions

will be asked to step down from 31

March 2014;

the participation of non-signatory

m e m b e r s i n I O S C O P o l i c y

New IOSCO standard on cross-border cooperation

l

l

l

stock offerings after selling short

those same stocks.

The Competition Commission (CC) has

published changes that will open up

the UK audit market to greater

competition and ensure that audits

b e t t e r s e r v e t h e n e e d s o f

shareholders in future.

The main measures the CC has

proposed are as follows:

FTSE 350 companies must put

their statutory audit engagement

out to tender at least every ten

years. This differs from guidance

introduced by the Financial

Reporting Council (FRC) in 2012,

which encouraged companies to

go to tender on a 'comply or

explain' basis. No company will be

able to delay beyond ten years,

and the CC believes that many

companies would benefit from

going out to tender more

frequently at every five years. If

companies choose not to go out to

tender this frequently, the Audit

Committee will be required to

report in which financial year it

UK Competiton Commission finalises measures to open up audit market

l

Committees will be suspended from

30 June 2014; and

the voting rights of all remaining

non-signatory members will be

suspended from 30 September

2014.

The resolution will restrict the non-

signatories' ability to influence key

IOSCO decisions due to the limited

support they can provide to IOSCO's

enforcement efforts.

T h e S e c u r i t i e s a n d E x c h a n g e

Commission ('SEC') has reached a

settlement with 22 of the 23 firms

a g a i n s t w h i c h i t a n n o u n c e d

enforcement actions for short selling

violations.

The firms charged in the enforcement

actions are alleged to have bought

offered shares in a follow-on public

offering after having sold short the

same security during the restricted

period which the law prescribes to be

5 days prior to the date of the public

offering. The enforcement action

shows the commitment of the SEC

towards preventing firms from

improperly participating in public

l

SEC announces settlements in enforcement actions for short selling

Page 14: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

12

W: www.verus.net.in

New DelhiE-177 Lower Ground FloorEast of Kailash New Delhi 110065

E: [email protected]

T: +91 11 26215601 / 02

F: +91 11 26215603

Kolkata10 Old Post Office StreetGround FloorKolkata 700001

E: [email protected]

T: +91 33 22308909

F: +91 33 22487823

HyderabadChamber#103 Ground Floor 6-3-252/A/10 Sana Apartments, ErramanzilHyderabad 500082

E: [email protected]

T: +91 40 39935766

Winner: Best Newcomers: India Business Law Journal Awards2012

Mumbai24 M. C. C. LaneFortMumbai 400023

E: [email protected]

T: +91 22 22834130 / 01

F: +91 22 22834102

India member firm of:

CONTACT

Krishnayan Sen / Dipankar Bandyopadhyay

[email protected]

plans to put the audit engagement

out to tender and why this is in the

best interests of shareholders.

The FRC's Audit Quality Review

(AQR) team should review every

audit engagement in the FTSE 350

on average every five years. The

Audit Committee should report to

l

shareholders on the findings of

any AQR report concluded on the

company's audit engagement

during the reporting period.

A prohibition of 'Big-4-only'

clauses in loan agreements (ie

clauses that limit a company's

choice of auditor to a preselected

list or category), although it will be

possible to specify that any

auditor should satisfy objective

criteria.

There must be a shareholders'

vote at the AGM on whether Audit

Committee Reports in company

annual reports are satisfactory.

High quality global journalism

requires investment. Please share

this article with others using the

link below, do not cut & paste the

article. See our Ts&Cs and

Copyright Policy for more detail.

Email [email protected] to

b u y a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t s .

l

l

l

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6141a3

e 2 - 2 a a 9 - 1 1 e 3 - a d e 3

00144feab7de.html#ixzz2jCv41pDJ

UK's biggest overhaul of competition

regulation for decades has taken place

as the Competition and Markets

Authority off ic ial ly came into

existence. The CMA has been created

b y u n i f y i n g t h e C o m p e t i t i o n

Commission with most functions of

the Office of Fair Trading - tackling

price fixing, monopolies and unfair

mergers. The agency will not start

taking on its own investigations or

market studies until April, with the

two legacy regulators running their

respective cases until then.

Competition and Markets Authority unifying OFT with Competition Commission launched

13

By Mr. Koosai Lehery, Director, Accounting Advisory Services, KPMG, India

Currently there is no separate

Accounting Standard (AS) in

India for recognition of

revenue by real estate developers.

The accounting and reporting for such

transactions is based on principles

specified in Guidance Note (GN) on

A c c o u n t i n g f o r R e a l E s t a t e

Transactions, which was issued by the

Institute of Chartered Accountants of

India (ICAI) in February 2012 and as

supplemented by the guidance in AS 9

- Revenue Recognition and AS 7 -

Construction Contracts.

The 2012 GN has replaced the 2006 GN

of the ICAI on Recognition of Revenue

by Real Estate Developers. The 2006

GN required certain principle based

conditions (risk and reward of

ownership and effective control being

t r a n s f e r r e d , r e v e n u e b e i n g

measurable and no significant

uncertainty on ultimate collection)

and specific conditions (price risk

being transferred to the buyer, and

buyer being able to transfer right in

the property during construction

period) to be met before any revenue

is recognised from real estate

transactions. Such principle based

conditions in 2006 GN had resulted in

diversity in practice since these

principles were interpreted and

applied very differently by different

real estate developers in deciding and

applying their accounting policies. The

increase in complexity of real estate

transactions had also contributed to

the increased diversity.

To address this diversity in practice,

the 2012 GN mandates the application

Emerging Issues in Recognition of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Emerging Issues in Recognition of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Page 15: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

12

W: www.verus.net.in

New DelhiE-177 Lower Ground FloorEast of Kailash New Delhi 110065

E: [email protected]

T: +91 11 26215601 / 02

F: +91 11 26215603

Kolkata10 Old Post Office StreetGround FloorKolkata 700001

E: [email protected]

T: +91 33 22308909

F: +91 33 22487823

HyderabadChamber#103 Ground Floor 6-3-252/A/10 Sana Apartments, ErramanzilHyderabad 500082

E: [email protected]

T: +91 40 39935766

Winner: Best Newcomers: India Business Law Journal Awards2012

Mumbai24 M. C. C. LaneFortMumbai 400023

E: [email protected]

T: +91 22 22834130 / 01

F: +91 22 22834102

India member firm of:

CONTACT

Krishnayan Sen / Dipankar Bandyopadhyay

[email protected]

plans to put the audit engagement

out to tender and why this is in the

best interests of shareholders.

The FRC's Audit Quality Review

(AQR) team should review every

audit engagement in the FTSE 350

on average every five years. The

Audit Committee should report to

l

shareholders on the findings of

any AQR report concluded on the

company's audit engagement

during the reporting period.

A prohibition of 'Big-4-only'

clauses in loan agreements (ie

clauses that limit a company's

choice of auditor to a preselected

list or category), although it will be

possible to specify that any

auditor should satisfy objective

criteria.

There must be a shareholders'

vote at the AGM on whether Audit

Committee Reports in company

annual reports are satisfactory.

High quality global journalism

requires investment. Please share

this article with others using the

link below, do not cut & paste the

article. See our Ts&Cs and

Copyright Policy for more detail.

Email [email protected] to

b u y a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t s .

l

l

l

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6141a3

e 2 - 2 a a 9 - 1 1 e 3 - a d e 3

00144feab7de.html#ixzz2jCv41pDJ

UK's biggest overhaul of competition

regulation for decades has taken place

as the Competition and Markets

Authority off ic ial ly came into

existence. The CMA has been created

b y u n i f y i n g t h e C o m p e t i t i o n

Commission with most functions of

the Office of Fair Trading - tackling

price fixing, monopolies and unfair

mergers. The agency will not start

taking on its own investigations or

market studies until April, with the

two legacy regulators running their

respective cases until then.

Competition and Markets Authority unifying OFT with Competition Commission launched

13

By Mr. Koosai Lehery, Director, Accounting Advisory Services, KPMG, India

Currently there is no separate

Accounting Standard (AS) in

India for recognition of

revenue by real estate developers.

The accounting and reporting for such

transactions is based on principles

specified in Guidance Note (GN) on

A c c o u n t i n g f o r R e a l E s t a t e

Transactions, which was issued by the

Institute of Chartered Accountants of

India (ICAI) in February 2012 and as

supplemented by the guidance in AS 9

- Revenue Recognition and AS 7 -

Construction Contracts.

The 2012 GN has replaced the 2006 GN

of the ICAI on Recognition of Revenue

by Real Estate Developers. The 2006

GN required certain principle based

conditions (risk and reward of

ownership and effective control being

t r a n s f e r r e d , r e v e n u e b e i n g

measurable and no significant

uncertainty on ultimate collection)

and specific conditions (price risk

being transferred to the buyer, and

buyer being able to transfer right in

the property during construction

period) to be met before any revenue

is recognised from real estate

transactions. Such principle based

conditions in 2006 GN had resulted in

diversity in practice since these

principles were interpreted and

applied very differently by different

real estate developers in deciding and

applying their accounting policies. The

increase in complexity of real estate

transactions had also contributed to

the increased diversity.

To address this diversity in practice,

the 2012 GN mandates the application

Emerging Issues in Recognition of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Emerging Issues in Recognition of Revenue by Real Estate Developers

Page 16: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

14

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

of the percentage of completion

('POC') method in most cases and

gives certain 'bright-lines' (viz. all

cr i t ica l project approvals are

obtained; 25 percent of the actual

construction costs (excluding cost of

land and development rights) are

incurred; at least 25 percent of the

saleable project area is secured by

contracts; and at least 10 percent of

the revenue is collected on individual

contracts for determining the

eligibility of real estate transactions

for revenue recognition.

The 2012 GN is applicable to real estate

projects which are commenced on or

after 1 April 2012 and also to projects

which have already commenced but

no revenue is recognised up to 1 April

2012.

This article discusses some of the

emerging issues in real estate revenue

r e c o g n i t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y o n

implementation of the 2012 GN.

Transition period - While the 2012 GN

gave an early adoption option, most of

the real estate developers have

applied it prospectively from 1 April

2012. This has resulted in most

companies following two separate

policies for the same accounting

period, i.e. policy as per the 2012 GN

for projects where the revenue is

recognized for the first time post 1

April 2012 and that as per 2006 GN for

projects where even a small amount

of revenue was recognized before 1

April 2012. Typically, the real estate

projects are long gestation projects

and therefore, the diversity in revenue

recognition is likely to continue until

the projects where the revenue

recognition is based on 2006 GN are

complete.

'Project' - a unit of account - The unit

of account under the 2012 GN is a

'project', which is defined as the

smallest group of units, plots or

saleable spaces which are linked with

a common set of amenities in such a

manner that unless the common

amenities are made available and

functional, these units, plots or

saleable spaces cannot be put to their

intended effective use. Since there is

no further guidance in the 2012 GN on

' c o m m o n s e t o f a m e n i t i e s ' ,

determination of what constitutes a

project (complete township, cluster

of towers or an individual tower) has

b e e n s u b j e c t t o d i v e r s e

interpretation. This interpretation

may impact the determination of

whether the project is eligible for

revenue recognition. For example, if

an individual tower is determined to

constitute the project and 25 percent

of the saleable area relating to that

tower is sold, the requirement of the

2012 GN relating to minimum sale

would be met. However, in the same

situation if a cluster of towers is

determined to constitute the project,

this criterion may not be met if there

are insufficient sales in other towers

within the cluster.

Since most companies applied the

2012 GN prospectively for projects

where the revenue is recognized for

the first time post 1 April 2012, the

determination of the unit of account

has also been critical from the

perspective of transit ion. For

example, if the entire cluster or a

phase has been determined to be a

project and if a small amount of

revenue is recognized on sale of units

in any of the buildings within the

cluster or a phase, then the entire

cluster or a phase may be outside the

scope of the 2012 GN.

Critical approvals - The 2012 GN also

requires that all critical approvals such

a s e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a r a n c e s ;

approvals of plans and designs; title to

land or other development rights; are

obtained before any revenue is

recognized from the project. For real

estate projects in India, it is common

f o r d e v e l o p e r s t o s t a r t t h e

construction activity based on partial

approvals. For examples, if the overall

project is of 30 floors, initially the

developer gets approvals for 10 floors.

However, the budgets and financial

projections are for the overall project

size of 30 floors. Such situations could

b e s u b j e c t t o d i f f e r e n t

interpretations, one interpretation

15

could be that since the approvals for

the entire project are not obtained,

however likely they are, that particular

project does not meet one of the

criteria for revenue recognition and

no revenue should be recognized

from that project.

Cost of land and development rights -

Cost of land and development rights is

defined in the 2012 GN as all costs

related to the acquisition of land,

development rights in the land or

property including cost of land, cost of

development rights, rehabilitation

costs, registration charges, stamp

duty, brokerage costs and incidental

expenses. In a typical redevelopment

project, a real estate developer incurs

various costs related to rehabilitation

of the slum, such as payments to the

slum dwellers for vacation of the land,

rental charges for temporary housing

of the slum dwellers, construction

cost of rehabilitation units etc. Based

on this, costs related to the slum

rehabilitation (including construction

cost of rehabilitation units) would be

part of land and development right

and needs to be excluded from

calculation of 25 percent threshold for

revenue recognition. There may be

diversity in practice in such cases.

Continuing defaults in payments - The

2012 GN requires that the recognition

of project revenue by reference to the

stage of completion of the project

activity should not at any point exceed

the estimated total revenues from

'eligible contracts'. 'Eligible contracts'

are defined as contracts where at least

10 percent of the contracted amounts

have been realised and there are no

outstanding defaults of the payment

terms in such contracts. Hence, the

2012 GN puts a cap on overall revenue

recognition from a project. For

example, if a company has sold 100

flats in a project and if there are

defaults in payment on 5 flats, then

the revenue from that project cannot

be more than the estimated total

revenue on 95 flats. This is a very

challenging area, especially when a

project is nearing completion and if

there are defaults from many buyers,

theoretically the 2012 GN may require

r e v e r s a l o f r e v e n u e a l r e a d y

recognized from the project.

Capitalization of borrowing costs -

The 2012 GN requires capitalization of

borrowing costs as project costs in

accordance with AS 16, Borrowing

Costs. However, it is not clear from the

2012 GN if the borrowing costs are

excluded from the calculation of

threshold for revenue recognition.

While paragraph 5.3(b) only permits

construction and development costs

to be considered for calculation of

threshold, but the same paragraph

also refers to paragraph 2.5 which

allows allocation of borrowing costs

t o c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d

development.

Further, AS 16 requires that the

capitalisation of borrowing costs

should be suspended during extended

periods in which active development

is interrupted. Therefore, in a real

estate project, if there are delays (in

o b t a i n i n g a p p r o v a l s , i n t h e

construction process etc.) that are not

necessarily part of the construction

process, the capitalization of the

borrowing cost during the periods of

delay should be suspended. However,

determining the actual period of delay

and hence, in arriving at the amount of

borrowing costs to be charged to

profit and loss could be very

subjective and may be an area of

inconsistent application in practice.

Joint developments - In the recent

t i m e s , J o i n t D e v e l o p m e n t

Agreements (JDA) have become very

common, wherein the land owners

contribute the land and the real estate

developer constructs and markets the

project. In some cases the land

owners take active part in the day-to-

day construction and development

activities while in most cases the

developer takes care of the execution

of the project and land owner is only

an investor. There are various forms of

Page 17: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

14

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

of the percentage of completion

('POC') method in most cases and

gives certain 'bright-lines' (viz. all

cr i t ica l project approvals are

obtained; 25 percent of the actual

construction costs (excluding cost of

land and development rights) are

incurred; at least 25 percent of the

saleable project area is secured by

contracts; and at least 10 percent of

the revenue is collected on individual

contracts for determining the

eligibility of real estate transactions

for revenue recognition.

The 2012 GN is applicable to real estate

projects which are commenced on or

after 1 April 2012 and also to projects

which have already commenced but

no revenue is recognised up to 1 April

2012.

This article discusses some of the

emerging issues in real estate revenue

r e c o g n i t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y o n

implementation of the 2012 GN.

Transition period - While the 2012 GN

gave an early adoption option, most of

the real estate developers have

applied it prospectively from 1 April

2012. This has resulted in most

companies following two separate

policies for the same accounting

period, i.e. policy as per the 2012 GN

for projects where the revenue is

recognized for the first time post 1

April 2012 and that as per 2006 GN for

projects where even a small amount

of revenue was recognized before 1

April 2012. Typically, the real estate

projects are long gestation projects

and therefore, the diversity in revenue

recognition is likely to continue until

the projects where the revenue

recognition is based on 2006 GN are

complete.

'Project' - a unit of account - The unit

of account under the 2012 GN is a

'project', which is defined as the

smallest group of units, plots or

saleable spaces which are linked with

a common set of amenities in such a

manner that unless the common

amenities are made available and

functional, these units, plots or

saleable spaces cannot be put to their

intended effective use. Since there is

no further guidance in the 2012 GN on

' c o m m o n s e t o f a m e n i t i e s ' ,

determination of what constitutes a

project (complete township, cluster

of towers or an individual tower) has

b e e n s u b j e c t t o d i v e r s e

interpretation. This interpretation

may impact the determination of

whether the project is eligible for

revenue recognition. For example, if

an individual tower is determined to

constitute the project and 25 percent

of the saleable area relating to that

tower is sold, the requirement of the

2012 GN relating to minimum sale

would be met. However, in the same

situation if a cluster of towers is

determined to constitute the project,

this criterion may not be met if there

are insufficient sales in other towers

within the cluster.

Since most companies applied the

2012 GN prospectively for projects

where the revenue is recognized for

the first time post 1 April 2012, the

determination of the unit of account

has also been critical from the

perspective of transit ion. For

example, if the entire cluster or a

phase has been determined to be a

project and if a small amount of

revenue is recognized on sale of units

in any of the buildings within the

cluster or a phase, then the entire

cluster or a phase may be outside the

scope of the 2012 GN.

Critical approvals - The 2012 GN also

requires that all critical approvals such

a s e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a r a n c e s ;

approvals of plans and designs; title to

land or other development rights; are

obtained before any revenue is

recognized from the project. For real

estate projects in India, it is common

f o r d e v e l o p e r s t o s t a r t t h e

construction activity based on partial

approvals. For examples, if the overall

project is of 30 floors, initially the

developer gets approvals for 10 floors.

However, the budgets and financial

projections are for the overall project

size of 30 floors. Such situations could

b e s u b j e c t t o d i f f e r e n t

interpretations, one interpretation

15

could be that since the approvals for

the entire project are not obtained,

however likely they are, that particular

project does not meet one of the

criteria for revenue recognition and

no revenue should be recognized

from that project.

Cost of land and development rights -

Cost of land and development rights is

defined in the 2012 GN as all costs

related to the acquisition of land,

development rights in the land or

property including cost of land, cost of

development rights, rehabilitation

costs, registration charges, stamp

duty, brokerage costs and incidental

expenses. In a typical redevelopment

project, a real estate developer incurs

various costs related to rehabilitation

of the slum, such as payments to the

slum dwellers for vacation of the land,

rental charges for temporary housing

of the slum dwellers, construction

cost of rehabilitation units etc. Based

on this, costs related to the slum

rehabilitation (including construction

cost of rehabilitation units) would be

part of land and development right

and needs to be excluded from

calculation of 25 percent threshold for

revenue recognition. There may be

diversity in practice in such cases.

Continuing defaults in payments - The

2012 GN requires that the recognition

of project revenue by reference to the

stage of completion of the project

activity should not at any point exceed

the estimated total revenues from

'eligible contracts'. 'Eligible contracts'

are defined as contracts where at least

10 percent of the contracted amounts

have been realised and there are no

outstanding defaults of the payment

terms in such contracts. Hence, the

2012 GN puts a cap on overall revenue

recognition from a project. For

example, if a company has sold 100

flats in a project and if there are

defaults in payment on 5 flats, then

the revenue from that project cannot

be more than the estimated total

revenue on 95 flats. This is a very

challenging area, especially when a

project is nearing completion and if

there are defaults from many buyers,

theoretically the 2012 GN may require

r e v e r s a l o f r e v e n u e a l r e a d y

recognized from the project.

Capitalization of borrowing costs -

The 2012 GN requires capitalization of

borrowing costs as project costs in

accordance with AS 16, Borrowing

Costs. However, it is not clear from the

2012 GN if the borrowing costs are

excluded from the calculation of

threshold for revenue recognition.

While paragraph 5.3(b) only permits

construction and development costs

to be considered for calculation of

threshold, but the same paragraph

also refers to paragraph 2.5 which

allows allocation of borrowing costs

t o c o s t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d

development.

Further, AS 16 requires that the

capitalisation of borrowing costs

should be suspended during extended

periods in which active development

is interrupted. Therefore, in a real

estate project, if there are delays (in

o b t a i n i n g a p p r o v a l s , i n t h e

construction process etc.) that are not

necessarily part of the construction

process, the capitalization of the

borrowing cost during the periods of

delay should be suspended. However,

determining the actual period of delay

and hence, in arriving at the amount of

borrowing costs to be charged to

profit and loss could be very

subjective and may be an area of

inconsistent application in practice.

Joint developments - In the recent

t i m e s , J o i n t D e v e l o p m e n t

Agreements (JDA) have become very

common, wherein the land owners

contribute the land and the real estate

developer constructs and markets the

project. In some cases the land

owners take active part in the day-to-

day construction and development

activities while in most cases the

developer takes care of the execution

of the project and land owner is only

an investor. There are various forms of

Page 18: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

16

JDAs such as profit sharing, area

sharing, revenue sharing or a

combination. Even though the 2012

GN does not give guidance on the

accounting in the books of developer

or the land owner for JDAs, it applies

to the accounting for the projects

which are under JDA model.

In the absence of any specific

guidance, the accounting for JDAs is

diverse in the books of both the land

owners as well as the developers. The

accounting treatment is driven mostly

f r o m t h e c o n c l u s i o n i f t h e

arrangement is under a joint control. If

there is joint control on the project,

generally, the accounting in the books

of both the land owners as well as the

developers is based on the guidance in

AS 27, Financial Reporting of Interests

in Joint Ventures. In case the project is

not subject to joint control, the

arrangement is generally in the nature

of a barter transaction; whereby the

land owner gets a constructed area or

a share of profit or revenue in

exchange for the land.

F o r b a r t e r t r a n s a c t i o n s , t h e

accounting practices are diverse with

respect to recording the upfront cost

of development rights in the books of

the developers. In an area share

arrangement, some developers do

r e c o r d a n u p f r o n t c o s t o f

development right based on an

estimated cost of construction of the

area attributable to the land owner.

Such upfront cost may become part of

the percentage of completion

workings for revenue recognition

once the thresholds as per 2012 GN are

met. Some other developers do not

r e c o r d a n y u p f r o n t c o s t o f

development rights and they would

only record revenue from their share

of the area and charge full cost of

construction, including for the land

owner's area to the profit and loss,

thereby factoring the free area to be

given to the land owner.

Even though the revised GN has been

subject to a few issues which could be

interpreted differently (some of them

have been highlighted above), it has

managed to significantly reduce the

diversity in accounting practices, at

least for projects on which revenue is

recognized for the first time post 1

April 2012.

Lastly, the accounting treatment

given in 2012 GN is inconsistent with

Ind-AS (i.e. IFRS converged standards

issued by the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs) and therefore, companies

need to keep an eye out on the

implementation of these standards.

Mr. Koosai LeheryDirector

Accounting Advisory Services KPMG, India

Authored by:

17

New Companies Act –Facilitating Business Or…?New Companies Act –Facilitating Business Or…?

By Mr. Lalit Jain, Senior Vice President & Company Secretary, Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd.

Last fewmonthssaw a euphoria

over the enactment of a new

company law. Congratulatory

m e s s a g e s f l e w . A t v a r i o u s

professional seminars, Government

functionaries attempted to showcase

the bright side of the new law.

Professionals were enthralled at the

new vistas opening up. However,

asthe euphoria subsides, as minute

details of the law sink in and as the

real impact of various provisions

dawns, companies are realizing that

there would be far too many

r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d h u r d l e s o n

conducting business. Let us consider

some areas of concern.

Under Section 185of new law, a

company cannot give loans to its

director or "any other person in

Some Provisions that Hamper Business

l

w h o m t h e d i r e c t o r i s

interested"nor provide guarantee

/ security in connection with such

loan. "Any other person in whom

the director is interested"includes

any body corporate, theboard of

directors or Managing Director or

Manager whereof is accustomed

to act in accordance with the

directions/ instructions of the

board/ any director(s) of the

lending company.

In case of a proposed loan to a

w h o l l y o w n e d s u b s i d i a r y

company, its board members can

be said to work under the

administrative control of the

board of directors of holding

company and as such, the Board of

this subsidiary can be said to be

accustomed to act in accordance

with directions or instructions of

the board of holding company.

As a result, the holding company

just cannot give any loan to such

subsidiary company, not even with

shareholders' approval. There is

no provision to do so with

Government approval also.

Earlier, the corresponding section

295 specifically exempted loans

f r o m h o l d i n g c o m p a n y t o

subsidiary companies; so this

problem did not arise.

As per Section 186of new law, a

company can make investments

through maximum of 2 layers of

investment companies. Many

large companies, that have more

than 2 layers already, would not be

a b l e t o m a k e a n y f u t u r e

investments. This will seriously

affect their planned investments

and business.

l

Page 19: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

16

JDAs such as profit sharing, area

sharing, revenue sharing or a

combination. Even though the 2012

GN does not give guidance on the

accounting in the books of developer

or the land owner for JDAs, it applies

to the accounting for the projects

which are under JDA model.

In the absence of any specific

guidance, the accounting for JDAs is

diverse in the books of both the land

owners as well as the developers. The

accounting treatment is driven mostly

f r o m t h e c o n c l u s i o n i f t h e

arrangement is under a joint control. If

there is joint control on the project,

generally, the accounting in the books

of both the land owners as well as the

developers is based on the guidance in

AS 27, Financial Reporting of Interests

in Joint Ventures. In case the project is

not subject to joint control, the

arrangement is generally in the nature

of a barter transaction; whereby the

land owner gets a constructed area or

a share of profit or revenue in

exchange for the land.

F o r b a r t e r t r a n s a c t i o n s , t h e

accounting practices are diverse with

respect to recording the upfront cost

of development rights in the books of

the developers. In an area share

arrangement, some developers do

r e c o r d a n u p f r o n t c o s t o f

development right based on an

estimated cost of construction of the

area attributable to the land owner.

Such upfront cost may become part of

the percentage of completion

workings for revenue recognition

once the thresholds as per 2012 GN are

met. Some other developers do not

r e c o r d a n y u p f r o n t c o s t o f

development rights and they would

only record revenue from their share

of the area and charge full cost of

construction, including for the land

owner's area to the profit and loss,

thereby factoring the free area to be

given to the land owner.

Even though the revised GN has been

subject to a few issues which could be

interpreted differently (some of them

have been highlighted above), it has

managed to significantly reduce the

diversity in accounting practices, at

least for projects on which revenue is

recognized for the first time post 1

April 2012.

Lastly, the accounting treatment

given in 2012 GN is inconsistent with

Ind-AS (i.e. IFRS converged standards

issued by the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs) and therefore, companies

need to keep an eye out on the

implementation of these standards.

Mr. Koosai LeheryDirector

Accounting Advisory Services KPMG, India

Authored by:

17

New Companies Act –Facilitating Business Or…?New Companies Act –Facilitating Business Or…?

By Mr. Lalit Jain, Senior Vice President & Company Secretary, Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd.

Last fewmonthssaw a euphoria

over the enactment of a new

company law. Congratulatory

m e s s a g e s f l e w . A t v a r i o u s

professional seminars, Government

functionaries attempted to showcase

the bright side of the new law.

Professionals were enthralled at the

new vistas opening up. However,

asthe euphoria subsides, as minute

details of the law sink in and as the

real impact of various provisions

dawns, companies are realizing that

there would be far too many

r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d h u r d l e s o n

conducting business. Let us consider

some areas of concern.

Under Section 185of new law, a

company cannot give loans to its

director or "any other person in

Some Provisions that Hamper Business

l

w h o m t h e d i r e c t o r i s

interested"nor provide guarantee

/ security in connection with such

loan. "Any other person in whom

the director is interested"includes

any body corporate, theboard of

directors or Managing Director or

Manager whereof is accustomed

to act in accordance with the

directions/ instructions of the

board/ any director(s) of the

lending company.

In case of a proposed loan to a

w h o l l y o w n e d s u b s i d i a r y

company, its board members can

be said to work under the

administrative control of the

board of directors of holding

company and as such, the Board of

this subsidiary can be said to be

accustomed to act in accordance

with directions or instructions of

the board of holding company.

As a result, the holding company

just cannot give any loan to such

subsidiary company, not even with

shareholders' approval. There is

no provision to do so with

Government approval also.

Earlier, the corresponding section

295 specifically exempted loans

f r o m h o l d i n g c o m p a n y t o

subsidiary companies; so this

problem did not arise.

As per Section 186of new law, a

company can make investments

through maximum of 2 layers of

investment companies. Many

large companies, that have more

than 2 layers already, would not be

a b l e t o m a k e a n y f u t u r e

investments. This will seriously

affect their planned investments

and business.

l

Page 20: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

18

l

l

Earlier Section 372A restricted only

inter corporate loans and deposits

beyond prescribed limits. Now,

under Section 186 of new law,

loans to any person are covered.

As a result, a Rs 1000 loan to an

employee would require following

compliances:

- passing a unanimous board

resolution.

- ensuring that the loan carries

interest at not less than

prescribed rates.

- making entry in a register, which

would be open to the inspection

of members.

- disclosing in annual financial

statement, full particulars of

loan, recipient, purpose etc.

One can just see the extent of

needless paper work and hassles

that would be created, without

serving any purpose. And failure of

c o m p l i a n c e c a n l e a d t o

imprisonment.

Related party is now defined to

include a subsidiary company also.

As per Section 188of new law, no

transactions above a specified

amount or by a company with

higher than prescribed capital, can

be entered into with a related

party, without a special resolution

of shareholders. However, no

related party can vote on such a

special resolution.

In case of a transaction with a

wholly owned subsidiary,the

holding company would not be

able to vote. So, who would vote

on such a resolution? How would

the resolution be passed?

The draft rules attempt to contain

the fallout of this anomaly, by

p r o v i d i n g t h a t i n c a s e o f

transactions between holding

company and wholly owned

subsidiary, the special resolution

passed by holding company shall

be enough and no separate

resolution of subsidiary company

would be required. But still there

would be many cases where

resolution cannot be passed. For

example, in case of a transaction

between S1 and S2, both being

wholly owned subsidiaries of H,

who will vote? H- the holding

company is not a party to

transact ion and hence not

required to pass a special

resolution.S1 and S2 need to pass

special resolutions, but in both the

cases, H-being sole shareholder-

cannot vote being a related party

to both.

There could be more examples.

Take a case of H, the holding

company, having S as 75%

subsidiary. A- an associate

company, holds balance 25%

shares in S. Here also, in case of a

proposed transaction between H

and S, both H and A, being related

parties, cannot vote on the special

resolution of S,.

Many provisions in erstwhile law,

which were not applicable to private

Tough Regime for Private Companies

companies, would now be applicable

to these companies as well. The

important ones are:

Earlier a private company could just

allot shares to any one by passing a

board resolution. Now, formalities

of 'private placement' would have

to be completed. This implies

issuing an "offer letter", setting out

such details as may be prescribed.

Earl ier in a Board meeting,

interested directors could vote on

resolutions where directors were

i n t e r e s t e d . T h i s e n a b l e d

transactions with related parties -

usually family members or associate

firms. Now a director cannot vote

on such resolutions. This would

lead to a situation where many

i t e m s o f b u s i n e s s c a n n o t

beconducted at Board level.

Normally in such situations,

shareholders'approval should be

obtained. However new provisions

prescribe that in certain types of

related party transactions, even in

a general meeting, related parties

cannot vote. How then, will many

transactions take place? There is no

provision even for doing this with

government approval!

Earlier a private company could

c o m m e n c e b u s i n e s s u p o n

incorporation. Now even a private

company would have to file

prescribed documents just like

l

l

l

19

p u b l i c c o m p a n i e s , b e f o r e

commencement of business.

Earlier, a private company could

give loans to a director or related

parties. Now, a private company

cannot give loans to a director or

related parties -not even with

shareholders' approval. And there is

no provision to seek government

approval.

Private companies could earlier give

loans to or make investment in

o t h e r c o m p a n i e s w i t h o u t

restriction. Now restrictions have

been imposed as applicable to

public companies.

Earlier, a private company was free

to have special provisions relating

to general meetings, including for

notice, explanatory statement,

quorum, proxies, poll etc. Now, it

will be governed by the same

provisions as apply to public

companies.

Earlier, a private company was free

to have any kinds of capital, apart

from equity and preference share

capital. Now, this is no more

permitted.

Earlier, members of a private

company could have voting rights

on shares in a proportion different

to the proportion of shareholding.

Now this is not allowed.

New provisions relating to insider

trading, are sought to be made

applicable to private companies

also.

The new law thus, attempts to paint

private and public companies with

same brush, without considering

the fact that most of the private

companies are family entities

wherein family members are

shareholders as well as directors.

l

l

l

l

l

l

They would usually be related

parties and interested in many

transactions. Recognizing this fact,

legislation in most countries,

provides easy regime to facilitate

running of private companies. India

also had similar regime, which is

now sought to be changed. Given

that over 90 percent of companies

in the country are private, the new

law would make working difficult

for such companies. One wonders

whose interests are sought to be

protected?

The Constitution's scheme is that law

making body should be separate from

enforcing agency. Further, judiciary

should be separate. It is fraught with

danger to combine all powers in one

entity. This principle of separation of

powers is universally acclaimed.

Excessive Powers to Government

The scheme of new law militates

against this cardinal principle.

Through extensive rule making power

given to government, law making and

enforcing has been combined in

Government hands. To add to this,

adjudication powers would be given

to government officials (which was

not provided under earlier law), who

would now act in judicial capacity also!

The criterion of independence under

the law is very stringent and states

that a person to be independent,

should not have had any pecuniary

t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h t h e

company/associates/ promoters

during current year or preceding 2

years. No minimum threshold is

defined. Even the word 'material' is

not used. As a result, a small

transaction with the company or

Independent Directors - Increased Responsibilities

Page 21: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

18

l

l

Earlier Section 372A restricted only

inter corporate loans and deposits

beyond prescribed limits. Now,

under Section 186 of new law,

loans to any person are covered.

As a result, a Rs 1000 loan to an

employee would require following

compliances:

- passing a unanimous board

resolution.

- ensuring that the loan carries

interest at not less than

prescribed rates.

- making entry in a register, which

would be open to the inspection

of members.

- disclosing in annual financial

statement, full particulars of

loan, recipient, purpose etc.

One can just see the extent of

needless paper work and hassles

that would be created, without

serving any purpose. And failure of

c o m p l i a n c e c a n l e a d t o

imprisonment.

Related party is now defined to

include a subsidiary company also.

As per Section 188of new law, no

transactions above a specified

amount or by a company with

higher than prescribed capital, can

be entered into with a related

party, without a special resolution

of shareholders. However, no

related party can vote on such a

special resolution.

In case of a transaction with a

wholly owned subsidiary,the

holding company would not be

able to vote. So, who would vote

on such a resolution? How would

the resolution be passed?

The draft rules attempt to contain

the fallout of this anomaly, by

p r o v i d i n g t h a t i n c a s e o f

transactions between holding

company and wholly owned

subsidiary, the special resolution

passed by holding company shall

be enough and no separate

resolution of subsidiary company

would be required. But still there

would be many cases where

resolution cannot be passed. For

example, in case of a transaction

between S1 and S2, both being

wholly owned subsidiaries of H,

who will vote? H- the holding

company is not a party to

transact ion and hence not

required to pass a special

resolution.S1 and S2 need to pass

special resolutions, but in both the

cases, H-being sole shareholder-

cannot vote being a related party

to both.

There could be more examples.

Take a case of H, the holding

company, having S as 75%

subsidiary. A- an associate

company, holds balance 25%

shares in S. Here also, in case of a

proposed transaction between H

and S, both H and A, being related

parties, cannot vote on the special

resolution of S,.

Many provisions in erstwhile law,

which were not applicable to private

Tough Regime for Private Companies

companies, would now be applicable

to these companies as well. The

important ones are:

Earlier a private company could just

allot shares to any one by passing a

board resolution. Now, formalities

of 'private placement' would have

to be completed. This implies

issuing an "offer letter", setting out

such details as may be prescribed.

Earl ier in a Board meeting,

interested directors could vote on

resolutions where directors were

i n t e r e s t e d . T h i s e n a b l e d

transactions with related parties -

usually family members or associate

firms. Now a director cannot vote

on such resolutions. This would

lead to a situation where many

i t e m s o f b u s i n e s s c a n n o t

beconducted at Board level.

Normally in such situations,

shareholders'approval should be

obtained. However new provisions

prescribe that in certain types of

related party transactions, even in

a general meeting, related parties

cannot vote. How then, will many

transactions take place? There is no

provision even for doing this with

government approval!

Earlier a private company could

c o m m e n c e b u s i n e s s u p o n

incorporation. Now even a private

company would have to file

prescribed documents just like

l

l

l

19

p u b l i c c o m p a n i e s , b e f o r e

commencement of business.

Earlier, a private company could

give loans to a director or related

parties. Now, a private company

cannot give loans to a director or

related parties -not even with

shareholders' approval. And there is

no provision to seek government

approval.

Private companies could earlier give

loans to or make investment in

o t h e r c o m p a n i e s w i t h o u t

restriction. Now restrictions have

been imposed as applicable to

public companies.

Earlier, a private company was free

to have special provisions relating

to general meetings, including for

notice, explanatory statement,

quorum, proxies, poll etc. Now, it

will be governed by the same

provisions as apply to public

companies.

Earlier, a private company was free

to have any kinds of capital, apart

from equity and preference share

capital. Now, this is no more

permitted.

Earlier, members of a private

company could have voting rights

on shares in a proportion different

to the proportion of shareholding.

Now this is not allowed.

New provisions relating to insider

trading, are sought to be made

applicable to private companies

also.

The new law thus, attempts to paint

private and public companies with

same brush, without considering

the fact that most of the private

companies are family entities

wherein family members are

shareholders as well as directors.

l

l

l

l

l

l

They would usually be related

parties and interested in many

transactions. Recognizing this fact,

legislation in most countries,

provides easy regime to facilitate

running of private companies. India

also had similar regime, which is

now sought to be changed. Given

that over 90 percent of companies

in the country are private, the new

law would make working difficult

for such companies. One wonders

whose interests are sought to be

protected?

The Constitution's scheme is that law

making body should be separate from

enforcing agency. Further, judiciary

should be separate. It is fraught with

danger to combine all powers in one

entity. This principle of separation of

powers is universally acclaimed.

Excessive Powers to Government

The scheme of new law militates

against this cardinal principle.

Through extensive rule making power

given to government, law making and

enforcing has been combined in

Government hands. To add to this,

adjudication powers would be given

to government officials (which was

not provided under earlier law), who

would now act in judicial capacity also!

The criterion of independence under

the law is very stringent and states

that a person to be independent,

should not have had any pecuniary

t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h t h e

company/associates/ promoters

during current year or preceding 2

years. No minimum threshold is

defined. Even the word 'material' is

not used. As a result, a small

transaction with the company or

Independent Directors - Increased Responsibilities

Page 22: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

20

are being proposed. Earlier law

provided different punishments for

different violat ions. Technical

violations like late filing, non-

disclosure of directors' interest, etc.

were visited by minor fines. The new

law provides at many places, same

severe punishments for substantive

as well as technical offences. For

example:

Earlier Section 299 of the Act

provided for optional annual

disclosure by a director of his

interest in other companies, firms

etc. in Form 24AA. Non submission

of such annual disclosure had no

repercussion. However, it was

mandatory to disclose his interest

at the time of actual contract, if not

already done earlier and violation

carried a fine upto Rs 50,000.

Under the new law, Section 184

requires disclosure annually and

also at the time of actual contract.

Violation of any one is a ground for

imprisonment. Thus, a simple

omission of a company's name in

annual disclosure, even where no

actual transaction with that

company takes place,may land a

director in jail.

l

l

l

Conclusion

Earlier under section 394, in a

scheme of arrangement, non filing

of court orders with Registrar

within 30 days could invite a fine of

Rs. 500. Now, under Section 232 of

new law, it could be punishment

upto one year and/ or fine between

Rs 1 lac and Rs 3 lac.

U n d e r S e c t i o n 3 7 2 A o f o l d

Actrelated to inter corporate loans

and investments, punishment for

non- maintenance of register was

Rs 5000 plus further daily fine in

case of a continuing offence. Under

the corresponding new Section 186,

for any violation, including non-

entry in the register, the officer in

default shall be punishable with

'imprisonment plus fine' (it is not

even 'imprisonment or fine')!

It is clear that the law is poorly drafted

and creates huge compliance issues

for large companies. Private

companies are equally hit with

increased paper work and regulation.

Auditors are genuinely worried about

the potential liabilities and the

looming threat of class action suits.

Independent directors are concerned

about increasing responsibilities (and

decreasing remuneration, as no

ESOPs would be allowed to them).

The only persons happy with it would

be government officials - who would

wield more power now than ever,

and lawyers - who would be called

upon to give interpretations or

represent the companies or officials in

prosecutions against them! How

should then one describe such a law?

Is it a facilitator of business or……..?

associates, could result in the director

being non-independent.

Further, independent directors now

are in danger of:

class action suits which are in a way

being encouraged by law

more stringent penalties

threat of imprisonment even for

minor and technical offences

Simultaneously, their remuneration is

being restricted with ESOPs being

stopped!

Earlier, as a part of liberalizing, the

Government through a circular,

allowed professional directors, who

are unrelated to promoters and not

having any stake in the company, to be

paid any amount of remuneration,

even in cases of low profits or no

profits. This provision is not included

in the new Act. As a result, all such

cases will go to Central Government

for approval.

Excessive and severe punishments

l

l

l

Remuneration to Managerial Personnel

Draconian Punishments

21

CII Submits detailed industry views on the 1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under Companies Act, 2013

CII Submits detailed industry views on the 1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under Companies Act, 2013

C I I h a s s u b m i t t e d d e t a i l e d

recommendations on the 1st and 2nd

Tranches of draft rules prepared

under various provisions of the

Companies Act, 2013. The Act relies

heavily on subordinate legislation for

the implementation of these sections.

The first tranche of Rules covered the

following 16 chapters:

Chapter I - Preliminary

Chapter II - Incorporation of Company

and Matters Incidental Thereto

First Tranche:

Chapter VI - Registration of Charges

Chapter VIII - Declaration and

Payment of Dividend

Chapter IX - Accounts of Companies

Chapter X - Audit and Auditors

Chapter XI - Appointment and

Qualification of Directors

Chapter XII - Meeting of Board and its

Powers

C h a p t e r X V I - P r e v e n t i o n o f

Oppression and Mismanagement

Chapter XVIII - Removal of Name of

Companies from the Register of

Companies

C h a p t e r X I X - R e v i v a l a n d

Rehabilitation of Sick Companies

C h a p t e r X X I I - C o m p a n i e s

Incorporated Outside India

C h a p t e r X X I I I - G o v e r n m e n t

Companies

Chapter XXIV - Registration Offices

and Fees

Chapter XXVI - Nidhi

Page 23: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

20

are being proposed. Earlier law

provided different punishments for

different violat ions. Technical

violations like late filing, non-

disclosure of directors' interest, etc.

were visited by minor fines. The new

law provides at many places, same

severe punishments for substantive

as well as technical offences. For

example:

Earlier Section 299 of the Act

provided for optional annual

disclosure by a director of his

interest in other companies, firms

etc. in Form 24AA. Non submission

of such annual disclosure had no

repercussion. However, it was

mandatory to disclose his interest

at the time of actual contract, if not

already done earlier and violation

carried a fine upto Rs 50,000.

Under the new law, Section 184

requires disclosure annually and

also at the time of actual contract.

Violation of any one is a ground for

imprisonment. Thus, a simple

omission of a company's name in

annual disclosure, even where no

actual transaction with that

company takes place,may land a

director in jail.

l

l

l

Conclusion

Earlier under section 394, in a

scheme of arrangement, non filing

of court orders with Registrar

within 30 days could invite a fine of

Rs. 500. Now, under Section 232 of

new law, it could be punishment

upto one year and/ or fine between

Rs 1 lac and Rs 3 lac.

U n d e r S e c t i o n 3 7 2 A o f o l d

Actrelated to inter corporate loans

and investments, punishment for

non- maintenance of register was

Rs 5000 plus further daily fine in

case of a continuing offence. Under

the corresponding new Section 186,

for any violation, including non-

entry in the register, the officer in

default shall be punishable with

'imprisonment plus fine' (it is not

even 'imprisonment or fine')!

It is clear that the law is poorly drafted

and creates huge compliance issues

for large companies. Private

companies are equally hit with

increased paper work and regulation.

Auditors are genuinely worried about

the potential liabilities and the

looming threat of class action suits.

Independent directors are concerned

about increasing responsibilities (and

decreasing remuneration, as no

ESOPs would be allowed to them).

The only persons happy with it would

be government officials - who would

wield more power now than ever,

and lawyers - who would be called

upon to give interpretations or

represent the companies or officials in

prosecutions against them! How

should then one describe such a law?

Is it a facilitator of business or……..?

associates, could result in the director

being non-independent.

Further, independent directors now

are in danger of:

class action suits which are in a way

being encouraged by law

more stringent penalties

threat of imprisonment even for

minor and technical offences

Simultaneously, their remuneration is

being restricted with ESOPs being

stopped!

Earlier, as a part of liberalizing, the

Government through a circular,

allowed professional directors, who

are unrelated to promoters and not

having any stake in the company, to be

paid any amount of remuneration,

even in cases of low profits or no

profits. This provision is not included

in the new Act. As a result, all such

cases will go to Central Government

for approval.

Excessive and severe punishments

l

l

l

Remuneration to Managerial Personnel

Draconian Punishments

21

CII Submits detailed industry views on the 1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under Companies Act, 2013

CII Submits detailed industry views on the 1st and 2nd Tranches of Draft Rules under Companies Act, 2013

C I I h a s s u b m i t t e d d e t a i l e d

recommendations on the 1st and 2nd

Tranches of draft rules prepared

under various provisions of the

Companies Act, 2013. The Act relies

heavily on subordinate legislation for

the implementation of these sections.

The first tranche of Rules covered the

following 16 chapters:

Chapter I - Preliminary

Chapter II - Incorporation of Company

and Matters Incidental Thereto

First Tranche:

Chapter VI - Registration of Charges

Chapter VIII - Declaration and

Payment of Dividend

Chapter IX - Accounts of Companies

Chapter X - Audit and Auditors

Chapter XI - Appointment and

Qualification of Directors

Chapter XII - Meeting of Board and its

Powers

C h a p t e r X V I - P r e v e n t i o n o f

Oppression and Mismanagement

Chapter XVIII - Removal of Name of

Companies from the Register of

Companies

C h a p t e r X I X - R e v i v a l a n d

Rehabilitation of Sick Companies

C h a p t e r X X I I - C o m p a n i e s

Incorporated Outside India

C h a p t e r X X I I I - G o v e r n m e n t

Companies

Chapter XXIV - Registration Offices

and Fees

Chapter XXVI - Nidhi

Page 24: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

22

Chapter XXIX - Miscellaneous

S o m e h i g h l i g h t s o f C I I

recommendations are as follows:

The Act introduces many new

concepts such as establishment of

vigil mechanism, appointment of

internal auditor, performance

evaluation, appointment of key

managerial personnel etc. Time

must be given for the concepts to

evolve and be absorbed.

While finalizing the thresholds for

determining the applicability of

various provisions, ground-level

challenges should be recognized

and due consideration given to the

same. A staggered approach

should be adopted in introduction,

with larger companies being

asked to comply first.

There is a need for ensuring

balance between ownership and

m a n a g e m e n t t o f o s t e r

entrepreneurship and trade. India

has to be seen as a jurisdiction with

p r o g r e s s i v e r e g u l a t i o n s -

impediments and hindrances for

corporates must be removed.

It is imperative to ensure that rules

e n a b l e u n a m b i g u o u s

interpretation ultimately ensuring

minimal litigation for future.

Private companies which are

neither subsidiaries of listed

companies nor have substantial

borrowings from banks or

financial institutions should be

exempted from certain provisions

of the Act, e.g. rotation of

auditors, provisions relating to

loans and investments, sharing of

unpublished price sensitive

information, etc. Such companies

should not be treated at par with

other public interest entities.

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

There is a need to harmonize the

requirements as there are

fundamental differences in the

approach of SEBI and MCA with

regard to transfer of shares to the

Suspense Account. If the shares

are already lying in the demat

account of the shareholder, the

said shares should not be required

to be transferred to IEPF even if

the dividend in respect of those

s h a r e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n

transferred on completion of

seven years from the date of

declaration and the amount of

dividend remaining unpaid.

R u l e s s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r

consolidated accounts only at the

group company level and not for

each intermediate hold ing

company level except where such

intermediate holding companies

are listed companies.

For disclosure of related party

transactions, it may be clarified,

t h a t o n l y t h o s e

transactions/contracts/arrangem

ents which are not entered in the

ordinary course of business, or are

not on an arm's length basis are

required to be reported in the

Board's report.

Mandatory internal audits should

be made appl icable to a l l

companies meeting the threshold

criteria instead of only "public

c o m p a n i e s " , c o n s i d e r i n g

involvement of borrowed funds.

The thresholds need to be

increased substantially.

The requirement of having

independent director (in the CSR

Committee) for companies which

are otherwise not required to have

independent directors in terms of

section 149 read with draft Rules

(relating to appointment of

Independent Directors) - may be

relaxed. Requirement of having at

l

l

l

l

Senior management and persons

one level below executive

directors need to be excluded

from the definition of Related

Party

There is a need to modify Rules to

provide for 'dependant' relatives

and to narrow down the list of

'Relatives' to dependent. The

definition should include only

immediate financially dependent

relatives meaning financially

dependent parents or children

w h o m a y b e e x p e c t e d t o

influence, or be influenced by, that

individual in his/her dealings with

the entity concerned

In the definition of total Share

Capital which provides for

a g g r e g a t e o f e q u i t y a n d

preference share capital, only that

part of preference share capital

which is convertible into equity, as

per the terms of issuance of the

preference capital, should be

included. A transition period till

31st March, 2015 for adoption of

the new definition should be

given.

J u r i s t i c p e r s o n s ( b o d i e s

corporate) should also be allowed

to form One Person Company

without any limitations.

23

least 3 directors in the CSR

C o m m i t t e e m a y a l s o b e

considered to be relaxed for

private companies which are

allowed to have only 2 Directors

Corporates should be allowed

adequate legroom to comply with

the CSR provision in a self-

responsible manner. The CSR

Policy should be broad based and

specific provisions about project/

programmes should not be part of

operating rules.

Accounting standards prescribing

accounting treatment of the CSR

expenditure must be formulated

to obviate ambiguity surrounding

the treatment of CSR expenditure

in various circumstances. The term

"Net Profit" should be defined as

post tax profit.

A clarification should be provided

to the effect that contribution to

the corpus fund of the Trusts or

Section 8 Companies, or Societies

or Foundations, through which a

company may choose to carry out

its CSR activities would be eligible

to be counted towards company's

2% spend on CSR in that year.

A clarification / carve-out may be

considered to be provided

exempting transactions with

trusts or Section 8 Companies, or

Societies or Foundations from the

provisions of related party

transactions

Rotation of auditors may be

considered to be made effective

prospectively and tenure of

auditors should be considered

from the date of implementation

of the new Act. Period for which

the auditor has held office prior to

the notification of secion 139 must

b e d i s r e g a r d e d f r o m t h e

calculations of 5/10 years at the

time of commencement of Act.

l

l

l

l

l

Only India-l isted companies

should be subject to firm rotation

and private companies and public

companies which do not have

substantial public funding must be

exempt from the provision

Thresholds for appointment of a

woman director may be changed

to "every listed company and

every other public company"

having a paid up share capital of Rs

500 Crore or more or turnover of

Rs.1000 Crore or more.

The institution of independent

directors must be given time to

evolve and till such time, the

prov is ion should be made

applicable very selectively. Limits

may be revised as follows:

o paid up share capital of Rs. 500

crores or more;

o turnover of Rs. 1000 cores or

more;

o loans, borrowings, deposits

exceeding of Rs. 500 crores.

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of

companies having no external

funding (in the form of equity or

l

l

debt) should be exempted from

this requirement. Subsidiaries

with more than 90% shares held by

a single company; materially

important unlisted subsidiaries;

closely-held unlisted companies

and companies not having fixed

deposits or borrowings from

p u b l i c l i k e d e b e n t u r e s o r

o p t i o n a l l y c o n v e r t i b l e

instruments should also be

exempt

The rules prescr ibe publ ic

companies having paid-up share

capital of Rs. 100 crores or more

OR having aggregate outstanding

l o a n s o r b o r r o w i n g s o r

debentures or deposits exceeding

Rs. 200 crores or more shall be

required to constitute an Audit

Committee and a Nomination and

Remuneration Committee of the

Board. Thresholds, being too low,

may be revised

The Act indicates these related

party transactions rules applies to

all companies. Private companies

should be excluded and the

provision should be applicable to

only public companies

For appointment to office or place

of profit, limit on remuneration

should be increased from Rs. 1 Lac

per month to Rs. 10 Lac per month

Legis lat ion should balance

interests of multiple stakeholders

and shareholders' equity must

apply to both big and small

shareholders to avoid 'reverse

oppression' i.e. oppression of the

majority. A higher threshold, in

terms of number of shareholders,

be set out for class action suits.

The second tranche covers 9 chapters

which were hosted on 20 September

2013. A similar 30 day window has also

l

l

l

l

Second Tranche:

Page 25: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

22

Chapter XXIX - Miscellaneous

S o m e h i g h l i g h t s o f C I I

recommendations are as follows:

The Act introduces many new

concepts such as establishment of

vigil mechanism, appointment of

internal auditor, performance

evaluation, appointment of key

managerial personnel etc. Time

must be given for the concepts to

evolve and be absorbed.

While finalizing the thresholds for

determining the applicability of

various provisions, ground-level

challenges should be recognized

and due consideration given to the

same. A staggered approach

should be adopted in introduction,

with larger companies being

asked to comply first.

There is a need for ensuring

balance between ownership and

m a n a g e m e n t t o f o s t e r

entrepreneurship and trade. India

has to be seen as a jurisdiction with

p r o g r e s s i v e r e g u l a t i o n s -

impediments and hindrances for

corporates must be removed.

It is imperative to ensure that rules

e n a b l e u n a m b i g u o u s

interpretation ultimately ensuring

minimal litigation for future.

Private companies which are

neither subsidiaries of listed

companies nor have substantial

borrowings from banks or

financial institutions should be

exempted from certain provisions

of the Act, e.g. rotation of

auditors, provisions relating to

loans and investments, sharing of

unpublished price sensitive

information, etc. Such companies

should not be treated at par with

other public interest entities.

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

There is a need to harmonize the

requirements as there are

fundamental differences in the

approach of SEBI and MCA with

regard to transfer of shares to the

Suspense Account. If the shares

are already lying in the demat

account of the shareholder, the

said shares should not be required

to be transferred to IEPF even if

the dividend in respect of those

s h a r e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n

transferred on completion of

seven years from the date of

declaration and the amount of

dividend remaining unpaid.

R u l e s s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r

consolidated accounts only at the

group company level and not for

each intermediate hold ing

company level except where such

intermediate holding companies

are listed companies.

For disclosure of related party

transactions, it may be clarified,

t h a t o n l y t h o s e

transactions/contracts/arrangem

ents which are not entered in the

ordinary course of business, or are

not on an arm's length basis are

required to be reported in the

Board's report.

Mandatory internal audits should

be made appl icable to a l l

companies meeting the threshold

criteria instead of only "public

c o m p a n i e s " , c o n s i d e r i n g

involvement of borrowed funds.

The thresholds need to be

increased substantially.

The requirement of having

independent director (in the CSR

Committee) for companies which

are otherwise not required to have

independent directors in terms of

section 149 read with draft Rules

(relating to appointment of

Independent Directors) - may be

relaxed. Requirement of having at

l

l

l

l

Senior management and persons

one level below executive

directors need to be excluded

from the definition of Related

Party

There is a need to modify Rules to

provide for 'dependant' relatives

and to narrow down the list of

'Relatives' to dependent. The

definition should include only

immediate financially dependent

relatives meaning financially

dependent parents or children

w h o m a y b e e x p e c t e d t o

influence, or be influenced by, that

individual in his/her dealings with

the entity concerned

In the definition of total Share

Capital which provides for

a g g r e g a t e o f e q u i t y a n d

preference share capital, only that

part of preference share capital

which is convertible into equity, as

per the terms of issuance of the

preference capital, should be

included. A transition period till

31st March, 2015 for adoption of

the new definition should be

given.

J u r i s t i c p e r s o n s ( b o d i e s

corporate) should also be allowed

to form One Person Company

without any limitations.

23

least 3 directors in the CSR

C o m m i t t e e m a y a l s o b e

considered to be relaxed for

private companies which are

allowed to have only 2 Directors

Corporates should be allowed

adequate legroom to comply with

the CSR provision in a self-

responsible manner. The CSR

Policy should be broad based and

specific provisions about project/

programmes should not be part of

operating rules.

Accounting standards prescribing

accounting treatment of the CSR

expenditure must be formulated

to obviate ambiguity surrounding

the treatment of CSR expenditure

in various circumstances. The term

"Net Profit" should be defined as

post tax profit.

A clarification should be provided

to the effect that contribution to

the corpus fund of the Trusts or

Section 8 Companies, or Societies

or Foundations, through which a

company may choose to carry out

its CSR activities would be eligible

to be counted towards company's

2% spend on CSR in that year.

A clarification / carve-out may be

considered to be provided

exempting transactions with

trusts or Section 8 Companies, or

Societies or Foundations from the

provisions of related party

transactions

Rotation of auditors may be

considered to be made effective

prospectively and tenure of

auditors should be considered

from the date of implementation

of the new Act. Period for which

the auditor has held office prior to

the notification of secion 139 must

b e d i s r e g a r d e d f r o m t h e

calculations of 5/10 years at the

time of commencement of Act.

l

l

l

l

l

Only India-l isted companies

should be subject to firm rotation

and private companies and public

companies which do not have

substantial public funding must be

exempt from the provision

Thresholds for appointment of a

woman director may be changed

to "every listed company and

every other public company"

having a paid up share capital of Rs

500 Crore or more or turnover of

Rs.1000 Crore or more.

The institution of independent

directors must be given time to

evolve and till such time, the

prov is ion should be made

applicable very selectively. Limits

may be revised as follows:

o paid up share capital of Rs. 500

crores or more;

o turnover of Rs. 1000 cores or

more;

o loans, borrowings, deposits

exceeding of Rs. 500 crores.

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of

companies having no external

funding (in the form of equity or

l

l

debt) should be exempted from

this requirement. Subsidiaries

with more than 90% shares held by

a single company; materially

important unlisted subsidiaries;

closely-held unlisted companies

and companies not having fixed

deposits or borrowings from

p u b l i c l i k e d e b e n t u r e s o r

o p t i o n a l l y c o n v e r t i b l e

instruments should also be

exempt

The rules prescr ibe publ ic

companies having paid-up share

capital of Rs. 100 crores or more

OR having aggregate outstanding

l o a n s o r b o r r o w i n g s o r

debentures or deposits exceeding

Rs. 200 crores or more shall be

required to constitute an Audit

Committee and a Nomination and

Remuneration Committee of the

Board. Thresholds, being too low,

may be revised

The Act indicates these related

party transactions rules applies to

all companies. Private companies

should be excluded and the

provision should be applicable to

only public companies

For appointment to office or place

of profit, limit on remuneration

should be increased from Rs. 1 Lac

per month to Rs. 10 Lac per month

Legis lat ion should balance

interests of multiple stakeholders

and shareholders' equity must

apply to both big and small

shareholders to avoid 'reverse

oppression' i.e. oppression of the

majority. A higher threshold, in

terms of number of shareholders,

be set out for class action suits.

The second tranche covers 9 chapters

which were hosted on 20 September

2013. A similar 30 day window has also

l

l

l

l

Second Tranche:

Page 26: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

24

been provided for these Rules for

industry and other stakeholders to

submit their views.

Chapter III - Prospectus And Allotment

Of Securities

Chapter IV - Share Capital And

Debentures

Chapter VII - Management and

Administration

Chapter XIII - Appointment And

R e m u n e r a t i o n O f M a n a g e r i a l

Personnel

C h a p t e r X V - C o m p r o m i s e s ,

Arrangement And Amalgamations

Chapter XVII - Registered Valuers

Chapter XXI - PART I. - Companies

authorized to register under this Act

Chapter XXVIII: (Rules in respect of

C l a u s e 4 4 2 : M e d i a t i o n A n d

Conciliation Panel)

National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal Rules, 2013.

S o m e h i g h l i g h t s o f t h e C I I

recommendations are as follows:

Rules on Chapter III dealing with

Prospectus and Allotment of

Securities should be harmonized

with the SEBI ICDR Regulations

l

l

l

l

l

l

It should be specif ied that

shareholders' approval for private

placement of securities will be

required only for securities that are

convertible into equity shares at a

future date and not for non-

convertible securities

The restriction on the number of

private placements by a company

in a financial year should be

removed

Private companies must be given

exemption from complying with

the various requirements set out

for issuance of equity shares with

differential rights.

The capping of total sweat equity

shares in a company at 25% of the

total paid up equity capital of the

company may be removed or at

l e a s t p e r m i t t e d w i t h t h e

government approval.

Companies should be allowed to

issue preference shares without

any conditions particularly when

issue is made to redeem the

existing shares. Also the Rule

should provide some flexibility to

c o m p a n i e s , i n a s m u c h a s

companies should be permitted to

specify the terms and conditions of

issue of preference shares in the

special resolution (or in the

relevant explanatory statement)

to be passed by the shareholders

for approving issue of preference

shares, without having to amend

the Articles of Association each

time such shares are issued. The

requirement of 'Shareholders'

approval' should be deleted unless

preference shares are convertible

into equity.

Rule restricts the directors, KMP's

and Promoters and their relatives

of the holding, subsidiary or

associate of the Company to be

trustee of the trust to hold shares

for the benefits of the employees.

The provision will defeat the intent

of the law. The rules may restrict

only the Promoters and Directors

to be trustee in such Trust but

should permit other employees to

be appointed as trustees of such

trust.

For ESOP, the provision regarding

purchase of shares by employees /

trustees to be made only through

stock exchange should be deleted

There should not be any restriction

o n m a x i m u m t e n u r e f o r

debentures for any class of

companies i.e. whether companies

are engaged in infrastructure

projects or not. The tenure of the

debentures should be left upon the

mutual understanding of the

borrowing companies and the

lenders. Alternatively, at least

concept of renewal should be

provided

While providing for return of

changes in shareholding position

o f p r o m o t e r s a n d t o p t e n

shareholders to be submitted to

ROC, a 'threshold limit' should be

stipulated, upon crossing of which,

either in one or more tranches, the

requirement of filing such Return

l

l

l

l

25

should be mandated. This would

also be in line with the approach

a d o p t e d u n d e r t h e S E B I

(Substantial Acquisition of Shares

and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

Voting through electronic means

should be restricted to listed

company only to begin with.

M a i n t a i n i n g o f r e c o r d s i n

electronic form (ERP) should be

optional and shall not be made

compulsory

Per the Rules, there has to be

disclosure of particulars of

employee drawing remuneration

in excess of INR 60 lacs. The

disclosure should be limited to the

employees drawing remuneration

higher than the Directors of the

Company or the employee holding

certain percentage of shares in the

Company / Holding / Associate etc.

Alternatively, the amount may be

revised to INR 1 crore.

F o r A p p o i n t m e n t o f K e y

M a n a g e r i a l P e r s o n n e l , t h e

proposed paid-up capital criteria of

Rs. 5 crores should be substantially

enhanced.

W h e n t h e c o m p a n y h a s

demonstrated that CDR has been

approved by 75% of the secured

creditors, it should be clarified that

no separate approval of creditors

would be required as part of the

consent to the scheme under court

convened meetings.

Pending matters before the

Appellate Authority for Industrial

and Financial Reconstruction

which are at final stage (i.e. for

l

l

l

l

l

l

which only final order is pending),

should get transferred to the NCLT

for final sanction/order instead of

starting the proceedings afresh

In terms of Section 233(1), the rules

have to prescribe such class or

classes of companies which can

und e rt ak e a m e rge r or an

amalgamation pursuant to the

p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 2 3 3 .

However, the rules have not

prescribed any such class of

companies. Accordingly, the rules

should provide for such class or

classes of companies. Further, it is

advised to include 'one person

company', as one such class, which

may take benefit of provisions of

Section 233

l

l

l

A rule should be added in relation

to effective date of the scheme,

and it should state that the scheme

will be given effect to from the date

on which the Tribunal's order is

filed with the Registrar.

New rule should be included to the

effect that except as required

under the Act, the Tribunal may

pass necessary orders which can

act as Single Window Clearance for

any specific requirements of the

Act wherever any treatment has

been provided under the scheme

of compromise and arrangement -

which principle have been applied

and confirmed by various courts in

India.

Page 27: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

24

been provided for these Rules for

industry and other stakeholders to

submit their views.

Chapter III - Prospectus And Allotment

Of Securities

Chapter IV - Share Capital And

Debentures

Chapter VII - Management and

Administration

Chapter XIII - Appointment And

R e m u n e r a t i o n O f M a n a g e r i a l

Personnel

C h a p t e r X V - C o m p r o m i s e s ,

Arrangement And Amalgamations

Chapter XVII - Registered Valuers

Chapter XXI - PART I. - Companies

authorized to register under this Act

Chapter XXVIII: (Rules in respect of

C l a u s e 4 4 2 : M e d i a t i o n A n d

Conciliation Panel)

National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal Rules, 2013.

S o m e h i g h l i g h t s o f t h e C I I

recommendations are as follows:

Rules on Chapter III dealing with

Prospectus and Allotment of

Securities should be harmonized

with the SEBI ICDR Regulations

l

l

l

l

l

l

It should be specif ied that

shareholders' approval for private

placement of securities will be

required only for securities that are

convertible into equity shares at a

future date and not for non-

convertible securities

The restriction on the number of

private placements by a company

in a financial year should be

removed

Private companies must be given

exemption from complying with

the various requirements set out

for issuance of equity shares with

differential rights.

The capping of total sweat equity

shares in a company at 25% of the

total paid up equity capital of the

company may be removed or at

l e a s t p e r m i t t e d w i t h t h e

government approval.

Companies should be allowed to

issue preference shares without

any conditions particularly when

issue is made to redeem the

existing shares. Also the Rule

should provide some flexibility to

c o m p a n i e s , i n a s m u c h a s

companies should be permitted to

specify the terms and conditions of

issue of preference shares in the

special resolution (or in the

relevant explanatory statement)

to be passed by the shareholders

for approving issue of preference

shares, without having to amend

the Articles of Association each

time such shares are issued. The

requirement of 'Shareholders'

approval' should be deleted unless

preference shares are convertible

into equity.

Rule restricts the directors, KMP's

and Promoters and their relatives

of the holding, subsidiary or

associate of the Company to be

trustee of the trust to hold shares

for the benefits of the employees.

The provision will defeat the intent

of the law. The rules may restrict

only the Promoters and Directors

to be trustee in such Trust but

should permit other employees to

be appointed as trustees of such

trust.

For ESOP, the provision regarding

purchase of shares by employees /

trustees to be made only through

stock exchange should be deleted

There should not be any restriction

o n m a x i m u m t e n u r e f o r

debentures for any class of

companies i.e. whether companies

are engaged in infrastructure

projects or not. The tenure of the

debentures should be left upon the

mutual understanding of the

borrowing companies and the

lenders. Alternatively, at least

concept of renewal should be

provided

While providing for return of

changes in shareholding position

o f p r o m o t e r s a n d t o p t e n

shareholders to be submitted to

ROC, a 'threshold limit' should be

stipulated, upon crossing of which,

either in one or more tranches, the

requirement of filing such Return

l

l

l

l

25

should be mandated. This would

also be in line with the approach

a d o p t e d u n d e r t h e S E B I

(Substantial Acquisition of Shares

and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

Voting through electronic means

should be restricted to listed

company only to begin with.

M a i n t a i n i n g o f r e c o r d s i n

electronic form (ERP) should be

optional and shall not be made

compulsory

Per the Rules, there has to be

disclosure of particulars of

employee drawing remuneration

in excess of INR 60 lacs. The

disclosure should be limited to the

employees drawing remuneration

higher than the Directors of the

Company or the employee holding

certain percentage of shares in the

Company / Holding / Associate etc.

Alternatively, the amount may be

revised to INR 1 crore.

F o r A p p o i n t m e n t o f K e y

M a n a g e r i a l P e r s o n n e l , t h e

proposed paid-up capital criteria of

Rs. 5 crores should be substantially

enhanced.

W h e n t h e c o m p a n y h a s

demonstrated that CDR has been

approved by 75% of the secured

creditors, it should be clarified that

no separate approval of creditors

would be required as part of the

consent to the scheme under court

convened meetings.

Pending matters before the

Appellate Authority for Industrial

and Financial Reconstruction

which are at final stage (i.e. for

l

l

l

l

l

l

which only final order is pending),

should get transferred to the NCLT

for final sanction/order instead of

starting the proceedings afresh

In terms of Section 233(1), the rules

have to prescribe such class or

classes of companies which can

und e rt ak e a m e rge r or an

amalgamation pursuant to the

p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 2 3 3 .

However, the rules have not

prescribed any such class of

companies. Accordingly, the rules

should provide for such class or

classes of companies. Further, it is

advised to include 'one person

company', as one such class, which

may take benefit of provisions of

Section 233

l

l

l

A rule should be added in relation

to effective date of the scheme,

and it should state that the scheme

will be given effect to from the date

on which the Tribunal's order is

filed with the Registrar.

New rule should be included to the

effect that except as required

under the Act, the Tribunal may

pass necessary orders which can

act as Single Window Clearance for

any specific requirements of the

Act wherever any treatment has

been provided under the scheme

of compromise and arrangement -

which principle have been applied

and confirmed by various courts in

India.

Page 28: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Notes

1426

ADVERTISEMENT FOR CII'S GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

This update would be circulated to the membership of CII; direct membership of over 7000 organisations from the private

as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 90,000 companies from around

400 national and regional sectoral associations.

We invite you to get associated with CII Global Regulatory Update by way of creating your own space in the update:

CATEGORY Members Non-Members

Back Cover Page (Inside) ` 50,000 55,000

Full Page 30,000 35,000

Half Page 20,000 25,000

Section Sponsorship Also available; you may contact the undersigned.e.g xyz (Company name) presents “Global Udate”

Benefits include an advertisement, write up about the contributor and its logo)

`

` `

` `

For further queries:Prabhat Negi

Corporate Governance & Regulatory Affairs DepartmentConfederation of Indian Industry

The Mantosh Sondhi Centre23 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

Tel: 011-41506492 Fax: 011-24615693 Email: [email protected]

20 December, 2013: Mumbai

Each year, CII Corporate Governance Summit brings together industry members representing various sectors to brainstorm on the global and domestic governance landscape.

Though Governance has largely been portrayed as an issue of compliance; corporates are increasingly viewing good governance as good business. Companies that take a strategic approach to the challenge of complying with the new corporate governance requirements can create opportunities to strengthen their internal processes and enhance their business.

This year too, the Summit would deliberate on how companies can use compliance efforts to build greater business value, the top global governance trends being adopted worldwide and their suitability and adaptability in the domestic context.

Against the backdrop of the Companies Act, 2013; Industry experts will also deliberate on strategies that would be truly effective in improving corporate governance practices rather than confining them to the compliance checklist.

th9 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SUMMIT 2013

Page 29: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Notes

1426

ADVERTISEMENT FOR CII'S GLOBAL REGULATORY UPDATE

This update would be circulated to the membership of CII; direct membership of over 7000 organisations from the private

as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 90,000 companies from around

400 national and regional sectoral associations.

We invite you to get associated with CII Global Regulatory Update by way of creating your own space in the update:

CATEGORY Members Non-Members

Back Cover Page (Inside) ` 50,000 55,000

Full Page 30,000 35,000

Half Page 20,000 25,000

Section Sponsorship Also available; you may contact the undersigned.e.g xyz (Company name) presents “Global Udate”

Benefits include an advertisement, write up about the contributor and its logo)

`

` `

` `

For further queries:Prabhat Negi

Corporate Governance & Regulatory Affairs DepartmentConfederation of Indian Industry

The Mantosh Sondhi Centre23 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

Tel: 011-41506492 Fax: 011-24615693 Email: [email protected]

December 2013: Mumbai

Each year, CII Corporate Governance Summit brings together industry members representing various sectors to brainstorm on the global and domestic governance landscape.

Though Governance has largely been portrayed as an issue of compliance; corporates are increasingly viewing good governance as good business. Companies that take a strategic approach to the challenge of complying with the new corporate governance requirements can create opportunities to strengthen their internal processes and enhance their business.

This year too, the Summit would deliberate on how companies can use compliance efforts to build greater business value, the top global governance trends being adopted worldwide and their suitability and adaptability in the domestic context.

Against the backdrop of the Companies Act, 2013; Industry experts will also deliberate on strategies that would be truly effective in improving corporate governance practices rather than confining them to the compliance checklist.

9TH CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SUMMIT 2013

Page 30: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Notes

Page 31: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Notes

Page 32: CII Global Regulatory Update, October 2013

Confederation of Indian Industry

The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) works to create and sustain an environment conducive to

the development of India, partnering industry, Government, and civil society, through advisory and

consultative processes.

CII is a non-government, not-for-profit, industry-led and industry-managed organization, playing a

proactive role in India's development process. Founded over 118 years ago, India's premier business

association has over 7100 members, from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and

MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 90,000 enterprises from around 257 national and regional

sectoral industry bodies.

CII charts change by working closely with Government on policy issues, interfacing with thought

leaders, and enhancing efficiency, competitiveness and business opportunities for industry through

a range of specialized services and strategic global linkages. It also provides a platform for

consensus-building and networking on key issues.

Extending its agenda beyond business, CII assists industry to identify and execute corporate

citizenship programmes. Partnerships with civil society organizations carry forward corporate

initiatives for integrated and inclusive development across diverse domains including affirmative

action, healthcare, education, livelihood, diversity management, skill development, empowerment

of women, and water, to name a few.

The CII Theme for 2013-14 is Accelerating Economic Growth through Innovation, Transformation,

Inclusion and Governance. Towards this, CII advocacy will accord top priority to stepping up the

growth trajectory of the nation, while retaining a strong focus on accountability, transparency and

measurement in the corporate and social eco-system, building a knowledge economy, and broad-

basing development to help deliver the fruits of progress to all.

With 63 offices, including 10 Centres of Excellence, in India, and 7 overseas offices in Australia, China,

Egypt, France, Singapore, UK, and USA, as well as institutional partnerships with 224 counterpart

organizations in 90 countries, CII serves as a reference point for Indian industry and the international

business community.

Confederation of Indian Industry

The Mantosh Sondhi Centre

23, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 (India)

T: 91 11 45771000 / 24629994-7 F: 91 11 24626149

E: [email protected] W: www.cii.in

Reach us via our Membership Helpline: 00-91-11-435 46244 / 00-91-99104 46244

CII Helpline Toll free No: 1800-103-1244