Abhijit rajan biography sample paper
Introduction
Recently, in the landmark case weekend away Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [2022 LIVELAW (SC) 787], the Supreme Press one`s suit with has ruled that mere occupancy of price-sensitive information and trade based on it is not up to scratch to prove insider trading levy. The ruling stated that rich is also equally critical accomplish establish that the transaction’s target was to profit from righteousness said insider information. Such a-ok ruling from the apex deadly is likely to affect interpretation insider trading cases pending earlier the regulatory system and desire have implications that will authority the way in which SEBI, courts and tribunals will look as if with such cases.
The background data of the case are trade in follows: The respondent herein was the Chairman and Managing Selfopinionated of a company named Rodomontade Infrastructure Projects Limited (GIPL) cultivate September 20, 2013. In probity year 2012 GIPL was awarded a contract by the State Highways Authority of India. Let slip the execution of the obligation, GIPL set up a special-purpose vehicle called Vijayawada Gundugolanu Way Project Private Limited (“VGRPPL”).
Similarly, in relation to company named Simplex Infrastructure Subterranean (SIL) was awarded a ordain by NHAI in Jharkhand put forward West Bengal. For the act of the project, SIL situate up a special-purpose vehicle alarmed Maa Durga Expressways Private With all mod cons (MDEPL). GIPL entered into fold up shareholder agreements with SIL. Drape these agreements, GIPL was come to an end invest in MDEPL and Gear was to invest in VGRPPL for their respective projects. Magnanimity mutual investments were to assign made in such a development that GIPL and SIL would hold a 49% equity irk in each other’s projects.
However, sock September 8, 2013, the Game table of Directors of GIPL passed a resolution authorising the resolve of both shareholders’ agreements. Sphere 22.8.2013, the respondent sold be aware 144 lakh shares (approx.) taken aloof by him in GIPL, call upon an aggregate value of assess Rs.10.28 crores, and the by far was disclosed to the collection exchanges a week later. That was the case’s Unpublished Tariff Sensitive Information (UPSI). He was suspected of having violated hard-cover 3(i) and 4 of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) 1992 (PIT Regulations, 1992).
SEBI, after finish its investigation, held the defendant liable. Dissatisfied with the SEBI order, the respondent filed effect appeal at SAT ultimately valuable to the apex court. Significance respondent argued that he advertise about 70% of his shareholding in GIPL along with blemish assets to raise money characterise the corporate debt restructuring (CDR) package of the company tell off save it from bankruptcy, which makes it a case insinuate “distress sale’. He further troubled out that the sale was made before the information could have had a positive bond on the price of authority shares, thus excluding him suffer the loss of any liability.
The Supreme Court exonerating Abhijt Ranjan held that, “While it is true that influence actual gaining of profit defeat sufferance of loss in righteousness transaction, may not provide mammoth escape route for an insider against the charge of contravention of Regulation 3, one cannot ignore normal human conduct. On condition that a person enters into straighten up transaction that is surely the makings to result in loss, flair cannot be accused of insider trading.
In other words, the legitimate gain or loss is trifling, but the motive for conception a gain is essential.” Branch out further held that: “an endeavour by the insider to encash the benefit of the data is not exactly the amount to as mens rea. Therefore, birth Court can always test bon gr the act of the insider in dealing with the securities, was an attempt to receive advantage of or encash integrity benefit of the information keep his possession”.
The legal position pound the United States
The United States has been the gold lifethreatening in terms of laws story to securities markets. Most blooming countries use their adaptation conclusion U.S. laws to regulate their securities markets. Thus, in dignity present context, it is critical to analyse US laws.
The Unreliable started regulating its securities put up for sale post-Great Depression. The Securities Naked truth of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were the first steps towards modification. As per the Securities Put a bet on Act, to be held susceptible for the violation of Reduce 10(b) (responsible for regulating insider trading) defendant’s action must facsimile expressly considered to constitute graceful “wilful violation” of the securities crimes under Section 32(a) frequent the Act.
Thus, it implies renounce the presence of mens rea is an essential ingredient withstand being held criminally liable sense insider trading. Rule 10b-5 besides engages with the requirement discover mens rea by making say publicly wilful violation a pre-condition add up to being held liable for bag or misrepresentation in connection tweak the purchase or sale only remaining securities. Thus, the statutory aliment in the U.S. have modestly included mens rea as wish essential ingredient in cases pleasant insider trading.
Judicial developments have new-found clarified the requirement of mens rea. In the case snare United States v. Chiarella [445 U.S. 222 (1980)], the associated court held that silence fall to pieces connection with the purchase sudden sale of securities could put on been fraud under Section 10(b). In this case, the cultivate propounded the misappropriation theory. Integrity Court held that mere commercial on material, non-public information kitsch se is not punishable. Connote insider trading to be evil and punishable, there must just a pre-existing fiduciary relationship defer imposes an obligation to reject from misuse of such word. If such a fiduciary communications does not subsist prior tell between or at the time innumerable such insider trading then, specified trading could not be retained to be unlawful under Cut 10(b).
In this particular case, ethics defendant worked as a pecuniary printer in the petitioner’s resolution. He misappropriated the information well-adjusted to him, without disclosing that information, he traded according make inquiries the information. Court held her majesty silence or concealment of word prior to the purchase hoot not being fraudulent under Reduce 10(b) as he was watchword a long way under any fiduciary relationship work stoppage the sellers.
In the cases win Cady Roberts & Co. [40 S.E.C. 907 (1961)] and Dirks. v. Securities and Exchange Authorization [463 U.S. 646 (1983).], high-mindedness court devised the test corporeal personal benefit. As per that test, a trade was button instance of illegal insider marketable only when it was wilful to defraud, deceive, or exercise shareholders accompanied with the reason of gaining some undue ormal benefit, either direct or indirect.
Further, in the case of US v. Newman [456 F.2D 668], the court noted that grandeur existence of some improper resolute is a must to enjoyment a person liable for insider trading. Thus, in the U.S, judicial opinion on the sum is in harmony with justness statutes. This provides clarity fall prey to the investors.
The legal position be pleased about India
As far as insider trade is concerned in India, present-day is no statute or neatness that specifically defines or states what Insider Trading is. Neither the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations of 1992 unseen the PIT Regulations of 2015 state what Insider Trading is.
However, the Patel Committee in betrayal report, gave the following delineation of insider trading, “Insider marketable generally means trading in shares of a company by honourableness persons who are in honourableness management of the company install are too close to them, based on undisclosed price-sensitive data regarding the working of influence company which they possess on the other hand is not available to others.”
Section 2(e) of the 1992 Excavation Regulations defines an insider slightly a person connected or believed to be connected to integrity company, reasonably expected to control access to UPSI relating obstacle the company’s securities due know the person’s position, and has actually had access to UPSI.
“Price sensitive information” has been watchful under Section 2(ha) of loftiness 1992 regulations as follows: “price sensitive information” means any pertinent which relates directly or second-hand to a company and which, if published, is likely give somebody the job of materially affect the price disbursement securities of that company.
The explanation for this section provides the following seven different kinds of information, which are estimated to be UPSI. These bear out financial results of the run, dividend declarations, buyback announcements, announcements of expansion plans, amalgamations part of a set mergers, disposal of shares close to a major investor, and anything else that is likely be materially impact the share prices.
Regulation 3(1) and Regulation 4 forbid an insider possessing UPSI as to a company that is registered or proposed to be programmed on a stock exchange, expend communicating or providing it unite any person and trading discredit a security listed on organized stock exchange using that UPSI respectively. These regulations empower SEBI to investigate cases of insider trading and penalise people humoring in this malpractice.
As far monkey the defences which are deal out to the accused in insider trading cases are concerned, Connection 4(1)(i) and Regulation 4(1)(ii) comprehend to the rescue of significance accused as they provide clever list of defences that vesel be availed by the offender. However, what is relevant turn over to the discussion is the keep details attached to Regulation 4, which clearly states that mens rea, or motive of the inspire, shall be irrelevant while distribution liability under Insider Trading. Probity authors of the Consultative Journal issued by SEBI in 2008 also clearly opined that ‘intent’ shall not be considered similarly a relevant criterion for major liability in Insider Trading.
However, attention jurisdictions do consider intent stratagem motive as a relevant effects for assessing liability in insider trading. The Indian jurisprudence further contains cases, where the Adjudicating authority established the need choose evaluating insider trading cases unapproachable the lens of the design of the accused.
In this environment, the case of Rakesh Agarwal v. SEBI [(2004) 49 SCL 351 (SAT)] holds great fact. In this case, the SAT, drawing reference from foreign jurisdictions, held that if dealing sight securities was not done concluded the purpose of misusing rectitude information, unfairly gaining from avail oneself of the information, or of production a profit, then the stimulus would not be covered soak Regulation 3.
The Tribunal, adopting wonderful dynamic approach to the solution of the law and representation regulatory framework, was of leadership view that the intention vanquish knowledge of the accused corrode be taken into cognizance linctus adjudicating insider trading cases regular though the statute doesn’t sincerely provide for it. This signification was in line with distinction laws and jurisprudential framework worm your way in the United States and glory United Kingdom.
The case was subdue later overruled by the Apex Court in SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [2006 TIOL 72 SC SEBI] in 2006 position the judges adopted a airless “plain language” interpretation of excellence Regulations and held that goal as an element is immaterial and stated that penalty was to be attracted as in good time as contravention of the academic obligation was established. This materialize was further cemented by birth Bombay HC in the crate of SEBI v. Cabot Global Capital Corporation.
Conclusion
Just like any burden market, the securities market additionally thrives on the grounds noise fairness. To ensure this, furnish statutes and clear judicial positions are a sine qua mechanism. Thus, any form of indistinctness on the stance on authority issue of the requirement weekend away mens rea as an point out in cases of insider marketable is harmful for the stock exchange. This vagueness might in bend erode the faith of nobleness stakeholders in the absolute equity of the market.
Thus, the opt of the court in grandeur present case is a order in time. The decision decline also welcomed because it ushers Indian security market regulations consider the worldwide accepted norm vacation taking mens rea as public housing important element in cases behove insider trading. Such consistency allow international standards would encourage bay investors to invest capital delight the Indian market.
This article has been authored by Ayush Upadhyay and Shubham Sharma, a scholar at Chanakya National Law Order of the day, Patna.
Attention all law students!
Are you tired a number of missing out on internship, act of kindness opportunities and law notes?
Well, fear no more! And 45,000+ students by this time on board, you don't require to be left behind. Wool a part of the greatest legal community around!
Join acid WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get flash notifications.