Friday, 31 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 31, 2014

  • Apple, Samsung and Micromax fight to bag in BlackBerry top executives.
  • Vikram Bakshi offers buying out McDonald's stake in Joint Venture.
  • Natural gas prices may rise over $9 as US winter push up rates to 4-year high.
  • Gulf carriers compete to cut ticket prices to channel traffic from India.
  • Treat MPs as per VIP protocol: Director General of Civil Aviation (DCGA) tells private carriers.
Source: Economic Times

CCI RULES OUT ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION BY OMAXE

Applicable Act: Competition Act, 2002

Present information was filed by Mr. Naresh Bansal & Mr. Gagan Deep Goel (Informants) against M/s Omaxe Limited (OP, Opposite Party). The Informants have alleged that OP has violated the provisions of the Act with regard to development of a Real Estate Project.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

OP is the Real Estate Developer and was asked by the Informants to specify the location and sought allotment of plot or refund of amount paid by the Informants to get registered for plots with Interest. For the same, Informants paid certain sums to the OP. The OP confirmed the allotment of the plot bearing no. 1343 in Omaxe city project at Sonepat, Haryana. However, Informants came to know that OP cancelled its earlier allotment and re-alloted a plot bearing no. 1886 in the same project.

Later,  OP issued cancellation letter to the Informants citing default in payment as the reason. The Informants alleged that this willful cancellation is arbitrary in nature and damaged and restricted the rights of the Informant which is abuse of dominance by the OP under section 4 of the Act.

It is evident that the market for service for development of residential plots in Sonepat district of Haryana is very broad and highly competitive. The presence of other Real Estate players in Haryana made it a competitive market.

There is no information on record and available in the public domain which shows a position of strength of OP enabling it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market.

ALLEGATIONS
  1. Informants, who had registered for plots with OP, had alleged that the firm made a representation to the public at large regarding a real estate project without specifying the details and identity of the property.
  2. Informants alleged that OP had abused its dominant market position by imposing one-sided and anti-competitive agreements on buyers of plots, among others.
  3. Among others, it was also alleged that under the agreement, there was no exit route to buyers of plots in case of violation of terms on part of OP and the company would not have to face any consequences for same.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons mentioned above, there arises no competition concern under sections 3 or 4 of the Act.

DECISION

CCI has rejected the complaint that alleged OP of indulging in anti-competitive practices with respect to development of residential plots in Sonepat district of Haryana.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN INDIA BY SEBI REGISTERED LONG TERM INVESTORS IN GOVERNMENT DATED SECURITIES

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 29/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 99

Reserve Bank of India, in consultation with the Government, has decided to enhance the existing sub-limit of $5 billion available to long term investors – Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), Multilateral Agencies, Pension/ Insurance/ Endowment Funds and Foreign Central Banks - registered with SEBI for investment in Government dated securities to $10 billion.

This doubling of the investment sub-limit is within the total limit of $30 billion available for foreign investments in Government securities. The operational guidelines in this regard will be issued by SEBI.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.99

Thursday, 30 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 30, 2014

  • Tatas to bag Rs. 1,000 crore Army contract to supply heavy duty trucks.
  • Finance Ministry seeks easier ARC norms to check bad loans and appointment of nominee directors in ARCs (Asset Reconstruction Companies).
  • Lupin recalls Quinapril tablets from US market after failing impurity specification test.
  • Ajay Piramal's plan to buy 20% in Shriram Capital stagnant as shareholders fail to decide the quantum of stake.
Source: Economic Times

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 29, 2014

  • FabIndia to reinvent itself with western apparel line; targets young Indians.
  • Pramod Bhasin to head DLF's rental business.
  • Ranbaxy plant at Toansa under US Food and Drugs Administration (USFDA) lens.
  • Mahindra Blues fest to kick off on February 15.
  • Suzuki to own Gujarat plant, make vehicles only for Maruti.
  • Sebi slaps Rs. 5 crore penalty on 'Sanghvi Group' entities for indulging in fictitious trading activities.
Source: Economic Times

Monday, 27 January 2014

FII POSITION LIMITS IN EXCHANGE TRADED INTEREST RATE FUTURES (IRF)

ISSUING AUTHORITY : SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 20/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. : CIR/MRD/DRMNP/2/2014

SEBI in consultation with RBI prescribed the framework for Stock Exchanges to launch cash settled Interest Rate Futures on 10-year G-sec.

The following position limits were prescribed for FIIs:

The gross open positions of the FII across all contracts shall not exceed 10% of the total open interest or INR 600 crores, whichever is higher.

Additional restriction:
  • Total gross short (sold) position - Not to exceed its long position in the government securities and in Interest Rate Futures, at any point in time.
  • Total gross long (bought) position - Not to exceed the aggregate permissible limit for investment in government securities for FIIs.
For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:
CIR/MRD/DRMNP/2/2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 27, 2014

  • Vodafone draws up plan to take on Bharti Airtel, Reliance Jio Infocomm.
  • Oil Ministry seeks Cabinet nod for open licensing policy with Nelp.
  • Air India set to offer Wi-fi on its aircrafts.
  • Hinduja group plans big expansion in Africa in automotive, technology and energy sectors.
  • Google, Samsung announce global patent licensing agreement.
  • Google to buy artificial intelligence company DeepMind.
  • Tata Motors MD Karl Slym passes away; Ravi Kant may be interim head.
Source: Economic Times

Friday, 24 January 2014

FABER-CASTELL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (INFORMANT) VS. M/S A. W. FABER CASTELL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ORS (DEFENDANT)

Applicable Act: The Companies Act, 1956 (The Act)

ALLEGATIONS


The Informant filed a complaint to the Company Law Board (CLB) under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 accusing Defendants of misappropriation and diversion of funds and mismanagement, Defendant 1 being the Indian arm of the Informant and Defendant 2 being the Managing Director of Defendant 1 company.

BRIEF OF FACTS 

The Informant is a German company holding 90% stake in the Defendant 1 company and the balance 10% rests with Defendant 2 being the Managing Director. The Informant was keen to buy the balance stake from Defendant 2.
A shareholder or board member can file a lawsuit under the above sections of the Act for "mismanagement" and "oppression" by the other board members.
Earlier, in August 2011, the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai pulled up against the Defendants for violation of Section 297 which pertains to contracts in which the Director is interested. The defendant entered into such contracts without the prior approval of the Board of Directors and the Central Government required for entering into such contracts.

CONCLUSION

Keeping in view the above facts, the interim prayers were disposed of in the following manner:

1. Defendant 2 has decided to exit out from Defendant 1 company upon receiving a fair valuation of his shares held in the company.
2. Defendant 1 may take such steps as required to hold meeting for approving the Accounts of the company after due notice to Defendant 2 who is directed to remain present and participate in such meeting. He may put on record in writing his protest with the remark "without prejudice to his rights and contentions."
3. The presence of Defendant 2 is must to constitute the quorum for the meeting as required in the AOA and in his absence, the resolution(s) if any, passed may amount as invalid resolution. If he still chooses to remain absent, the meeting may be held and concluded in his absence by the other directors of the Defendant 1 company.
4. The right of Defendant 2 to challenge the truthfulness and accuracy of the accounts and make appropriate submission before the Valuer or such other Forum as he deems fit is kept reserved.
5. Defendant 2 is given the right to express his apprehensions and file objections in the course of the deliberations to be held in the meeting(s).
6. The minutes of meeting(s) shall be circulated not later than 3 days from the date of holding of such meeting(s) and Defendant 2 will be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking relief(s) in the instant petition if he feels aggrieved.
7. Defendant 2, in the capacity of MD will not take any decisions relating to appointment and termination, transfer, promotion etc. of any employee.
8. The application of the Informant to change the signatories for various bank accounts of Defendant 1 company and determining the mode of operation of such bank accounts, is hereby rejected.

DECISION

With regards to Section 397 and 398 of the Act, the CLB gave its verdict prohibiting Defendant 2 to participate in the competing business.

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 24, 2014

  • IL & FS Transportation Networks will develop multi-level car parking in Gujarat for Rs. 350 crore.
  • Prakash Steelage plans to invest Rs. 70 crore to set up industrial park in Gujarat.
  • Indian-American professor Rakesh Khurana appointed Dean of Harvard College.
  • Amul airs its first social media advertisement on YouTube.
  • India retains 4th spot in steel production in the world in 2013.
Source: Economic Times

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

HB STOCKHOLDING LTD. (INFORMANT) VS. DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS (DEFENDANT)

Applicable Act: The Companies Act, 1956 (The Act)

ALLEGATIONS

The informant alleged the defendant of an act of oppression under Section 397 and 398 of the Act with respect to the issue of preferential allotment of convertible warrants at Rs. 90 to other person against its offer of Rs. 120.

BRIEF OF FACTS

The securities market regulator, SEBI and the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) refused to intervene in the above matter since the said allotment was made with the voting of majority shareholders. SEBI held that it would intervene only when the interests of the shareholders, in any manner are adversely affected because of the act of the company and since the shareholders had voted in majority, SEBI would have no adverse remarks on the mode adopted by the company for mobilising capital for the working needs. Both the authorities were of the view that an action could lie before the Company Law Board (CLB) on the grounds of oppression.
The informant preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of (SAT).

CONCLUSION

Even though SEBI and SAT had approved the allotment and declined to interfere with the matter, the same lacked honesty and integrity and amounted to an act of oppression. The jurisdictions under which SEBI / SAT and CLB operate are distinct and not overlapping.

DECISION

The application was dismissed and it was held that a petition lied before the CLB for an act of oppression under Section 397 and 398 of the Act. 

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. (INFORMANT) VS. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (DEFENDANT)

Applicable Act: The Competition Act, 2002 (The Act)

ALLEGATIONS
  • The defendant had sued the informant for patent infringement and the informant in turn responded by filing a complaint to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act which pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.
  • The informant alleged the defendant of abusing its dominant position by imposing exorbitant royalty rates for Software Engineering Professionals (SEPs).
  • The informant further argued that the royalty for the defendant's patents related to mobile phones should be based on the value of the technology used, not on the sale price of a phone. 
  • The informant also submitted that the defendant had subjected all its present as well as prospective licensees to Non-Disclosure Agreements, refusing the disclosure of commercial terms between similarly placed licensees.
BRIEF OF FACTS

The defendant owned SEPs in respect of 2G, 3G and 4G patents used for smart phones, tablets, etc., which fall under "GSM" technology. The informant has contended the dominance of the defendant in the Indian markets and the relevant geographic market would be the territory of India. From the information and documents provided by the informant, it was prima facie evident that the defendant held a dominant position in the relevant market of GSM and CDMA in India and held a large number of patents. The defendant has 400 patents granted in India. There is no other alternate technology in the market and the defendant enjoys complete dominance over its present and prospective licensees in the relevant product market.

The defendant charged royalty on the basis of the cost of product of user for its patent and was alleged of acting contrary to the FRAND (Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) terms. Charging of two different license fees per unit phone for use of the same technology prima facie was held discriminatory and also reflected excessive pricing vis-a-vis high cost phones. The royalty charged for the use of same chipset in a smartphone was ten times the royalty for ordinary phone. 

CONCLUSION

The defendant had raised issues regarding infringement of Intellectual Property Rights in the High Court. Section 62 bestows the right to move to the CCI as it makes clear that the provisions of the Competition Act are in addition and not in derogation of the existing laws. Pendency of a civil suit in the High Court does not take away the jurisdiction of the Commission to proceed under the Act.

DECISION

The Commission was of the opinion that it was a fit case for investigation by the Director General into the allegations made by the Informant and violations, if any, of the Act.

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. (INFORMANT) VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DEFENDANT)

Applicable Act: The Competition Act, 2002 (The Act)

ALLEGATIONS

The informant submitted an application before the defendant seeking inter alia quashing and setting aside of the Director General's report to the extent it pertains to the alleged violation of Section 4 of the Act and the orders passed by the defendant considering the said report, primarily on the ground that investigation into the alleged violation of Section 4 of the Act was beyond the scope of the powers of the Director General (DG).
The said application was dismissed by the defendant and the informant moved the High Court.

BRIEF OF FACTS

The defendant on consideration of information and after forming a prima facie opinion that there existed a case to direct the DG to cause an investigation into the matter regarding the manufacturers of Man Made Fibres (MMF) that imposed several restrictions on Indian Textile Industry, which were their customers for purchase of MMF, and such restrictions constituted anti-competitive actions, ordered the DG to investigate and file a report for the same pertaining to contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

During the investigation, the DG was informed about the informant, who was the only manufacturer of VSF in the country on account of its dominant position in the market of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF), of indulging into various anti-competitive practices. The DG on his own decided to investigate into these issues as well and submitted the report to the defendant accordingly.

As per the report, there was no violation of the said provisions either by MMF or the informant. But the informant being a dominant enterprise was found to have abused its dominant position in the VSF market, thereby contravening Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

The formation of opinion by the defendant and direction to cause an investigation to be made by the DG is a pre-requisite condition for initiation of investigation, the DG would have no power to undertake investigation in respect of the complaint the defendant did not consider while forming an opinion and directing investigation by the DG. Such an act on part of the DG shall be ultra vires his power under the Act and therefore, clearly illegal.
The report of the DG is to be confined to the allegations made in the information or the reference received by the defendant and he is not competent to travel outside the said information or reference.

DECISION

Considering the above facts, the High Court is of the opinion that the writ petition be disposed of with the direction that the report of the DG, to the extent that it included the findings specifying the contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the informant by misuse of its dominant position as a VSF manufacturer. The defendant, if on consideration of the said part is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case of contravention of the procedure of Section 4 of the Act by the informant shall proceed accordingly.

DEALERS TAKE TYRE MAKERS TO CCI OVER CARTELISATION

The All India Tyre Dealers Federation (AITDF) had filed a case before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in 2007 alleging cartelisation by manufacturers. The Ministry referred the case to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) and later to the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The tyre manufacturers specifically include five major domestic tyre makers - Apollo Tyres, MRF, Ceat Tyre, Birla Tyre and JK Tyre.

Cartelisation generally adversely impacts overall competition in the market and is prohibited under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The AITDF wrote to the CCI complaining that the domestic tyre companies raised prices when the prices of natural rubber went up but had not reduced the prices when the rubber prices came down. Since the tyre companies have all stuck to this pricing strategy, it is oligopolistic and anti-competitive, the AITDF said in its letter to the CCI. It urged the CCI to take suo motu action on the matter as it is an anti-competitve practice.

Responding to the letter, the CCI asked AITDF to explain its case in front of it, and the AITDF has decided that its "representative will appear before the Commission on February 18, 2014," said a statement from the Federation.

Tyre majors decided to raise prices when the natural rubber price curve moved up sharply last year. However, rubber prices have been on a southward trend since then, down to Rs. 151/kg from the previous peak price of Rs. 240/kg. This forced the dealers demand a cut in tyre prices. 

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 22, 2014

  • Cairn India under Income Tax scanner over transfer of assets by its parent company.
  • Software Development Company Monocept launches 'Lost My Wallet' mobile application.
  • P&G to invest Rs. 1,500 crore in India to catch up with Hindustan UniLever and add new brands from global portfolio.
  • SpiceJet triggers full-scale fare war; slashes tickets prices by 50% for 30 days of advance booking.
  • Infosys reclaims the spot of most influential stock on Sensex.
  • Dealers take tyre makers like MRF, JK and Birla Tyres to CCI over cartelisation.
  • Hindustan Zinc gets Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs' (CCEA) nod for Government's residual sale stake.
  • FPIs need CA certificate certifying payment of all taxes before repatriating funds out of the country.
Source: Economic Times

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

FDI: ISSUE OF SHARES FOR CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN CASH

SHARES AGAINST NON-CASH CONSIDERATION

The FDI policy allows issue of shares by Indian companies to foreign investors only against cash remittances received through normal banking channels. However, the only exceptions to this are External Commercial Borrowings outstanding as well as payment obligations towards lump sum fee or royalty for technical collaborations. Any other type of transaction involving an  issue of shares to foreign investors for consideration other than cash requires approval of the Government of India through the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

In this background, and in order to provide more investment options, the Government issued a discussion paper in September 2010 considering additional methods of issue of shares for consideration other than cash.

Below is a table depicting the cases which have been accepted, prohibited and granted approval on case to case basis.

SR. NO.
ACCEPTED
PROHIBITED
APPROVAL ON CASE TO CASE BASIS
1.
Import on capital goods / equipment (including second hand machinery)
Against Import of raw material / trade payable
Share swaps
2.
Pre-operative / pre-incorporation expenses (including payment of rent etc.)
In lieu of services
Against one-time extraordinary payments
3.

Against Intangible assets (including franchisee rights)
Sweat equity shares
4.

Advance receipt for export
Against outstanding loan
5.

Against dividend payable

6.

Other kinds of consideration / unclear source of money for issue of shares


Only the following additional methods have been accepted for issue of shares for non-cash consideration:

1. Import of Capital goods / machinery / equipment (including second-hand machinery)
Any import by a resident in India has to be in accordance with the Export / Import Policy issued by Government of India. Payment against the same also needs to be in compliance with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) provisions relating to imports. Further, import of such goods is fully documented by the customs authorities, who also make an assessment of the fair value of such imports. Since adequate checks on the fair value of such imports are available, allotment of shares against the latter can be permitted, with prior Government approval.

2. Pre-operative / Pre-incorporation expenses (including payment of rent etc.)
A significant amount of expenditure is incurred between the conceptualization of the company, its incorporation and commencement of commercial production. This expenditure is often capitalized. If the overseas promoter has incurred these expenses, it is often proposed that shares be issued against such expenditure. Considering that payments made against pre-incorporation are allowed to be remitted under the general permission route, it could be considered whether issue of shares against such expenses should also be permitted.

With regards to the following options, the FIPB has granted approval on case to case basis.

1. Share swaps
Share swap transactions are based on the mutual benefits accruing to both, the Indian entity as well as the foreign entity. They reduce the need for cash flows, while simultaneously meeting the end objectives of investment. This framework presumes swap of shares in an Indian company with shares in a foreign company. Such investments are governed by the Overseas Direct Investment (ODI) guidelines and procedures prescribed under FEMA/RBI. The FIPB considers share-swap proposals on a case to case basis. Values of shares to the entities involved should be comparable for obtaining FIPB approval.

2. Issue of shares against one-time extraordinary payments
Companies may need to issue shares in Joint Venture Company in consideration of business in the form of assets, liabilities and accumulated profits; issue of shares in lieu of an award sum payable in an arbitration case. The FIPB shall grant approval after considering applications on case to case basis and if the same is within the ambit of FEMA.
.
3. Issue of Sweat Equity Shares
Generally the sweat equity shares are issued to promoters to compensate them for their contribution in the formation of the company/execution of projects. Such issue to non-residents is permitted under the Companies Act and so the FIPB has been liberal in granting approval for the same.

4. Issue of shares against outstanding loan
There have been times when non-residents have cleared obligations or incurred expenses on behalf of companies thereby creating loans / amounts due to them. In order to repay such loans, companies can issue shares against the same. This would need approval of the FIPB.

The FIPB has prohibited the issue of shares against the following options.

1. Issue of shares against import of raw material / trade payable
It should be noted that such issue has not been granted approval by the FIPB. Issue of shares against raw material imports / trade payables is in the nature of recurring current account transaction which falls outside the scope of FDI.

2. Issue of shares in lieu of services
This option too is not permitted by FIPB as it is a current account transaction. Companies with commitments to avail services from non-residents may desire to issue shares in lieu of payments for such services availed. The main drawback would be the ambiguity in determining the value of services rendered and to fix a particular method to determine the same. The valuation of services imported is subjective and the authentication as whether such services were actually rendered/delivered makes it difficult to get permission for the same.

3. Issue of shares against intangible assets (including franchisee rights)
The need for issue of shares against intangible assets has often been expressed. There are, however, no widely accepted criteria for valuation of intangibles. There is a possibility that such cases may lead to situations of issue of excess shares, in the absence of detailed criteria. Since such cases may pose significant challenges in terms of valuation, and would require evolution of detailed guidelines, the balance of convenience may lie in not considering such cases for the present.

4. Advance receipt for export
The FIPB has not favoured the issue of shares against export advance received, as the same in not within the purview of FEMA and is in the nature of a current account transaction.

5. Issue of shares against dividend payable
The Companies Act, 1956 prohibits the issue of shares against dividend. The company cannot treat dividend declared as debt due to the non-resident investor and set it off by issuing shares against it. The dividend payable to a non-resident needs to be remitted through the banking channels to the non-resident investor.

6. Other kinds of consideration / unclear source of money for issue of shares
There may be very peculiar and one time situations when shares may be issued against expenses incurred. Purchase of land, issue of shares against amount received by invoking a bank guarantee, obligations under settlement schemes, payment of management service fee, payment of foreign branch office costs are some examples where shares can be allotted for consideration other than cash unless prior approval of FIPB has been obtained.

CONCLUSION

Such changes enable Indian companies to procure equipment and services from foreign enterprises (particularly collaborators) when they are either unable to pay cash, or when a cash transaction is not desirable from a financing standpoint.
It allows payment by Indian companies through issue of its own shares. Such a method also ensures that suppliers and collaborators have an interest in the success of the Indian company's business by taking a stake in it (and thereby assuming risk). 

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 21, 2014

  • Kwality (KDIL) in talks with Rabo Equity Advisors to offload its stake to raise Rs. 500 crore.
  • China's Lenovo Group resumes discussions to buy IBM unit.
  • Unitech joint venture ropes in PVR, KidZania for Noida Entertainment Project.
  • Dell's 'Venue' hits market; company launches new android, windows tablets.
  • PepsiCo may soon tie-up with Mumbai Indians as beverages partner.
Source: Economic Times

Monday, 20 January 2014

CLARIFICATION - ESTABLISHMENT OF LIAISON OFFICE/ BRANCH OFFICE/ PROJECT OFFICE IN INDIA BY FOREIGN ENTITIES - GENERAL PERMISSION

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 15/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 93

RBI has included Hong Kong and Macau in the sensitive list of countries along with Pakistan and China that will require its prior approval to set up business or related activities in India.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran and China are already in the sensitive list which means entities and residents of these countries will need prior RBI permission to establish a branch office or a liaison office or a project office in India.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:

CONVERSION OF EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWING (ECB) AND LUMPSUM FEE/ROYALTY INTO EQUITY

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 16/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 94

Companies can convert their Overseas Borrowings through the ECB route into Equity Shares at the foreign  exchange rate applicable on the date of swap agreement.

It is clarified that the ECB conversion by an Indian company can be below its fair value. However, the fair value of the equity shares to be issued shall be worked out with reference to the date of conversion only.

This rule shall also apply to a liability denominated in foreign currency where lump sum fees/royalties, etc. are permitted to be converted to equity shares or other securities to be issued to a foreign investor subject to other conditions.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT - PRICING GUIDELINES FOR FDI INSTRUMENTS WITH OPTIONALLY CLAUSES

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 09/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 86

It has now been decided that optionality clauses may henceforth be allowed in Equity Shares and compulsorily and mandatorily convertible Preference Shares/Debentures to be issued to a person resident outside India under the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Scheme.

The provision of optionality clause shall be subject to the following conditions:
  • There is a minimum lock-in period of one year or a minimum lock-in period as prescribed under FDI Regulations, whichever is higher.
  • After the lock-in period, as applicable above, the non-resident investor exercising option/right shall be eligible to exit without any assured return, as under:

(i) In case of a listed company, the non-resident investor shall be eligible to exit at the market price prevailing at the recognised stock exchanges

(ii) In case of unlisted company, the non-resident investor shall be eligible to exit from the Investment in equity shares of the investee company at a price not exceeding that arrived at on the basis of Return on Equity (RoE) as per the latest audited balance sheet. 
(iii) Investments in Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) and Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) of an investee company may be transferred at a price worked out as per any internationally accepted pricing methodology at the time of exit duly certified by a Chartered Accountant or a SEBI registered Merchant Banker.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 20, 2014

  • Comstar Auto owners in talks with Mitsubishi to sell company.
  • For 2nd year in a row, NSE is world's largest bourse in equity trades.
  • The United States' refusal to sign off on a higher IMF quota, saves India Rs. 14,000 crore.
  • Walmart sets up new firm in India named 'Walmart India Private Limited'.
  • Reliance Industries-BP plc to quadruple natural gas production by 2020.
  • Big B to vie for top players for Kabaddi Premiere League.
Source: Economic Times

Monday, 13 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 13, 2014

  • Lanco Infratech explores sale of Griffin Coal Mine to pare debt; co close to inking Rs. 7,500 crore pact.
  • Drug manufacturers charged penalty for overcharging by selling off old stocks at unrevised rates.
  • Motilal Oswal to sell its 15% stake in Parag Milk for Rs. 200 crore post Tirumala deal.
  • Top executive of Yash Birla Group held for possessing drugs.
Source: Economic Times

Saturday, 11 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 11, 2014

  • Singapore's Wilmar International in talks to buy majority stake in Shree Renuka Sugars.
  • Volatile rupee, upcoming polls may slow down Cisco's expansion plan this year.
  • SpiceJet to raise $21 million from warrants issue to promoters.
  • SBI gets nod from shareholders for Rs. 11,500 crore Qualified Institutional Placement.
Source: Economic Times

Friday, 10 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 10, 2014

  • Tata-Singapore Airlines joint venture orders 20 Airbus A320s for India launch.
  • Tata Steel bags major track supply deal of over 2,00,000 tonnes with French rail operator.
  • Shapoorji Pallonji bags Max India's construction bid.
  • India Inc's Rs. 2 trillion debt dilemma for the banking system.
  • Standard Chartered to restructure its business merging wholesale and consumer business from April 1.
  • Employees' Provident Fund Organisation subscribed to SBI's entire tier II bond for Rs. 2,000 crore at the rate of 9.69%.
Source: Economic Times

Thursday, 9 January 2014

NCLAT (SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS) RULES

PAY

Chairperson
  • Salary – Fixed monthly pay of Rs. 90,000.
  • Allowances – As are admissible to an officer in the Cabinet Secretary’s Scale of Rs. 90,000 (fixed).

Judicial Member
  • Salary – Fixed pay in the scale of Rs. 80,000.
  • Allowances – As are admissible to an officer in the Apex Scale of Rs. 80,000 (fixed).

Technical Member
  • Salary – Fixed pay in the scale of Rs. 80,000.
  • Allowances – As are admissible to an officer in the Apex Scale (fixed).
PENSION, GRATUITY OR PROVIDENT FUND

In case a serving Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, a serving Judicial Member of the Tribunal or a person in Government service is appointed to the post as any of the above member, the pension to be drawn shall be governed in terms of the service rules and also be governed by the provisions of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960.

LEAVE

The Chairperson and every other member shall be entitled to 30 days of Earned Leave for every year of service and encashment of 50% of the same standing to their credit at any time. The payment of Leave salary shall be governed by Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES

The Chairperson and Members, while on a tour in India or on transfer shall be entitled to the travelling and daily allowance, transportation of personnel effects and other similar matters 

OFFICIAL VISITS ABROAD

Official visits abroad by the Chairperson and Members shall be undertaken only in accordance with orders issued by the Central Government and they shall be entitled to draw such allowances in respect of such visits 

LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION

The Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal shall be entitled to Leave Travel Concession at the same rates  

As are admissible to an officer of the Central Government in the equivalent pay grade or scale, subject to the first proviso of sub-rule (3) of rule 3.

FACILITY FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

The Chairperson and Members shall be entitled to medical treatment and hospital facilities as provided in the Central Government Health Scheme.

ACCOMMODATION

The Chairperson and Members shall have the option of claiming house rent allowance in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Central Government for Group ‘A’ officers of equivalent pay grade or scale.

CONVEYANCE FACILITY

The Chairperson and Members shall be entitled to the facility of staff car for journeys for official and private purposes.

TELEPHONE FACILITY, OFFICIAL MEETINGS AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES

The Chairperson and Members shall be entitled to the above facilities as admissible to Group ‘A’ of the Central Government drawing an equivalent pay.

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF SITTING JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR A CHIEF JUSTICE OF A HIGH COURT OR A JUDGE OF A HIGH COURT APPOINTED AS CHAIRPERSON OR JUDICIAL MEMBER

The service conditions unless specifically provided for in these rules, shall be as contained in the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, or the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as the case may be, and the rules made there under shall apply to him.

OATH OF OFFICE AND SECRECY

Every person appointed as the Chairman or a Member, shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe an oath of office and secrecy, in Form I and II of these rules.

DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL OR OTHER INTEREST

Every person, on his appointment as the Chairperson or Member, shall give a declaration to the satisfaction of the Central Government, that he does not have any such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as Chairperson or Member, as the case may be.

OVERSEAS DIRECT INVESTMENTS - ROLLOVER OF GUARANTEES

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 03/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 83

It has been decided not to treat/reckon the renewal/rollover of an existing/original guarantee, which is part of the total financial commitment of the Indian party, as a fresh financial commitment subject to certain riders.

These riders, including the following:
  • existing/original guarantee, was issued in terms of the then extant/prevailing FEMA
  • there is no change in the end use of the guarantee.
  • there is no change in any of the terms & conditions, including the amount of the guarantee except the validity period.
  • the reporting of the rolled over guarantee would be done as a fresh financial commitment in Part II of form Overseas Direct Investments
  • And if the Indian party is under investigation by any investigation / enforcement agency or regulatory body, the concerned agency / body shall be kept informed about the same.
In case these conditions are not met, the Indian party shall obtain prior approval of RBI for rollover / renewal of the existing guarantee through the designated bank.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.83

EXTERNAL COMMERCIAL BORROWINGS (ECB) POLICY - LIBERALIZATION OF DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR

ISSUING AUTHORITY : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATE OF ISSUE : 06/01/2014
EFFECTIVE DATE : IMMEDIATE EFFECT
CIRCULAR NO. 85

The existing definition of infrastructure sector for the purpose of availing ECB has been extended to include the Harmonised Master List of Infrastructure sub-sectors and Institutional Mechanism. The List consists of (i) power (ii) telecommunication (iii) railways (iv) road including bridges (v) sea port and airport (vi) industrial parks (vii) urban infrastructure (viii) mining, exploration and refining (ix) cold storage or cold room facility

'Maintenance, Repairs and Overhaul' shall be treated as part of the sub-sector of Airport in the Transport Sector of Infrastructure for the purpose of ECB.

For detailed Circular, please follow the link below:
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 85

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 9, 2014

  • Facebook acquires Bangalore-based app performance solutions startup Little Eye Labs for around $15 million.
  • Airtel hires IT expert Manish Prakash to head its enterprise unit.
  • Sebi notifies Foreign Portfolio Investor norms; ushers in easier operating climate.
  • Oilmin opposed to Indian Oil share sale because of low investor interest.
  • First national wind energy mission to be launched by mid-2014.
  • Ex Director of Sun-Area, Alok Aggarwal roped in as the new CEO of Milestone's realty biz.
  • Indiareit raises Rs. 1,000 crore for domestic property fund.
  • Welspun Energy signs MoU with Punjab Government for solar power project for Rs. 1,350 crore.
Source: Economic Times

Wednesday, 8 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 8, 2014

  • Honda to rev up with new Rajasthan plant and new cars based on the Brio platform.
  • Dubai's SP Jain School of Global Management ranked 19th in Forbes list of top B-schools.
  • Asia Index Private Limited to S&P BSE India 10 year sovereign bond index.
  • Wineries in Nashik set to host festivals to create brand awareness and boost sales.
  • Salaried taxpayers required to get landlord PAN details printed on A-4 size paper for HRA claim.
Source: Economic Times

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 7, 2014

  • Vinita Bali to exit Britannia in March, COO Varun Berry to chart his strategy for top management.
  • Flipkart may launch its own fashion brand and acquire fashion portals like Zovi and YepMe.
  • Ex Telecom Secretary R Chandrashekhar takes charge as new Nasscom President.
  • Hit by liquidity crunch, banks pay penal rate for RBI funds.
  • Sosyo plans to take it global by raising Rs. 200 crore from African investors.
Source: Economic Times

Monday, 6 January 2014

NEWS WRAP - JANUARY 6, 2014

  • LIC picked up debt worth Rs. 7,000 crore from nine states.
  • High import duty, 50-60% rise in gold sales force jewellers open shops in Gulf.
  • Cabinet Committee on Investment to consider infrastructure development projects worth Rs. 33,000 crore.
  • Southern grid connectivity to help NTPC to activate idle capacity to generate 7,000 MW electricity.
  • TCS, Infosys, Wipro plan promotions, hefty hikes to retain talent.
Source: Economic Times

Friday, 3 January 2014

MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR (INFORMANT) VS. NOKIA CORPORATION (DEFENDA

Applicable Act: The Competition Act, 2002 (The Act)

BRIEF OF FACTS
  • A notice was given pursuant to the Purchase Agreement dated 2nd September, 2013 entered into between the informant and defendant in relation to the proposed combination.
  • The informant is a multinational software corporation headquartered in USA, and is primarily involved in the design, development and supply of computer software, hardware devices and related devices.
  • The defendant is a multinational communications and information technology corporation, headquartered in Finland. It is active in the development and supply of mobile devices (smarphones as well as basic/feature phones) through its business division like Device and Services (D&S).
  • The informant will acquire substantially the entire D&S business of the defendant. The defendant will grant the informant a ten year non-exclusive license to its patents, as at the time of closing, with an option to extend the same to perpetuity.
  • The informant will grant the defendant reciprocal rights to use the patents of the informant in the services offered by HERE North America LLC, a subsidiary of the defendant. The informant will also become a strategic licensee of Nokia's HERE platform, as the defendant will grant the informant a four-year non-exclusive license to the HERE geospatial data and services.
  • The informant would have a ten year license arrangement with the defendant to use the defendant brand on current and subsequently developed produces based on the Series 30 and Series 40 Operating System and that the defendant will continue to own and maintain the defendant brand. 

REASON

In India, the proposed combination relates to the mobile phone handsets (including the smartphones and tablets) business and the business related to the operating systems used in these devices. The notice filed by the informant stated that the proposed combination aimed to enhance the informant’s device business and strengthen opportunities for the informant and its developers across the defendant’s phone eco-system. It is the eco-system in this business which drives the demand between the users, application developers and designers/manufacturers.

As regards the proposed combination, it is noticed that in India, while the defendant is active in the D&S business of mobile handsets, the informant is not active in that business. As on the date of filing of the notice, both informant and defendant were also not active in the business of manufacturing and sale of tablets in India. As regards the operating software used in the mobile smartphones and tablets, it is noted that, in India, the defendant is not active in the said business.

There exists a vertical relationship between the two parties but the same is insignificant, taking into consideration the minimal share of the informant as well as the presence of major players in India and also given the minimal share of the defendant in the business of mobile phones and the presence of numerous other global and local players.

DECISION

Considering the above facts and the details provided in the notice, the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed combination is not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the proposed combination under sub – section (1) of section 31 of the Act.

CITIZEN GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FOUNDATION (INFORMANT) VS. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD. (DEFENDANT)

Applicable Act: The Competition Act, 2002 (The Act)

ALLEGATIONS

The informant alleged the Mumbai and Delhi Airport of abuse of dominance under section 4 of the Act for charging high parking rates from the customers in comparison to other airports in India.

BRIEF OF FACTS
  • The two airports were owned and operated by consortiums which had bid for the entire airport project and the contract went to the bidder offering the highest share of revenue to Airport Authority of India (AAI).
  • The agreement included providence of aeronautical and non-aeronautical services. The joint ventures were free to fix charges for non-aeronautical services and vehicle parking was included in the same.
  • The parking charges at Mumbai and Delhi airports were excessively high while the parking rates charged at Kolkata and Chennai airports were relatively low. At Chennai and Kolkata, the rates offered for both aeronautical and non-aeronautical services are regulated and approved in advance by AAI.

CONCLUSION

The violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act is to be seen in view of the allegation of fixing of charges of non-aeronautical services, which are not regulated in Mumbai and Delhi.

The earnings from non-aeronautical services form an important part of income for an Airport project owned by a consortium and hence it is given the liberty to fix prices on its own. But each such service cannot be bifurcated from the point of view of cost audit or pricing to decide if the price charged is fair / unfair. Concluding that the vehicle parking rates are higher for the defendant would mean that a consortium prices its services individually based on individual costs (and hence price is excessive in relation to cost of provisioning).

The defendant had 2-3 times more passengers than Kolkata and Chennai airports. The principle of demand and supply would come into play to discourage passengers from using parking space at airport and to promote the use of public transport, fixing the parking rate as per the market demand is helpful.

DECISION

From the above facts, there does not appear to be any competition issues involved. The Commission is prima facie of the opinion that merely because the parking rates of the defendant are higher than other airports, it is not a fit case for issuing directions for causing an investigation to be made by the DG and the case deserves to be closed under section 26(2) of the Act.