TO BE OR NOT TO BE INCLUDED: WHETHER ‘TRADING’ INCLUDES ‘PLEDGING’ UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROHIBITION OF INSIDER TRADING REGULATIONS
Keywords:
pledging, dealing, unlawful motive, Satyam scam, Disclosures, UPSIAbstract
Abstract
The dynamic nature of Securities law which seeks to protect the interests of the investor and develop the market has raised an intriguing question of whether the term ‘trading’ under the Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations of 2015 includes within its purview ‘pledging’, brought to the forefront by the Satyam scam ruling. This research article endeavours to argue both sides of the ensuing debate considering the tenets of rules of interpretation, use or mere possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI), presence of unlawful motive and the requirement of disclosures of such transactions with the aim of displaying that the law requires not merely definitional clarity but also additions in order to be equipped to prevent the illegitimate of such transactions as compared to those which are conducted in the ordinary course of business with bonafide intentions. Neither a blanket prohibition of such transactions could be the intent of the authorities as that would draw the market to a standstill nor can allowing a clear loophole which acts as a device of deviance be permissible and thus, there is a need to draw a balance between the arguments put forth on both ends of the debate, to allow for the regulations to be triggered but on a certain test being met with and with caveats accounting for the nature of such transactions.
Keywords: Dealing, Pledging, UPSI, Unlawful Motive, Satyam Scam, Disclosures.
References
1. S. 2(l), Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 2015.
2. SEBI Order in the matter of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., WTM/RKA/EFD-SRO/108-117/2015, SRSR Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI (SAT Mumbai, Appeal No. 463 of 2015).
3. P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348.
4. Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1990 SCR (3) 111.
5. William K.S. Wang, ‘Stock Market Insider Trading: Victims, Viola tors and Remedies–Including an Analogy to Fraud in the Sale of a Used Car with a Generic Defect’ (2000) 27 VILL. L. REV.
6. Garner, Bryan and Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (2004, 8th Ed.).
7. Sambhav Sogani, ‘ Pledging of Shares and The Management‟s App etite - Fall Outs and Desired Changes in Takeover Regulations’ (2010) 1 SCL (MAG).
8. Adjuducation Order in respect of MTZ Industries Limited, Order No. BM/AO – 124/2011.
9. Rakesh Agarwal v. SEBI, [2004] 49 SCL 351 (SAT) (India).
10. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker Jain, 1980 AIR 65.
11. Regulation 2(1)(B), SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997.
12. Vinod Kothari, Abhirup Ghosh, Pledges in the Context of Insider Trading Regulations, (2015) accessed on 15 September, 2017.
13. The Reserve Bank of India, Chapter III: Financial Sector Regulation and Infrastructure, (2014) <https://www.rbi.or g.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=161 67> accessed on 19 September, 2017.
14. Gujarat NRE Mine ral Resources Limited v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 207 of 2010 (Nov. 18, 2011), <http://www.sebi.gov.in/s ebi_data/attachdocs/1321605333083.pdf>. JCGIBL (2018) 1-8 © Law Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 7
15. Mrs. Chandrakala v. AO, SEBI [2012] 18 taxmann.com 15/111 SCL 703 (SAT Mum).
16. Report of High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations), 1992.
17. Ramalinga Raju v. SEBI, [2017] 142SCL70 (SAT).
18. Rakesh Agarwal v. SEBI, [2004] 49 SCL 351; Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. SEBI (1998) 18 S.C.L. 311AA.
19. In Re : Cady Roberts & Co. 40 SEC 907 196.
20. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR (1986) SC 515.
21. Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. R., (1898) AC 735.
22. The High Level Committee Report under the Chairmanship of NK Sodhi on the review of the 1992 Regulations (2012) <http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachd ocs/1386758945803.pdf> accessed 22 September, 2017.
23. The High Level Committee Report under the Chairmanship of NK Sodhi on the review of the 1992 Regulations (2012) <http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachd ocs/1386758945803.pdf> accessed 22 September, 2017.
24. The Executive Engineer and Anr.v.SriSeetaram Rice Mill 2011ELR(SC)1498 (India), Tinsukhia Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 1990 SC 123 (India), R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr. AIR 1992 SC 81 (India), Fawcett Properties Ltd. v. Buckingham County Council (1960) 3 All ER 503 (India).
25. Gary, Bryan and Henry C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, (2004, 8th Ed.).
26. Hood-Barrs v. Internal Revenue Commissioners, (1947) WN 12: (1946) ER 768.
27. Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyovoo, AIR (1982) SC 137, 139.
28. SEBI Order in the matter of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., WTM/RKA/EFD-SRO/108-117/2015.
29. N. Narayanan v. SEBI 2013 12 SCC 152 , Share Brokers Pvt. L td. v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 35 of 2013 (Aug. 27, 2013).
30. SEBI Order In the matter of Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Limited, WTM/RKA/EFD-DRA-II/12/2016.
31. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Ors , AIR 1984 SC 505, ¶11.
32. Report of the High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 1992 ), SEBI, (2013), <http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/att achdocs/1386758945803.pdf> accessed 19 September, 2017.
33. Report of the High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 1992 ), SEBI, (2013), <http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/att achdocs/1386758945803.pdf> accessed 19 September, 2017.
34. Report of the High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 1992 ), SEBI, (2013), <http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/att achdocs/1386758945803.pdf> accessed 19 September, 2017.
35. Kemefs Specialities (P.) Ltd. V. SEBI, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 58 (SAT-Mum).
36. Rajiv B. Gandhi & Ors. v. SEBI, Appeal No. 50/2007.
37. Laurel Energetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, ( 2017) (8) SCALE 83.
38. Kemefs Specialities (P.) Ltd. v. SEBI, [2012] 25 taxmann.com 58; N.R. Mercantiles Private Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, Appeal No. 138 of 2013.
39. Securities & Exchange Board of India, Guidance Note on SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (2015)<http://www.sebi.gov.in/enforceme nt/clarifications-on-insider-trading/aug- 2015/guidance-note-on-sebi-prohibition- of-insider-trading-regulations- 2015_30515.html> accessed on 12 September 2017.
40. Sterlite Industries Ltd. V. SEBI, [2003] 45 SCL 475 (Bom).
41. Hindustan Lever Limited v. SEBI [1998] 18 SCL 311 (AA).
42. SEBI v. Shiram Mutual Funds, AIR (2006) SC 2287. JCGIBL (2018) 1-8 © Law Journals 2018. All Rights Reserved Page 8
43. SEC v. David E. Lipson, 129 F. Supp.2d 1148 (2001) (USA).
44. Jayant Thakur, ‘Satyam: I s Pledging of Shares Insider Trading?’ (2009) < https://indiacorplaw.in/2009/01/satyam- update-3-is-pledge-of-shares.html> accessed 29 September, 2017. Cite this Article Sanskriti Sanghi . Included: Whether ‘Trad ing’ Includes ‘Pledging’ Under the Purview of the Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations. International Business Law . May 2018; 1(1): 1–8p.
