By Aryaman Kapoor and Samriddhi Guha, Second Year Students at Jindal Global Law School
On August 12, 2021, the Board of Directors of Aurobindo Pharma Limited, announced its financial results for the first quarter along with the dividend. At the same time, it also announced its agreement to acquire a majority stake in Cronus Pharma Specialties India Private Limited. After this notice was made public, the stock of Aurobindo Pharma Limited spiraled down by 25% and hit a fresh 52-week low due to a decline in revenue as well as a rejection by the market of the Cronus Pharma acquisition deal due to the low revenue base. After this, on August 20, 2021, there was another notice issued by Aurobindo Pharma in compliance with Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations 2015 (‘LODR’), in which it was stated that the agreement to acquire Cronus Pharma was mutually terminated by both the parties and that the Board of Directors approved this termination of the acquisition. After this notice was made public, the stock of Aurobindo Pharma rebounded reflecting a positive reaction of the investors towards the termination of their plan to acquire Cronus Pharmaceuticals.
Continue reading “The Unreported Case of Aurobindo Pharma’s Non-Compliance”
By Anmol Ratan, Fourth Year Student at NLSIU Bangalore
Back in 2010, Dani Rodrik, a renowned economist at Harvard proposed the idea of the political trilemma and hyper-globalisation in his book, The Globalisation Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (W.W. Norton, 2010). Over the course of his book Rodrik hinted at the latent yet potent tension amidst ‘national sovereignty, democracy and hyper-globalisation’. Calling the trio the ‘Political Trilemma of the World Economy’, he argued that a nation cannot have all the three constituent phenomena all at once. It was also put forth by him that the neoliberal agenda of hyper-globalisation is not just hostile to the ideals of sovereignty and democracy but is also counterintuitive to their project. While some have disputed Rodrik’s bold claim for being abstract, there is more to it than what meets the eye. Rodrik has illustrated his thesis and meta-argument well in his book, however, his proposed idea of the sheer incongruity of hyper-globalisation with sovereignty and democracy seems to have been reinforced yet again by the recent developments in the laws of taxation.
Continue reading “Reviewing Taxation (Laws) Amendment, 2021 in Times of Global Capital Code”
By Mr. Ajar Rab, Partner at Rab & Rab Associates LLP and Ms. Kirpen Dhaliwal, LL.M Candidate at NALSAR Hyderabad and research assistant to Mr. Ajar Rab
The recent judgment of a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd.. v. GE Power Conversion India Private Ltd. (“PASL”) is a monumental victory for party autonomy in Indian arbitration. The Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of Indian parties to elect a seat of arbitration outside India, settling the much-debated law on this issue. Permitting two Indian parties to choose a foreign seat is a positive development as it effectively brings the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) in conformity with Article 1(3)(b) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, 1985 (“Model Law”). Article 1(3)(b) of the Model Law adopts a place-centric approach to define ‘international arbitration’. It recognizes the freedom of the parties to determine a place of arbitration outside of the State in which their place of business is situated.
Continue reading “Two Indian Parties Can Pick A Foreign Seat: But What About Substantive Law?”
By Sharvari Manapure and Priya Ganotra, Students at National Law University of Nagpur
The capital market around the globe has been scaling up and the American notion of Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (“SPACs”) has emerged into the limelight for investors. The SPACs are characterized as shell companies incorporated for the sole purpose of raising capital for acquisition of operational target companies without following the traditional process of initial public offering (“IPO”). This makes SPACs the foremost means for the operational target company to go public since the traditional method is often burdened with indirect expenses and delays, and SPAC counters this with quick execution and fewer expenditures. Additionally, SPACs are appealing because they are typically branded by reputed and high-profile founders and experienced management that leverage their expertise and hold credibility to create synergy.
Continue reading “SPACs in India: A Hostile Environment?”
By Sinhani Prem, Student at Jindal Global Law School, and Sukriti Bhagat, Associate at IndusLaw
With an objective of aligning and addressing the on-going issue of promoter/promoter group and requirements in an IPO, Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) floated a new consultation paper dated 11 May 2021 and proposed four main changes— (1) Reduction in IPO lock-in periods, (2) Definition of the term ‘promoter group’, (3) Streamlining disclosure requirements of ‘group companies’ under the SEBI Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements (ICDR) Regulations, 2018, (4) replacing the term ‘promoter’ with ‘person in control’. While the replacement of the term ‘promoter’ with ‘persons in control’ seems to receive extensive scrutiny on account of the fundamental implications it may have on boilerplate corporate law principles in the one-tier structure of corporate governance in India, we believe it is also important to delve into the three other proposals within this consultation paper.
Continue reading “SEBI’s Consultation Paper: Streamlining ‘Promoters’ and ‘Promoter Group’ Definition”
By Khyati Tuli and Daksh Mehta, Students at Amity Law School, Delhi
Insolvency and International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) are two parallel regimes which tend to converge at various instances. The tribunals, across the world have taken different approaches in relation to continuance of ICA when a parallel insolvency proceeding has commenced in the native state of the entity.
Continue reading “Insolvency and International Commercial Arbitration: Two Distinct Approaches”
By Ashish Kumar and Trishit Kumar Satpati, Students at NMIMS School of Law, Bangalore
The apex court in the case of Government of India vs M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd (“Borse”) held that the delay in the filing of an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (“Act”) can be condoned if a sufficient cause is being provided. The earlier limitation of 120 days for filing an appeal was overruled but if a party exceeds the 90 days, then it must give sufficient reasons for such delay in accordance with section 5 of the Limitation Act(“LA”).
Continue reading “Condonation of Delay under Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Commercial Courts Act”
By Mr. Nishant Shankar, Senior Associate at Chambers of MS Kalra (Gurgaon), and Mr. Vishal Singhal, Advocate at Supreme Court of India
In today’s globalizing world, money laundering has become a catchphrase and a common area of concern for both developing as well as developed economies. Consequentially, the U.N. General Assembly has condemned the practice of money laundering in any form, urging all States to implement provisions against such crimes.
Continue reading “Predicate Offence Under PMLA Proceedings: A Myth or Reality?”
By Rishi Raj, Student at MNLU Aurangabad
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) serves two purposes: (i) saves the business that is viable; and (ii) facilitates the exit of those that are not viable. The rescue mechanism is achieved through a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Part II of the Code, and the exit mechanism is dealt through a liquidation process under Part III of the Code.
Continue reading “Interplay Between the Companies Act and IBC: A Positive or Negative Impact on Liquidation Process?”