Powered By Blogger

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

Review of guidelines governing stock related employee benefit schemes by SEBI





Last year, in case of listed entities, SEBI noticed that many companies were framing their own employees benefit schemes wherein Trusts were set up to deal in their own securities in the secondary market which was not envisaged within the purview of the ESOS Guidelines. Subsequently, in January 2013, SEBI restrained the listed companies from framing any employee benefit schemes involving acquisition of own securities from secondary market apprehending any manipulation in the company’s share prices by engaging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. Giving effect to the above restraint, SEBI also amended the SEBI (ESOS & ESPS) Guidelines, 1999 and the Listing Agreement by way of inserting therein new clauses 22B and 35C respectively.



SEBI further directed the listed companies, which have already framed employee benefit schemes which are not in accordance with the amended SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines, 1999, to inform the details of their scheme to stock exchanges and also to align such schemes with the amended SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines by June 30, 2013 which was later extended to December 31, 2013.



Recently, vide its Circular No. CIR/CFD/POLICYCELL/14/2013, dated November 29, 2013 SEBI further extended the time line for said alignment of existing employee benefit schemes to June 30, 2014 in light of the ongoing review of guidelines governing stock related employee benefit schemes initiated by Discussion Paper issued by SEBI on November 20, 2013.


Secondary market Acquisitions by Employees Welfare Trusts – Underlying Issue



The Trusts set up for the benefit of the employees may hold shares of the company both under ESOP and Non-ESOP schemes. The objectives of the non-ESOP Trusts may be medical aid and educational help to employees or/and their family, help to purchase residential house, arranging Trips, Seminars or training for employees, etc.



Employee Welfare Trusts set up are usually financed by the Settlor Company itself by way of advancement of loan and managed/ controlled by the promoters of the Settlor Company appointed as the Trustees. Through advancement of loan, the listed company is funding the purchase of its own shares from the secondary market which is prohibited by virtue of provisions contained under Section 77 the Companies Act, 1956 (corresponding Section 67 of the Companies Act, 2013, yet to come into effect) which, inter alia, restrains a company from buying back its own shares or giving any loan, guarantee or providing security or any other financial assistance in connection with purchase of or subscription to any shares in the company or in its holding company. However, the restriction under Section 77 does not apply, if the company provides funds to a Employee Welfare Trust, pursuant to any such scheme for the time being in force for the purchase of or subscription of fully paid up shares in the company or its holding company.



Therefore, under the trust mechanism for administration of ESOS, companies can provide funds/ financial assistance to the Employee Welfare Trusts for acquisition of its own shares, either through subscription to fresh issue or purchase from the secondary market.



Now, one of the issue arises when the promoter(s)/ director(s)/ any other person(s) related to the Settlor Company are appointed as the trustees for the management and administration of the Employee welfare trusts including that of ESOS Trusts, which gives rise to a conflict of interest. Since the promoters have substantial financial interest in the company or the Directors may hold shares in the company or possess insider information, there may be a possibility, that in their capacity as trustees, they may deal in the company’s shares held by the Trust with the object of inflating, depressing, maintaining or causing fluctuation in the price of the securities by engaging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. Such dealing in the company’s shares by the Trusts may also raise regulatory concerns regarding compliance with SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992.



Apprehending the above possibility, SEBI prohibited the listed companies from framing any employee benefit scheme involving acquisition of own securities from the secondary market.



Prohibition from secondary market acquisitions - Why?



§    The Promoters of the Settlor Company appointed as Trustees exercise control over the securities held by the Trust and practically, these securities actually become a part of the promoters’ shareholding. The Promoters - Trustees can easily influence, in its favour, the voting rights exercisable by the Trust in respect of the securities held by it.



§  Further, secondary market acquisition of shares by the Employee Welfare Trust reduces the percentage of free float shares available to the general public in the open market and indirectly, facilitates the promoters to increase their control over the company.



§  Also in situations, where the Employee Welfare Trusts are managed by the persons having interest in the Company’s shares, there is the possibility of manipulation of share prices through purchase/ sale in the secondary market to make personal financial gains. These financial gains would be at the cost of the investments made by the genuine investors in the company’s shares.



§  Since the listed company is providing funds by way of loan to the Trusts, it’s management may try to exercise influence/control over the decisions taken by the Employee Welfare Trust till such time the loan is outstanding.



The prohibition issued by SEBI aims to curb these possible malpractices which will ensure better corporate governance and protection of shareholder’s wealth. However, not all the Employee welfare Trusts set up and financed by the company, directly or indirectly are engaged/ will engage in share price manipulation activities.



*   Employee Welfare Trusts set up and financed by various companies are managed by independent Trustees, who may be experienced professionals or reputed persons not related to the company or companies offering Trusteeship services. 


*      Acquisition of company’s shares from the secondary market by the Trusts is an internationally accepted practice.


*     Secondary market purchases avoid dilution of capital and do not impact the value of existing shares in the hands of shareholders like EPS, etc. This is very crucial and important in cases where option of expansion of capital base is not available to corporate or is not desirable from their perspective may be on account of undesirable increase in capital base by issue of fresh shares, servicing a bloated equity, etc.


Hence, keeping the above in mind, it has become necessary that the acquisition of shares from the secondary market by the Employee Welfare Trusts must be regulated by SEBI by prescribing conditions and imposing terms of reference. 



The way forward



In light of the representations received from various industry bodies and companies, SEBI decided to reconsider secondary market acquisitions by Employee welfare Trusts subject to necessary safeguards to prevent misuse instead of imposing outright ban. For this reason, SEBI has extended the time limit for the alignment of existing employee benefit schemes with the amended SEBI (ESOS & ESPS) Guidelines, 1999 to June 30, 2014 and also issued Discussion Paper on 'Review of guidelines governing stock related employee benefit schemes'.



Further, SEBI plans to convert the ESOS Guidelines into Regulations having the force of law and encompass all the employee benefit schemes like i) ESOP ii) ESPS iii) SARs and iv) Employee Welfare Schemes which deal in company’s securities under one regulation.



Highlight of the Recommendations in the Discussion paper



1) Proposed regulations shall cover all employee welfare Trusts, whether ESOP or non-ESOP, dealing in company’s securities and such Trusts must be set up, financed and managed by the Company, directly or indirectly.



2) Such Employee Welfare Trusts shall be permitted to make secondary market acquisition of shares subject to certain restrictions and conditions.



3) Acquisition of securities from secondary market would require shareholders’ approval which resolution shall clearly set out the maximum percentage of shares that can be acquired by the Trust from the secondary market. No approval of shareholders would be required if the purchases are made by the Trust out of its own funds / income and no loans are outstanding.



4) Recognition of Stock Appreciation Rights (SAR) Schemes under the proposed Regulations.



5) There should be limits on secondary market purchases for both ESOP and Non ESOP schemes:





Scheme Type
Yearly limit
Overall limit
 ESOP Schemes
2% p.a. of the paid up capital at the end of financial year
5% of the paid-up share capital
Non-ESOP Schemes
                   -
2% of the paid-up share capital


The aforesaid ceilings shall be applicable for all the employee benefit trusts taken together at the company level and not at the level of individual trust, if a company has multiple trust and schemes.


6) Shares acquired by the Trusts should have a minimum holding period of 6 months otherwise than in case where the shares are transferred to employees pursuant to exercise of options.



7) Necessary disclosures should be made under the Insider Trading Regulations for purchase/ sale of shares. No purchase/ sale could be made during the Trading Window Closure Period.



8) Independent trustees must be compulsorily appointed at the discretion of the Remuneration Committee of the company.



9) The shares held by Trust should be disclosed along with promoter holding as these shares are not available to the public freely.



10) Any Trust/scheme which is funded/managed/controlled by the company shall not be eligible to exercise voting rights on the shares of the company held by them.



11) In the event promoter holding in the company is already 75%, then the Trust cannot acquire any shares from the secondary market to comply with the SEBI requirement of maintaining minimum public shareholding of 75% in all listed companies.



12) In case of Options granted to an employee who has been transferred or deputed to a fellow subsidiary / an Associate of the Company prior to vesting / exercise, the vesting / exercise shall continue as per the terms of the Grant.



13) Corporates will be given a 2 years transition period to migrate to the new Regulations.



For a detailed reading of the SEBI's Discussion Paper on "Review of Guidelines governing stock related employee benefit schemes", pls visit http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/list/4/23/0/0/Press-Releases

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Calling of EGM by members themselves



CALLING OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETINGS BY MEMBERS
Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 which contains provisions relating to holding of Extraordinary General Meetings (EGM) has commenced with effect from 12.09.2013. The provisions contained in this Section are similar to the provisions contained in Section 169 of the Companies Act, 1956.
An EGM may be called by
(i) the Board of Directors
(ii) the Board of Directors at the requisition of such number of shareholders as specified under the Section
(iii) the requisitonists themselves
(iv) the National Company Law Tribunal.



The Board of Directors of a company may call an EGM as and when shareholder’s approval is required for transacting any business and which item cannot be deferred until the next Annual General Meeting. All items of business transacted at EGM are deemed to be special business.

An EGM may also be called by the Board of Directors on the requisition of the members of the company.  On receipt of a valid requisition by the company, the Board should proceed to call an EGM within 45 days from the date of receipt of the requisition. The notice convening the EGM must be sent to all the members of the company and other persons entitled to receive the same within 21 days from the date of receipt of the requisition.

Validity of the Requisition

The requisition, in order to be valid, must be

  •         signed by not less than the total numbers of members as specified above in the diagram.
  •         set out matters for the consideration of which the meeting is to be called
  •         delivered to the Registered Office of the company.

CALLING OF EGM BY REQUISITONISTS THEMSELVES

In the event of failure by the Board to call the meeting within the prescribed time period of 45 days, sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 empowers the requisitonists to call and hold the meeting themselves within 3 months from the date of the requisition.

The Draft Rules under the Companies Act, 2013 provide for detailed procedure for calling an extra-ordinary general meeting by the requisitonists themselves which was earlier not provided under the Companies Act, 1956. These rules are yet to be finalised by the Ministry.

Procedure for calling the meeting:

(i) In the event of Board’s failure to call the meeting, the requisitonists shall demand the list of members together with their registered address from the company which the company shall be bound to give within 3 days from the expiry of the 45th day.

(ii) The list of members shall be as on the date on which by the requisitonists deposited a valid requisition with the company for calling the EGM.

(iii) The notice for calling the EGM shall specify the day, date, time and place of the meeting and shall contain the business to be transacted at the meeting. The date of the meeting should not be later than 3 months from the date of depositing the requisition with the company.

(iv)Explanatory Statement pursuant to section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not required to be annexed. The requisitonists may, at their discretion, disclose in the notice the reason for moving the proposed resolution. However, the author feels this provision should be made mandatory as the remaining 90% of the shareholders who are not a party to the requisition have a right to know the reasons for proposing the resolutions at the EGM and form their judgement.

(v)The notice shall be signed by either all the requisitonists or by any one requisitionist duly authorised in writing by all. In case of joint shareholding, it would be enough if the requisition/ notice is signed by any one of the joint holders.

(vi)At least 21 day’s clear notice should be given to all the members of the company as per the list obtained and the notice of the meeting shall be sent either by
·         Ordinary post; or
·         Registered post; or
·         E-mail

Quorum of the meeting

The minimum number of members as specified under sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall form the required quorum for the purpose of the meeting. If the quorum is not present within half-an-hour from the time appointed for holding the meeting, then the meeting shall stand cancelled.

Reimbursement of expenses

Any reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitonists in calling the meeting shall be reimbursed to them by the company and the sums so reimbursed shall be deducted from the remuneration of the directors who were in default in calling the meeting.

JUDICIAL RULINGS:

[Life Insurance Corpn. Of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. (1986)59 Comp. As. 548(SC)]

Every shareholder of a company has the right, subject to statutorily prescribed procedural and numerical requirements, to call an EGM in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Acts. He cannot be restrained from calling a meeting and he is not bound to disclose the reasons for the resolution proposed to be moved at the meeting. Nor are the reasons for the resolutions subject to judicial review.

[Col. Kuldip Singh Dhillon Vs. Paragaon Utility Financiers (P) Ltd. (1986) 60 Comp. Cas1075 (Punj.& Har)

Section 181, interalia, states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, The articles of the company may provide that no member shall exercise any voting right in respect of any shares registered in his name on which any calls or other moneys presently payable by him have not been paid. From conjoint reading of Section 181 and the Articles of Association of the company, it is clear that any sum is due from a shareholder in respect of share, he is not entitled to vote at any general meeting. Where the articles of association of a company prohibited any defaulting shareholder from exercising his right to vote at any general meeting, and certain shareholders had not paid a call made on their shares it was held that they were not entitled to requisition an EGM under Section 169].

[Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. Vs. Pravin Kantilal Vakil (1985) 57 Comp. Cas. 12 (Bom.)].

Where an amalgamation scheme has been approved in a statutory meeting under Section 391, the shareholders cannot requisition a meeting to compel the company for withdrawing its petition pending before the Court for its sanction under Section 392.

[Cricket Club of India Ltd. v Madhav L.Apte (1975) 45 Comp. Cas. 574 (Bom)]
The word or the adjective ‘valid’ in Section 169 has no reference to the object of the requisition but rather to the requirements in that section itself. If these requirements indicated in the earlier part of section are satisfied, then the requisition deposited with the company must be regarded as a valid requisition on which the directors of the company must act.

The provisions of Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 particularly relating to calling the Extraordinary General Meeting by the members themselves assumes great significance in the wake of disputes arising between the management and the shareholders or between two different groups in the management. It has been seen that the right of the members of a company to requisition an EGM is exercised quite often by the members in situations arising out of such dispute.