ESOP TRUSTS DISALLOWED FROM BUYING CO. SHARES FROM SECONDARY MARKETS

SEBI, vide its Circular dated January 17th 2013 has come out with an amendment to the SEBI (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999 and a consequent amendment to the Equity Listing Agreement as well.

SEBI through SEBI (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999 provides an orderly framework for the listed companies to reward their employees through stock option schemes and stock purchase schemes. These regulations contain detailed provisions, with regard to any ESOP/ ESPS scheme of a listed entity. Whereas it was observed by SEBI that some listed entities, while framing their ESOP Schemes had created the Trusts to deal in their own securities in the secondary market, which was not envisaged within the purview of SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines 1999. Thus, it has been decided to prohibit the listed entities from framing any employee benefit schemes involving acquisition of own securities from the secondary market. Also clause 35C has been inserted in the Equity Listing Agreement for the same.

As Corporates are aware that ESOPs can be issued either under the Direct Allotment Route or through the Trust Route. Under the Direct Allotment route, as the name suggests, direct fresh allotments are made to employees, as and when they exercise the Options. As against this, in the Trust Route, the Companies were either making fresh allotments to the Trusts or the Trusts were authorized to acquire/ buy the shares from the market as and when deemed appropriate, to be ultimately transferred to the concerned employees, as and when they exercise the options.

The amendment is with reference to the latter type of transactions, involving acquisitions by the Trusts from the secondary markets.

The said amendment has been brought out with the obvious apprehension that such Schemes/ Trusts might have been created 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 dealings also raise various regulatory concerns regarding compliance SEBI (FUTP) Regulations as well as Insider Trading Regulations.

It has also been mandated that those companies, which have already framed and implemented before the date of this circular any employee benefit schemes involving dealing in the securities of the company, which are not in accordance with the SEBI Guidelines, such companies will be required to inform the details of their schemes to the Stock exchanges within 30 days from date of the circular (in the prescribed format) and shall also align any existing employee benefit schemes with SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines on or before 30th June 2013.

It can thus be inferred that from now on, the Employee Welfare Trusts will not be allowed to acquire any shares from the Secondary Market and can only be issued fresh shares, for being transferred to the Employees, as and when they exercise the Options vested to them. Furthermore, any such Schemes/ Trusts in existence, will have to be accordingly amended to be in consonance with the SEBI Guidelines, by 30th June 2013.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_92

In course of administration of the affairs of a limited company, Chairman of its Board of Directors came across a matter, which required the approval by say of a board resolution. In the prevailing circumstances, it is not possible to convent and hold a Board Meeting. The Chairman approaches you to advise him of the way and the relevant procedure to obtain such approval without holding the Board Meeting. You are required to advise him on the matter as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_90

A whole-time director of a company made an invention during the course of his employment with the company. He patented the invention in his own name and appropriated the benefits to himself. Can he do so ?

Companies Act_Practical Problems_89

The auditor of Trilok Ltd. did not report on the matters specified in sub-section (1A) of Section 227 of the companies Act, 1956, as he was satisfied that no comment is required. Advise.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_88

The auditors were requested by the management to accept the draft minutes of Board, since the minutes book has been misplaced. Comment

SEBI Guideline_Practical Problems_1

The Balance Sheet of Get Well Soon Ltd. as at 31.3.2009 disclosed the following details:
(i) Authorized share capital Rs. 400 crores
(ii) Paid up share capital Rs. 150 crores
(iii) Reserves and surplus Rs. 750 crores
The company has issued in the year 2004, Fully Convertible Debentures of Rs. 100 crores which are due for conversion in the year 2009. The company proposes, after conversion of Debentures to issue Bonus shares in the ratio of 1 1. Explain briefly the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956 and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) guidelines to be followed by the company in this regard.

Competition Act_Practical Problems_5

The Central Government on the recommendation of selection committee appoints Mr. RKP aged 56 years as Member of the Competition omission of India to be effective from 1st January, 2009. State with reference to the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 the term for which he will be appointed and whether he can be reappointed as such and also if he resigns two years whether the vacancy can be filled up by the Chairman of the commission.

FEMA_Practical Problems_12

State the kind of approval required for the following transactions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.:
(i) L a famous playback singer of India wants to perform a musical night in Paris for Indians residing there. Foreign exchange to the extent of US D 20,000 is required for this purpose.
(ii) M requires US D 5,000 to make payment related to ‘call back services’ of telephone.
(iii). N wants to pursue a course in business management in New York. He wants to draw US D 50,000 towards expenses for studying abroad.
(iv) R wants to draw US D 20,000 to make donation to a charitable trust situated in South Korea.

SCRA_2

The Mewar Rural Financial Corporation, Udaipur, established under a special statute issued 5 years bonds to public directly and not through any Stock Exchange. Decide whether the said act of the Mewar Rural Financial Corporation is in violation of the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.

SCRA_1

MIs Goyanka & Company, which is a member of a recognised stock exchange desire to-buy and sell shares of Crossroads Company Limited on their own count as well as on behalf of investors. Advise MIs Goyanka & Company whether there are any restrictions for dealing in securities on their own count under the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_86

The Board of Directors of XYZ Ltd;. filled up a casual caused by the death of Mr. P by appointing Mr. C as a director on 3rd April, 2009. Unfortunately Mr. C expired on 15th May, 2009 after working about 40 days as a director. The Board now wishes to fill up the casual vacancy by appointing Mrs. C in the forthcoming meeting of the Board. Advise the Board in this regard.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_85

The Articles of Association of a company provide that the meeting of the Board of
Directors of the company will be held on the last Friday of every month. The Secretary of the company as a result does not serve the notice to the individual directors of the company. Consequently, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 20th February, 2008. The meeting was attended by all the directors with the exception of two directors out of a total of 10 directors and certain resolution were passed. The two absentee directors object to the meeting and the proceedings of the meeting for want of notice. Referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, decide:
(i) Whether the objection raised by the two absentee directors is valid?
(ii) Would your answer be the same in case the Secretary of the company, instead of sending notice on a usual format to the individual directors, sent a copy of the
Articles of Association to each one of the directors?

Section 286 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not specify any form of notice or period of notice. Usually, a week’s notice is considered sufficient. However, if the Articles provide that Board Meetings will be held on fixed days of every month or where the directors are duly informed that in future all meetings of the Board will be held on a fixed day of every month, it will be sufficient compliance with the statute [A. Chettiar Firm v. Kaleshwar Mills]. But, even where meetings are held on a fixed day of every month, a notice is usually sent to the directors as a reminder.

Competition Act_Practical Problems_4

The Association of Truck Operators of India by agreement insisted that members of the association shall not deal with the non-members in transportation of goods. The Association claims that this agreement is entered for the welfare of trade and not for anyother purpose. In your opinion whether the agreement would be under the purview of the Competition Act, 2002. Whether your answer would be different if the association attempts to control the provisioning of services rendered by its members.



"Cartel" includes an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders or service providers who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit, control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or, trade in goods or provision of services; The term cartel like agreement has been given an inclusive meaning. Thus an association for the welfare of the trade or formed for any other purpose not mentioned in the aforesaid definition will not be a cartel. It is only when an association, by agreement amongst themselves, limits control or attempts to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or, trade in goods or provision of services, that it will be a cartel.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_84

The Board of Directors of ABC Private Limited having a paid-up share capital of Rs. 1 Crore consists of two directors, one of them, viz, Mr. S possesses membership of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. The company desires to appoint him as a company secretary also. State the legal position.

Under Section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956, in case of a company having only two directors, none of them can be appointed company secretary in spite of possessing the requisite qualification. In view of the overriding effect of Section 383A, consideration of section 314 is unnecessary.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_83

XYZ Limited has its subsidiary company PRM Ltd, which is formed to carry out some of the objectives of XYZ Limited. XYZ Limited suspends one of its several businesses, by passing a resolution at the company‘s extraordinary general meeting, with effect from Ist January 2008. The business so suspended continues to be suspended until March 2008. On Ist April 2008, a group of shareholders of XYZ Limited file a petition in the court for winding of the company on the ground of suspension of business by the company. Referring to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, decide:
(i) Whether the shareholders’ contention shall be tenable?
(ii) What would be your answer in case XYZ Limited suspends all its business?



Section 433 provides that if a company does not commence its business within a year from its incorporation or suspends its business for a whole year, it may be wound up by the court .The contention of the shareholders of XYZ Ltd that the company is liable to be wound up on the ground of suspensions of business, is not tenable for the following reasons:
(i) (a) A company may be wound up by court if a company suspends its business for a whole year. Here the business was suspended only on 1. 1.2008. Hence on 1st April, 2008 the business has not been suspended for the whole year to attract Section 433(c)
(b) Where a company having much business discontinues one of them, it cannot be said to have suspended business within the meaning of Section 433(c).
(c) Where a company ceases to do any business but is a holding company of subsidiaries engaged in the pursuit of the business, which it was previously doing, it cannot be said that the company has suspended its business (Ref; Eastern Telegraph Company Ltd).
(ii) Even if XYZ Ltd suspended all its business the suspension was not for a period of more that 1 year as on 1.4.1997 and hence the provisions of Section 433(c) are not applicable. Again for the reasons stated in (i) (c) above XYZ Ltd cannot be said to have suspended its business as its subsidiary in carrying on the business.

Comapnies Act_Practical Problems_82

A Group of shareholders of a company while filing a petition for relief against mismanagement in the conduct of the affairs of the company feel that since the matter has become so serious that they feel that the ultimate relief for mismanagement will be by way of filing a petition for winding up and hence they prefer to file two petitions, one for relief against mismanagement and the other for winding up. State whether simultaneous petitions or composite petition is maintainable.



Supreme Court in Worldwide Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Mrs. Margaret T. held that "a composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 433(f) of the Act is maintainable." This judgement overrides the previous juedgements of several High courts.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_81

Alpha Ltd. and Beta Ltd. entered into a scheme of amalgamation by which Alpha Ltd. would transfer its entire undertaking to Beta Ltd. However, the Central Government raised an objection that unless the objects clause of the companies are similar, and memorandum empowers to do so, the scheme of amalgamation cannot be permitted. Is the contention of the Central Government correct?

The power to amalgamate may flow from the memorandum or it may be acquired by resorting to the statute. Section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 indicates that a company which desires to amalgamate with another company will take necessary steps to come before a court for alteration of its memorandum in aid of such amalgamation. The statute confers a right on a company to alter its memorandum in aid of amalgamation with another company. The provisions contained in sections 391 to 396 and 494, illustrate instances of statutory power of amalgamating a company with another company without any specific power in the memorandum. [Hari Krishna Lokia (v) Hoolungooree Tea Co,].

Section 391 is not only a complete code, but it is in the nature of a single window clearance system to ensure that parties are not put to avoidable, unnecessary and cumber some procedure for making repeated applications to court for various alterations and changes. What is to be seen is the over all fairness mid feasibility of scheme of amalgamation and there need not be any 'unison of objects of both transferor and the transferee company. [R Morarjee Gokuldas spg. & wrg. Co.,]. To amalgamate with another company is the power of the company and not an object of the company. Irrespective of the objects clause, the court is empowered to sanction scheme of amalgamation provided it does not prejudice the interest of the public. Therefore, based on the above judicial rulings, the contention of the central government is not correct.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_80

A scheme of merger of XYZ Ltd with ABC Ltd was approved by the shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting and the exchange ratio of 3 shares of ABC Ltd for 20 shares in XYZ Ltd was approved. The proposal was also okayed by a lending financial institution which held 45% shares in XYZ Ltd. The valuation was carried out by one of the directors of XYZ Ltd who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The valuation was affirmed by three independent valuers nominated by the shareholders in general meeting. However, certain leaseholder properties, under license, which were not transferable, were not taken into account in the valuation. While the scheme was awaiting the Court's sanction, it was challenged by certain shareholders on the ground that the exclusion of leasehold assets in the valuation made the scheme 'Unfair'. Decide giving reasons:
(i) Whether the contention of the shareholders is tenable?
(ii) What factors would the Court take into account in approving the exchange ratio?

The contention of the shareholders in this case shall not be tenable. The court is not to disturb a scheme unless the person who challenges the valuation satisfies the court that the valuation arrived at was grossly unfair. Valuation in this case was approved by the shareholders and also okayed by the lending institution(s) which are usually well-informed and scrutinize the scheme with expert’s eye and which are also presumed to act bonafide. In the similar case of Tata Oil Mills Ltd. Re. (1994), the court held that the presumption of fairness was writ large on the face of the scheme. The Court did not attach importance to the fact that certain leasehold assets and properties held under license were excluded from valuation. Such assets, the court said, were neither transferable nor heritable. They are in the nature of a personal privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision in Hindustan Lever Employee‘s Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1994) and accepted the exchange ratio proposed. The Supreme Court found no objection to the
valuation being done by one of the directors of TOMCO (XYZ Co. in this case). His report did not show any prejudice and was also affirmed by the independent valuers. Supreme Court also enumerated all the possible methods of valuation such as, market price, book value and yield basis and pointed out that a combination of all or some of the methods, may have to be adopted in circumstances of a particular case. Thus based on the above explanation and the decisions given by the Supreme Court, it can be concluded that the contention of the shareholders that the
exclusion of certain leasehold assets in the valuation has made the scheme unfair, shall not be tenable.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_79

The Board meeting of Fortune Ltd. has the following schedules for the year 2009:
1st Meeting - 1st January, 2009
2nd Meeting - 30th June, 2009
3rd Meeting - 1st July, 2009
4th Meeting - 31st December, 2009
State whether the Board Meetings schedules are as per compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. What would be your views if the meeting to be held on 30th June, 2009 is adjourned due to lack of quorum?




As per Section 285, in the case of every company, a meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held at least once in every three months and at least four such meetings shall be held in every year. The section does not state the gap between two board meetings. In the present case four meetings have been scheduled for the year 2009 even though the gap between two board meetings is more than 3 months. However, as per the section there appear to be no contravention. If the Board meeting to be held on 30th June, is adjourned due to lack of quorum, again a meeting is held on some other date, the company shall not be deemed to have
contravened the provisions of Section 285. If the said meeting is proposed to be held on 30th June, 2009 and assumingly to be adjourned for want of quorum, the meeting automatically stand adjourned by virtue of Section 288 (1) till the same day in the next week, at the same time and place. And if the same day is a public holiday, then the meeting stands adjourned till the next succeeding day which is not a public holiday.

Companies Act_Practical Problems_78

In a public company the total number of directors are 12 and 2 office of the directors have fallen vacant. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
(a) What would be the quorum for the Board meeting?
(b) Can the articles of a company fix the quorum (higher or lower) for the Board meeting?
(c) Assuming if there are 15 directors in the company and of which 13 happen to be interested directors, what would be the quorum?
(d) How do you resolve the situation if all the directors are interested in a particular transaction?

Where total number of directors are 12 and 2 offices of the directors have fallen vacant, we find: 1/3 of (12-2) = 1/3 of 10 = 3 1/3 directors. If the fraction of 3rd were to be rounded off as one then 4, i.e. 3+1 directors would constitute the quorum for the Board meetings. If at any time the number of the remaining directors exceeds or is equal to two thirds of the total strength, the number of the remaining directors who are non-interested but present at the meeting, not being less than two shall constitute the quorum. For example, there are in all 15 directors and the Board meeting commences with all the 15 directors. During the currency of the meeting, an item comes up for discussion in respect of which 13 happen to be “interested” directors. In this case, in spite of the excess of the interested directors being more than two-thirds, the prescribed minimum number of noninterested directors constituting the quorum, namely, 2 present at the meeting are to transact the particular item of business.