quite challenging (as discussed on
this Blog and in this
episode on CNBC), the substantive aspects of the violation are equally daunting
for regulators as they require several prongs to be established. At the same
time, it is sufficient for the alleged violator to demonstrate the failure of
any one of the prongs to demolish the regulator’s case. For example, under
India’s Insider Trading Regulations, SEBI is required to establish that (i) the
noticee was an “insider” (as defined), (ii) s/he was in possession of unpublished
information that was price sensitive in nature, and (iii) s/he traded while in
possession of such information.
demonstrate that the information in question was already known to the markets,
and hence no longer amounts to “unpublished price sensitive information” (UPSI).
Quite often, they have succeeded. In one such case, the Securities Appellate
a ruling of SEBI in which Mr. Anil Harish and Mrs. Ratna Harish were found to
be guilty of insider trading in connection with the shares of Valecha
allegation was that he engaged in purchase of shares of the company during August
2009 prior to an announcement that the company was awarded projects worth Rs.
172 crores. The key question was whether that information in question was UPSI.
The SAT’s conclusion was that it was not. The reasons were as follows:
of undertaking infrastructure projects.
Since it is the business of the company to carry out these projects, the
orders bagged by it are in the nature of stock in trade in the business and it
is not an unusual occurrence. However,
the company has laid down a policy in accordance with the general condition
under regulation 36(7) of the Listing Agreement between the company and the
stock exchanges that when the company reaches a level of orders of 100 crores,
it informs the stock exchanges. This has been the practice of the company for a
number of years and is not an exceptional occurrence. The company has followed a constant practice
of informing the stock exchange as and when orders of about Rs.100 crores are
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance was placed on the
previous SAT order in the case of Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources (discussed here)
where “it was held that earning income by buying and selling securities held in
investment is the normal activity of the investment company …”. Hence, the SAT
held in Mr. Anil Harish’s case:
infrastructure projects, bags an order in the normal course of its business,
although it may be required to give intimation to the stock exchanges under
Regulation 36(7) of the Listing agreement, the information need not necessarily
be price sensitive.
tenders was generally known to the market, as the tenders were drawn and
awarded by government departments which followed transparency norms.
was neither price sensitive nor did it remain unpublished at the timing of
trading. On both counts, the ruling went in favour of the appellant.
This adds to the list
of cases where appellants have been successful in overturning orders of insider
trading passed against them by SEBI. This also demonstrates the substantive
legal hurdles placed on the regulator in successfully pursuing insider trading
violations. Although the Insider Trading Regulations have been constantly
amended over the last few years to ease the burden of the regulator, these
efforts have not materialised into more robust enforcement of the regulations.