SEBI Notification on Pre-Emption Rights, Put and Call Options

The enforceability of pre-emption rights and put and call
options in securities of Indian companies has been fraught with difficulties
for a number of years. These have been discussed in detail in this paper,
with arguments made for streamlining these provisions to recognise such rights
and options in investment agreements.
Although the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
had been actively considering proposal to ease the restrictions on the
enforceability of these provisions, matters picked up steam only a few months
ago when the Law Ministry decided
to permit options in investment agreements.
This decision of the Government has now been implemented through
a notification
issued by SEBI yesterday. Through this, SEBI has rescinded its previous
notification of March 1, 2000 that prohibited contracts other than spot
delivery contracts or those entered into through the stock exchange mechanism.
Accordingly, SEBI now permits various types of pre-emption rights and put and
call options, but subject to certain conditions. The new position is as
1.         Spot
delivery contracts are permitted, consistent with the previous position;
2.         Sale
and purchase contracts on securities are permitted so long as they are in
accordance with securities regulations and stock exchange regulations and
by-laws. These would include transactions, including in derivatives, which are
carried out through the stock exchange.
3.         Contracts
for pre-emption including right of first refusal (ROFR) or tag-along or
drag-along rights contained in shareholders agreements or articles of
association are allowed. Note that this is only an inclusive provision and is
not exhaustive of all the types of provisions in the agreements or articles
that can be enforced. This enables investors to exercise their exit rights in
companies through the above mechanisms that are generally recognised. No
conditions are attached for the exercise of these rights.
4.         Put
and call options contained in shareholders agreements or articles of
association are treated somewhat differently from pre-emption rights discussed
in item 3 above. The reason is that the exercise of options is subject to
certain conditions:
(a)        The underlying securities that are the subject matter of the
options must have been held by the relevant party for a minimum period of 1
year from the date of entering into the option contract. This seems to be to
ensure that options are not short-term in nature and are permitted only when
the holding of the securities is for a considerable period of time. The genesis
for the erstwhile prohibition on options was to prevent speculation in
securities, and this approach is imposing a minimum 1-year term on the options
is consistent with that philosophy.
(b)       The pricing of the options and the exercise is to comply with
applicable laws. More specifically, the notification states that all contracts
permitted through it must comply with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999. This applies when options and pre-emption rights are granted
by or in favour of a non-resident investor. Where the exercise of the option or
pre-emption results in a transfer of securities between a resident and a
non-resident investor, then the idea is that the relevant pricing norms imposed
by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) must be complied with. This is significant
for foreign investors to take into account. Merely because SEBI has now
conditionally permitted options, it does not mean that parties have complete
freedom in exercising the options. The pricing is still regulated by the relevant
RBI norms
, and hence the commercial understanding between the parties
regarding the exercise price will be subject to these regulatory constraints.
(c)        The new permissible regime applies only to physically-settled
options where there is an actual delivery of the underlying securities. It does
not cover cash-settled options, which are essentially contracts for differences.
This is understandable given the philosophy of the legal regime to curb
speculation. Moreover, investment agreements (where investors seek exit rights)
usually relate to an actual sale or purchase of securities rather than a
contract for differences, and hence this should not pose difficulties for
customary investment transactions.
5.         This
new permissible legal regime applies only prospectively, and does not “affect
or validate any contract which has been entered into” prior to the date of the
notification. Hence, past contracts with pre-emption rights or put and call
options will not be “grandfathered”. One possibility to overcome this
restriction would be for parties to existing contracts to re-execute them as of
a future date.
6.         Finally,
an explanation to the notification states that the contracts specified in the
notification would be valid without regard to anything contained in section 18A
of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which refers to exchange
traded contracts. In other words, such pre-emption rights and option contracts
would be permissible even though they are entered into on an over-the-counter
(OTC) basis and not traded on the stock exchange.
Overall, SEBI’s notification represents a momentous
regulatory change. Companies, investors and their advisors have been grappling
with concerns regarding the enforceability of pre-emption rights and options
for nearly two decades now. The oddity of the situation was the expansive
application of SEBI’s previous regime that applied not only to listed companies
but also to unlisted public companies. Moreover, while speculation was the
concern, it seemed to encompass genuine transactions as well, making customary
investment transactions inefficient in terms of structuring (particularly of
exit options).

current move is welcome as it rectifies a previously ambivalent and restrictive
legal regime. This will augur well to investors as well as companies requiring
capital. There may very well be issues regarding the specifics of the recent
notification and the conditions imposed therein, but the overall development is
positive in nature.

About the author

Umakanth Varottil

Umakanth Varottil is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. He specializes in corporate law and governance, mergers and acquisitions and cross-border investments. Prior to his foray into academia, Umakanth was a partner at a pre-eminent law firm in India.


  • As you said, this is indeed momentous. However, it will be interesting to interpret Section 194 of the Companies Act, 2013 (prohibition of forward dealings in securities of a company directors and key managerial personnel) r/w this notification.

  • @Shyam. Yes, the interpretation of section 194 of the Companies Act would be crucial when it comes to forward contracts and options to be entered into by directors and key managerial personnel, although it seems to be drafted in quite wide terms.

    @Ruchir. It appears that the FIPB/RBI had not issued any formal guidelines regarding options with foreign investors. It was only a view adopted by the regulators regarding the permissibility of the options with foreign investors. That will now have to be brought in line with the SEBI requirements to ensure consistency, although the FIPB/RBI could always adopt a different position on the ground that their goal is to examine the issues from a foreign investment/exchange perspective and not a from a securities regulation perspective.

  • Section 58(2) is on similar lines which allows enforcement of any contract or arrangement with respect to transfer of shares of a public company. However, what would be the status of those contractual arrangements that were entered into prior to September 12, 2013 when this Section came into effect? Does this Section have prospective application only?

  • @ Annie Jain. I would seek to make a distinction between sec. 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the SEBI notification on options. Sec. 58(2) arguably applies at the time one seeks to enforce the contract, i.e. after the provision came into effect (rather than based on when the contract was entered into). So, it may not be necessary to re-execute contracts that were entered into before that date in order for the provision to apply.

    This is different from the SEBI notification on options, which specifically has a statement: "Provided further that nothing contained in this notification shall affect or validate any contract which has been entered into prior to the date of this notification." This is the reason why the notification only applies prospectively to contracts entered into after the notification came into effect.

  • Thank you Sir, But are there any authorities that say the contract is governed by the law that exists at the time one seeks to enforce the contract?

Top Posts & Pages


Recent Comments


web analytics

Social Media