the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) passed its order
on an appeal by Emkay Global Financial Services Limited against the National
Stock Exchange (NSE) and several investors in a case involving a “flash crash”.
This case raises interesting legal and contractual issues, although they were
substantially resolved through an interpretation of the bye laws and various
circulars issued by the NSE.
to a “fat
finger” trade, which involves an error in inputing information into a
computer while executing a trade. In October 2012, a dealer of Emkay Global
placed an order to sell 17 lakh NIFTY 50 units ‘based on quantity’ instead of
Rs. 17 lakh in value. Due to this error, the sell order was executed for a
value of Rs. 980 crores, which was vastly in excess of the contemplated
transaction. While the dealer immediately realised the situation and tried to
cancel the order, he was unable to do so as it had already entered the exchange
server. The enormity of the situation can be attributed to a confluence of
factors that led to a “perfect storm”. The risk management measures at Emkay
Global’s end did not function to backstop the human error. Moreover, NSE’s
circuit breaker system did not arrest the market fall when the NIFTY index fell
by 10%. Following this incident, the Disciplinary Action Committee (DAC) of the
NSE investigated the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on Emkay
Global and certain other trading parties. NSE also rejected a request by Emkay
Global for annulment of the trade on account of the error.
these actions that Emkay Global appealed before the SAT. From a legal
standpoint, SAT was concerned with three broad questions, on two of which it
returned a finding. First, it
considered whether the erroneous trades are liable to be treated as a “material
mistake” and hence to be annulled by virtue of NSE’s bye law 5(a). SAT decided
to provide a narrow interpretation to the expression “material mistake” and
that since the trades occurred due to a failure in the risk management system
of Emkay Global, it amounted to breach of duty/ negligence which cannot be a
circumstance for invocation of bye law 5(a). SAT’s interpretation suggests that
bye law 5(a) contemplates inviolability of dealings on the stock exchange and
that “it is evident that the expression ‘material mistake’ in Bye law 5(a)
would be attributable to such trades which affect sanctity of the trade in
spite of it being executed after exercising due care, caution and diligence”.
Moreover, SAT was categorical in that the magnitude of the loss caused it not
determinative of “material mistake”.
investors had placed unrealistic orders to buy NIFTY 50 at prices distant from
the prevailing market price, and that these trades were effected without the
stipulated margin money. Hence, apart from the lack of diligence on the part of
Emkay Global, there were also violations on the part of the investors who
purchased the securities so as to derive unanticipated profits. SAT seemed to
display some concern on this count given that NSE does not seem to have
considered these matters in detail while rejecting annulment of the trades.
Hence, SAT set aside NSE’s orders against the annulment of trades relating to
two counterparties and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, in
these instances, the question of annulment of the trades has been left open and
for further consideration.
on the ground of the failure of NSE’s systems to halt trading when the NIFTY
index fell below 10%.
consisting of two members rejected Emkay Global’s appeal on the first and third
issues discussed above, and remanded the second for fresh consideration. In a
separate order, the third member refused annulment and rule against Emkay
legalities and technicalities of the circumstances have been discussed in detail in SAT’s order,
the essential question revolving around this dispute is whether sanctity of
trades ought to be preserved despite the erroneous nature of the trades. SAT’s
outcome has largely pointed towards upholding these trades, and therefore
preserving the sanctity. This has economic implications as such an approach
would preserve market integrity. Where SAT has left the matter for further
consideration, the issue does not pertain to the erroneous nature of the trade
but rather to the non-compliance of the counteparties with relevant NSE
requirements regarding princing and margin. Overall, this approach may be
considered somewhat harsh as it leaves no room for error on the parties of
trading entities and their dealers, who are cast with the onerous obligations
of establishing and maintaining the necessary risk management systems,
procedures and practices. The obligations are further enforced by powers
conferred upon the stock exchange to penalise the offenders so as to have a
deterrent effect against the lack of care and diligence. Given the strict
nature of this approach, there is no risk of moral hazard.
unyielding insistence on sanctity of trades could confer windfall gains upon
counterparties who are fortunate (and perhaps even canny) to have taken the
benefit of the erroneous trades. One method of preventing undue advantage to
such counterparties would be to disgorge the profits they may have obtained so
as to balance the equities between the parties. The fact that SAT has left the
door open for some form of reconsideration (including annulment) suggests it is
cognisant of these inequities that need to be rectified.
crashes that are caused by errors such as fat finger trades bring about
significant complexities in the markets, especially given their magnitudes.
While systems and processes can help guard against the occurrence of such
events, they may be faced with a “perfect storm” situation wherein the
regulatory and dispute resolution mechanisms would have to be invoked to
dispense justice to the parties affected by the error.
analysis of the SAT order and its implications, please see “SAT
order on NSE’s actions after the Emkay crash”.