Tag: Insider Trading
-
RIP: Henry Manne
This past weekend witnessed the passing away of Henry Manne, one of the doyens of the law and economics movement and corporate law generally. He was 86. I remember Manne for his seminal work on hostile takeovers and the market for corporate control, which is contained in his 1965 article “Mergers and the Market for
-
SEBI’s New Insider Trading Regulations Notified
Changes to the insider trading regime in India have been in the offing for quite some time now, and were the subject-matter of a report under the chairmanship of Justice N.K. Sodhi. Yesterday, SEBI notified the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations), 2015 that take into account the committee’s recommendations as well as the subsequent
-
Insider Trading and Tippee Liability
In recent times, there has been a lot of discussion about how the regulators and the prosecution have been enormously successful in obtaining convictions in insider trading cases in the U.S. That momentum may have been somewhat restrained by a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States
-
SEBI Reforms – Part 1: Insider Trading
Yesterday, SEBI’s board unleashed a series of capital market reforms. These relate to insider trading, delisting, enforceability of the listing agreement and several other matters. In this post, I briefly examine the implications of the reforms on regulations pertaining to insider trading. The SEBI board has approved a new set of regulations dealing with insider
-
Consequences of Inaccurate Shareholding Disclosures
Both the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers Regulations), 2011 (the Takeover Regulations) as well as the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (the PIT Regulations) require a timely disclosure of acquisition or change in shareholdings beyond certain thresholds by substantial shareholders and promoters. Such disclosure requirements are also captured in clause 35
-
SEBI Order in the Satyam Case
Facts and Sanctions Yesterday, more than five years after the Satyam ex-chairman’s much talked about revelations, SEBI passed an order in the case against five individuals, being the ex-chairman, ex-managing director, ex-Chief Financial Officer, ex-Vice President Finance and ex-Head (Internal Audit). In the 65-page order, SEBI considers the various acts of these individuals in detail
-
Guest Post: Disclosure of Shareholding & Insider Trading Regulations
[The following post is contributed by Yogesh Chande, Associate Partner, Economic Laws Practice. Views are personal] In an order passed by the SEBI Adjudicating Officer against an employee (Noticee) of a listed company, it was held that the “Head of Human Resources” of a particular vertical of the company is also an “officer” within the
-
Guest Post: Insider Trading and “Price Sensitive Information”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”;} [The following post is contributed by Yogesh Chande, who is a Consultant with Economic Laws Practice, Advocates & Solicitors. Views of the author are
-
Rajat Gupta Insider Trading Case: Appellate Decision
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion in United States of America v. Rajat K. Gupta, in which it upheld all the findings of the district court convicting Rajat Gupta on various counts of securities fraud. Although several questions were raised in the appeal relating to the
-
SAT on Insider Trading and the Role of the Compliance Officer
A couple of years ago, we had discussed the order of SEBI’s adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rs. 0.5 million) on the compliance officer of Satyam Computer Services Limited. We had noted that this imposed a somewhat unduly onerous obligation on compliance officers and wondered “whether a different outcome would ensue
