Update
SEP 26
<<<<<<
I have written about this and other related aspects in my column in the
Business Standard today:
SPORADIC 9to share own thoughts, impromptu)
SEP 26
Share Knowledge & Experience (SKE) - It's Worth Sharing
Group Objective :- To facilitate knowledge and
experience sharing with the mission of catalyzing professional and...
13,855 members
<<<<<<
Posted: 21 Sep 2015 07:58 PM PDT
[The following
guest post is contributed by Yogesh Chande, Partner and Malek-ul-Ashtar
Shipchandler, Associate, at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas. Views expressed
herein are personal and solely that of the authors.
Events which require disclosure on application of guidelines
pertaining to determination of materiality under regulation 30(4) of the
Listing Regulations (see discussion below)
Regulations to stock exchange(s)
q
While the
Listing Regulations appear to style the determination of materiality as more
objective compared to clause 36 of the equity listing agreement, the ultimate
decision (and the onus to prove, should SEBI take a contrary view) to determine
whether there will be a “significant market reaction” (the determination of
which itself is subjective) and classify certain information as material is
that of the board of directors under regulation 30(1), 30(4)(ii) and point D of
Para B of Schedule III of the Listing Regulations.
Under regulation
30(4)(ii) of the Listing Regulations, the board of directors are required to
approve a policy framed by the listed entity for determination of materiality
based on the criteria specified in regulation 30(4)(i) of the Listing
Regulations.
The determination by the board of directors of what
is a “material” disclosure is crucial in complying with the Listing
Regulations. SEBI may not necessarily agree with the determination of the board
directors as is clear from a recent case wherein SEBI fined New Delhi
Television (“NDTV”) Rs. 20 million for not disclosing to the stock
exchanges that the Income Tax Department had raised a tax demand of Rs. 4.5
billion on NDTV. Since the amount involved in the income tax demand was larger than the
revenue of NDTV and significantly larger than its net profit, SEBI held that
information was material in nature, which required prompt disclosure under
Clause 36 of the listing agreement.
uq
Reminiscent: law of
the jungle – lion and mouse story –
SWAMILOOK BLOG
The terms
on which companies get listed on Indian stock exchanges just got codified into
regulations. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has notified the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing obligations and disclosure
requirements) Regulations, 2015, (Listing Regulations). They will take effect
on December 1, 2015.
I have written about this and other related aspects in my column in the
Business Standard today:
http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/a-material-mistake-by-sebi-115092000783_1.html
The author is a partner of JSA, Advocates & Solicitors. The
views expressed herein are his own. somasekhar@jsalaw.com
SPORADIC 9to share own thoughts, impromptu)
The term 'material' is, as is expected to have been noted, being used, liberally, in respect of a company, in several contexts, for varying purposes.
One such instance of vital significance, hence calling for a focused attention , is the use of the term in the context of the so called 'disclosure requirements' under the company law, in the matter of 'final accounts' of a company, And , in turn, that is used in the prescribed form of statutory report to be made annually by its auditors of the final accounts to the management.
In the nature of things, the term by itself, in one's perspective, is, conceptually or otherwise, amenable to being interpreted and adopted for the intended purpose not uniformly but differently. To be precise, as field experience might have demonstrated, what is material or not in a given case or context/ situation , more often than not, happens, for the said purposes, to be construed , based on individual judgment, 'subjectively' (as opposed to 'objectively').
That is the seemingly unquestionable basic premise on which, one considers, as to what is the better view to ideally take on the subject controversy needs to be decided, although in an academic exercise such as herein.
(May have more to share)
NOTE: The personal viewpoints on the subject have been shared in detail in the previous Blogs, marked with Spl. Label - "MATERIALITY"; and similar related others elsewhere as well.
