Knowledge Hub - MMJC

Introduction Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Second Amendment) Regulations 2015 introduces revised provisions relating to Trading Plans[‘TP’]. A comprehensive newsletter on this amendment has already been published in MMJC Insights, detailing the changes. In this newsletter we shall further analyzes the implications for listed companies of the revised provisions relating

Introduction Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) are often seen as a hallmark of success and a major milestone for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). SMEs often embark on the journey of becoming publicly listed companies with great optimism, envisioning increased capital, enhanced credibility, and accelerated growth. However, the reality post-listing can be fraught with challenges. However,

Introduction Appointment and remuneration of non-executive directors (‘NED’) is always a matter of concern. Practices adopted by companies in remunerating NEDs has always been the talk of the town. Hence it becomes necessary to understand concerns raised by proxy advisors in remunerating NEDs. In this article we will explore various governance concerns raised by proxy

Introduction The appointment and reappointment of Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) play a crucial role in corporate governance, as outlined by SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (LODR), particularly Regulation 17, which mandates a balanced board composition with at least one-third independent directors. This framework is designed to enhance oversight and maintain a separation of

Introduction: When a company goes public through an Initial Public Offering (IPO), it marks a significant and complex milestone, requiring immense effort from the entire team involved. However, this is just the beginning. The compliance journey doesn’t stop with the listing; it continues with rigorous ongoing obligations. This structured approach ensures that companies maintain transparency

Background Unpublished Price Sensitive Information [‘UPSI’] is the most important aspect when it comes to enforcement of provisions relating to prohibition of insider trading. It is important to identify the flow of UPSI within and outside the organisation. Securities Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (‘PIT Regulations’) makes it mandatory for

Understanding UPSI and its Regulatory Implications Before delving into specific cases, it’s essential to grasp the concept of UPSI and its regulatory implications. UPSI refers to crucial information that has not been disclosed to the public and, if revealed, can significantly impact the price of securities. Regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Board of

Introduction Compliance Officer under Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 [‘PIT Regulations’] is responsible for administering the code of conduct and other requirements under PIT Regulations[1]. Model Code of conduct as per PIT Regulations states that compliance officer would be responsible for closure of trading window, granting pre-clearance, relaxing

Introduction: In the intricate landscape of financial regulations, the role of a compliance officer stands as a crucial linchpin in ensuring adherence to the law. Amidst family disputes, particularly in contexts involving insider trading regulations, the responsibilities and challenges faced by compliance officers take on a multifaceted and delicate nature. A bird eye’s view on

Background: Prior to April 1, 2019, “Material events in accordance with the listing agreement” was considered as Unpublished Price Sensitive Information [‘UPSI’].  Regulation 2 (1) (n)(vi) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India [Prohibition of Insider Trading] Regulations, 2015 [“PIT Regulations”] provided for the same. Regulation 2(1)(n) (vi) was omitted pursuant to the amendment