Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan

Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 9, 2012   modified Modified on Nov 9, 2012
-Live Mint

Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved 

Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India’s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance Petroleum Ltd (RPL) in 2007, in a move that could have a bearing on not just the functioning of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), but also the regulator’s independence.
 
The case in question relates to the merger of RPL with Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and the short sale of shares in the former by entities related to the latter ahead of that amalgamation. A short sale involves selling borrowed shares with plans to buy them back later at a lower price.
 
RIL and Sebi have been trying to settle the case through a so-called consent process, in which the individual or entity being investigated pays a fine and the regulator drops the case and also all charges of wrongdoing. A consent mechanism refers to a settlement of a case dealing with alleged infractions in securities laws without the individual or company involved either admitting or denying guilt.
 
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
 
Sebi doesn’t disclose whether it is investigating a company for insider trading, and while it discloses the terms of consent when it settles cases, it also does not provide details.
 
On 6 November, following an appeal by Bangalore-based lawyer Arun Kumar Agrawal, chief information commissioner Satyananda Mishra passed an order directing Sebi to disclose details of investigations or the consent order proceedings in the case, along with the identity of the entities involved in the short sale of RPL shares. Sebi has till 16 November to provide this information.
 
CIC is India’s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
 
A senior Sebi official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the regulator is examining the order and working on its plan of action. A Sebi spokesperson did not comment on the matter.
 
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: “I am sure Sebi will appeal against the CIC order before the high court. I am yet to decide whether to file a caveat on this or not.”
 
Before filing an appeal against Sebi, Agrawal sought details of the case from the regulator through RTI applications. However, Sebi had refused to disclose any information stating that quasi-judicial proceedings were in progress and that the information sought was exempt under certain sections of the RTI Act. The regulator’s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi’s information officer’s decision.
 
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
 
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
 
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. “Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,” this person said.
 
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
 
CIC said Sebi’s argument that at the end of the quasi-judicial proceedings the charged entities may be found innocent, cannot be a reason to conceal the information from the public.
 
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, “It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.” He didn’t want to be identified.
 
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: “Out of three circulars (on consent order mechanism), only two are available in public domain. After this CIC order, Sebi should make the internal circular of 2009 public.”
 
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: “...information relating to the issue of the circular in 2007 regarding the guidelines for the consent order mechanism cannot fall as such under any of the exemption provisions. Since the consent order mechanism constitutes a very important decision for settling disputes between regulated entities and the Sebi, it is all the more necessary that the background for the formulation of the parameters of the mechanism as contained in the circular of 2007 is made public.”
 
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said it would be more interesting to see if Sebi discloses the information on the entities involved in the short sale of the shares. “The consent terms clearly state that Sebi will keep the material received by the parties during an investigation confidential and will not use that information against the company once the matter is settled through consent procedure,” he added.
 
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won’t disclose names.
 
“I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,” said Agrawal.
 
Sebi may not have to disclose the details of the case as directed by CIC in 10 days if it opts to file an appeal against the order in the high court.
 
The regulator, in 2008, had launched investigations into the matter and later initiated quasi-judicial proceedings in 2010. Back in 2007, RIL had sold 4.1% of its stake in RPL, but to prevent a slump in the RPL stock, the shares were sold first in the futures market and later in the spot market, covering the share sales in the futures market.
 
Sebi’s claim is that because the company was aware of the sale of equity shares and sold futures ahead of that, its actions amount to insider trading. Through the dealings, RIL received revenue of Rs.4,023 crore and its profit from the transaction in the futures segment was Rs.513 crore.
 
RIL has approached Sebi twice to settle the case, offering to pay Rs.2 crore in the first instance and Rs.10 crore in the second instance.
 
A company can approach the regulator for a consent only when the final recommendations are made by the investigation officer. In case of RIL, Pradnya Saravade, a former executive director of Sebi had investigated the matter and submitted the report to Sebi in 2009. The report had stated RIL was involved in insider trading in 2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
 
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
 
“... The matter has been lying for several years now pending a final decision in the matter. Several entities have been identified by Sebi who were involved in the insider trading/short sale of shares of RPL in 2007... If, as a regulator, the Sebi took cognizance of allegations of any breach of law, rules or regulations by one or more entities for unlawful private gain, the information generated in the process of its investigation needs to be disclosed in the public domain. Such disclosure would keep the general public informed and educated about the risks they may confront in making investments in the market,” read the CIC order.
 
The commission, however, denied Agrawal’s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi’s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.

Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.


Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close