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: 73
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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: 74
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680388800fd81-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17910
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Live Mint





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





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify">-Live Mint</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680388800fd81-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17910
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Live Mint





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





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify">-Live Mint</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680388800fd81-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680388800fd81-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680388800fd81-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 17910,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
-Live Mint
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 18039,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 17910
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Corporate Governance&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Live Mint





Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;-Live Mint&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&amp;rsquo;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&amp;rsquo;s independence.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi doesn&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC is India&amp;rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&amp;rsquo;s information officer&amp;rsquo;s decision.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &amp;ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&amp;rdquo; this person said.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;CIC said Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &amp;ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&amp;rdquo; He didn&amp;rsquo;t want to be identified.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &amp;ldquo;...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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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. &amp;ldquo;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,&amp;rdquo; he added.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&amp;rsquo;t disclose names.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&amp;rdquo; said Agrawal.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sebi&amp;rsquo;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;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&amp;nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;... 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,&amp;rdquo; read the CIC order.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The commission, however, denied Agrawal&amp;rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&amp;rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Live Mint





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





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify">-Live Mint</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 17910,
		'title' => 'Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
-Live Mint
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 18039,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 17910,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,Corporate Governance',
	'metaDesc' => '
-Live Mint





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





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...',
	'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify">-Live Mint</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 17910,
	'title' => 'Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
-Live Mint
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sebi&rsquo;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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'Live Mint, 9 November, 2012, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/pD2zVBNNDDDWpIIHV9IPDJ/CIC-asks-Sebi-for-details-on-RILRPL-deal.html',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sebi-asked-for-details-on-ril-rpl-deal-in-insider-trading-case-anirudh-laskar-aman-malik-and-khushboo-narayan-18039',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 18039,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 17910
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sebi asked for details on RIL-RPL deal in insider trading case-Anirudh Laskar, Aman Malik and Khushboo Narayan'
$metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,Corporate Governance'
$metaDesc = '
-Live Mint





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





Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;s stock market regulator to disclose all details related to the insider trading case involving Reliance...'
$disp = '<div style="text-align: justify">-Live Mint</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Information commission asks Sebi to disclose details of consent order proceedings, identities of entities involved&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Mumbai/New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed India&rsquo;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&rsquo;s independence.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">According to various reports on the case, the entities that short-sold RPL shares may have made profits in excess of Rs.500 crore.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi doesn&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC is India&rsquo;s apex body monitoring the enforcement of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi has an option to move the high court, appealing against the CIC order, and Agrawal, the petitioner, said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&rsquo;s appointed appellate authority endorsed Sebi&rsquo;s information officer&rsquo;s decision.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Subsequently, the case moved to CIC.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">An RIL spokesperson declined to comment on the order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A Mumbai-based securities lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that incidentally, Sebi came out with consent terms first in 2007. &ldquo;Again in early 2009, the market regulator had issued an internal circular on standardization of the consent process,&rdquo; this person said.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">In May this year, the regulator finally brought out new norms streamlining the consent procedure.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">CIC said Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">A former Sebi executive, who now practises law, said, &ldquo;It is a good order that promotes transparency and I support this order.&rdquo; He didn&rsquo;t want to be identified.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The Mumbai-based securities lawyer said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Indeed, the order specifically comments on this: &ldquo;...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.&rdquo;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; he added.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The petitioner said he is sure Sebi won&rsquo;t disclose names.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;I am very sure Sebi will do everything not to reveal the names of the 13 entities involved in this case of insider trading,&rdquo; said Agrawal.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Sebi&rsquo;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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">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&nbsp;2007 while selling shares in erstwhile RPL.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The case is yet to be closed by Sebi.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;... 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,&rdquo; read the CIC order.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">The commission, however, denied Agrawal&rsquo;s appeal regarding information on the assets and liabilities of Sebi&rsquo;s chairman. CIC argued that it was in the nature of personal information exempt under the RTI Act.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify"><em>Aveek Datta in Mumbai contributed to this story.</em></div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

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

-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.