NM Law

Corporate & Start Ups

THE USE OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING IN WHITE-COLLAR CRIME INVESTIGATIONS

– Somya Saxena, Associate White-collar crime refers to financially motivated, non-violent crimes committed by individuals, businesses, or government officials. In India, the rise of economic offenses, such as financial fraud, corporate scandals, and tax evasion, has necessitated the use of forensic accounting as a critical investigative tool. With increasing financial irregularities in banking, corporate, and government sectors, forensic accounting plays a pivotal role in maintaining transparency and accountability in financial systems. What is Forensic Accounting? Forensic accounting is a specialized field of accounting that involves investigating financial records, detecting fraud, and providing legal support in criminal and civil cases. It merges accounting, auditing, and investigative skills to uncover financial discrepancies and provide evidence in legal proceedings. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and other regulatory bodies rely on forensic accountants to detect financial crimes and enhance corporate governance. Recent Developments and Cases In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court mandated an Amazon unit to pay $39 million in damages for infringing on the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” trademark. This ruling not only emphasizes the judiciary’s stance on protecting intellectual property rights but also highlights the necessity for meticulous financial scrutiny in ecommerce operations. Another significant case involves allegations against the Adani Group. U.S. authorities have charged members of the Adani family with orchestrating a $265 million bribery scheme to secure energy contracts in India. Forensic accountants have been instrumental in unraveling the complex financial transactions underpinning these allegations, showcasing the indispensable nature of forensic investigations in such high-profile cases. To bolster the fight against financial misconduct, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) introduced the Forensic Accounting and Investigation Standards (FAIS), effective from July 1, 2023. These standards provide a structured framework for professionals, ensuring consistency and integrity in forensic accounting practices. By adhering to FAIS, auditors and investigators can enhance the reliability of their findings, thereby strengthening the overall financial reporting ecosystem in India. Role of Forensic Accounting in White-Collar Crime Investigations in India Key Techniques Used in Forensic Accounting Notable White-Collar Crime Cases in India and Related Case Laws Challenges in Forensic Accounting in India Future of Forensic Accounting in India With rising financial crimes and corporate frauds, forensic accounting will play a crucial role in safeguarding the Indian economy. Government initiatives such as the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and digital forensic advancements will enhance the effectiveness of financial investigations. Increased collaboration between forensic experts, law enforcement agencies, and regulatory bodies will strengthen fraud detection and prevention mechanisms. Conclusion Forensic accounting is an essential tool in white-collar crime investigations in India. By leveraging advanced investigative techniques, forensic accountants help uncover fraud, support legal proceedings, and enhance corporate governance. As economic offenses continue to evolve, forensic accounting will remain vital in ensuring financial integrity and legal accountability in India’s corporate and banking sectors.

THE USE OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING IN WHITE-COLLAR CRIME INVESTIGATIONS Read More »

Emerging Role of MediationArbitration in Corporate Disputes

The Emerging Role of MedArb in Corporate Disputes Disputes are an inescapable part of corporate interactions in this dynamic world. Traditionally, they have been resolved through expensive and lengthy court proceedings. However, there is a new approach that is gaining momentum: Mediation-Arbitration, or Med-Arb. This hybrid form of dispute resolution is changing the way corporations handle disputes and resolve them, being more efficient, cost-effective, and relationship-preserving compared to traditional litigation. Understanding Med-Arb: A Hybrid Approach Mediation-arbitration is a sophisticated conflict resolution which, along with other processes, brings in two distinct processes: mediation in which a neutral third-party facilitator engages in exploring mutually acceptable solutions by attempting to help the disputing parties; and hence, going into arbitration if mediation fails, whereby a binding award will be given by the neutral arbitrator. Key Advantages of Med-Arb Legal Framework in India Industries Embracing Med-Arb Different industries are now largely embracing Med-Arb as a preferred method of dispute resolution for efficiency and the easy maintenance of relationships. Med-Arb vs. Traditional Arbitration Challenges in Med-Arb Conclusion Med-Arb has an influential future with corporate disputes. It is likely to be sought more by businesses seeking efficient, low-cost, and relationshippreserving means for conflict resolution. It would be a compelling alternative to litigation, since it combines the strengths of mediation and arbitration, and fulfils modern demands in flexibility for dispute management. With the evolution of this model, ethical considerations and procedural safeguards will be vital in assuring the integrity and effectiveness of this model vis-a-vis corporate disputes.

Emerging Role of MediationArbitration in Corporate Disputes Read More »

Implication of RBI’s Digital Guidelines for FinTech and NBFC

Introduction The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Digital Lending Guidelines, introduced in September 2022, represent a significant regulatory shift aimed at ensuring not only responsible lending practices in the rapidly evolving digital lending landscape but also at enhancing consumer protection. These guidelines have profound implications for FinTech companies and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) operating in India. Key Features of the Guidelines: The RBI’s Digital Guidelines will have a transformative effect on the way both fintech companies and NBFCs operate in India. While the guidelines impose certain compliance requirements, they also create an environment that supports responsible innovation and fosters growth in the digital finance ecosystem. Companies that can adapt quickly to these regulations while leveraging technology for customer benefit will be better positioned to succeed in the evolving landscape. However, those that fail to comply or integrate sound risk management practices may face penalties or operational difficulties, affecting their long-term sustainability. Implications for FinTech: RBI’s regulatory framework for fintech encompasses various aspects, including licensing, data protection, outsourcing, KYC, digital lending and customer due diligence Implication For NBFC Regulatory Scrutiny: NBFCs have to operate in a more stringent regulatory environment where adherence to the Digital Lending Guidelines is strictly monitored. Non-adherence may attract penalties or even restrictions on operations. Risk Management Enhancements: The requirement for NBFCs to follow sound credit assessment practices while utilizing FLDG arrangements may lead to improved risk management strategies, thereby reducing default rates and enhancing financial stability within the sector. Consumer Trust and Market Stability: These guidelines shall help build greater trust among borrowers by strengthening responsible lending practices and improved consumer protection measures, thus working towards market stability and growth in the digital lending ecosystem. Implementation Challenges: Conclusion RBI’s Digital Lending Guidelines represent a significant stride in making lending digitally transparent, accountable, and consumer-friendly. Challenging though these guidelines are to FinTechs and NBFCs, there’s a huge opportunity for growth in terms of innovation, thus winning the trust of customers for longterm use. Continued dialogue between regulators, financial institutions, and technology companies will be key to the success of these guidelines in finding a balance between financial innovation and consumer protection. Stay tuned for more legal insights!

Implication of RBI’s Digital Guidelines for FinTech and NBFC Read More »

Litigation Checklist for Startups and Tech Companies

– Somya Saxena, Associate Launching a Startup in India is without doubt an exciting and an exhilarating experience, it has emerged as one of the most sought-after professions. Startups play an important role in our Indian society, at large, in terms of growth of country’s economy, promoting innovation, technological growth, and employment opportunities and finding solutions to various technological and daily problems. In short, Startups are seen to have a positive impact on the overall growth of the country. Amidst, all the excitement and challenges in starting a new business, one such very crucial challenge is to comply with all the legal compliances, most importantly the criteria laid down by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), to ensure a smooth and successful working of the business with no unwanted litigation or legal problems. Hence, it is imperative for the founders to understand the complex nature of such legalities and to simplify the same a comprehensive checklist of legal compliances for startups and tech companies is provided hereunder: Incorporation and Process- Legal Requirements: The first and foremost step is to decide on its modus operandi, what would be the purpose of the business and what does it cater to in the Indian society or even outside. Accordingly, it must be decided whether the Startup would be a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability partnership (LLP), public limited company or a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013, or the Partnership Act, 1932, or the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 as per the business structure. Thereafter, a business must have a unique name or an identity to be distinctive from the others in the market which can be checked in the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) Website. It must acquire a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC), obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN), draft a detailed MOA and AOA inclusive of the company’s purpose, objectives, rules and regulation, acquire a Certificate of Incorporation, apply for PAN and TAN number, register for the GST, if relevant, and most importantly open a company bank account. These are the initial basic requirements a business and its founders need to keep in check before laying the groundwork in their Startup. Co-founders’ agreements: A Co-Founder Agreement is imperative to decide on the roles and responsibilities of each person for the smooth working of the Startup. Such Agreement helps in the business and relations being transparent and organized. In order to avoid unorganized nature of distribution of funds, roles, and responsibilities leading to various inter personal disputes which could hampering the overall working of the business, a Co-Founder Agreement becomes a necessity. Such Agreement mostly includes, decision making and how the disputes are to be resolved, the exit strategy, IP rights (if any), equity shares and confidentiality. Specific Registration and Licenses: This is a fundamental step when working towards starting a business and not just a mere formality. It is mandatory to procure certain licensees and to register your company with the MCA or the Registrar of Companies. This includes obtaining a certificate of enrolment and certificate of registration, a Permanent Account Number (PAN) under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and registering for Goods and Services Tax (GST) under the central and state goods and services tax statutes and TDS for payments to employees, vendors, contractors etc. Intellectual Property and Data Protection: A startup is a product of brilliant innovative ideas and even technological inventions and to attract investment and gain an edge in the market, protection of a company’s uniqueness is important. It can be a unique name, a distinctive process, a new invention of a product and to protect the same from being used by another in the market, IP registrations are imperative and the founders must be aware of the same. Depending upon the type of Intellectual Property different registrations can be done in accordance with the IP laws in India. For protection of brand names, logo, and symbols, one must register their trademark in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999. To protect their innovative process or products, or an invention, one must file patent application in accordance with the Patent Act, 1970. Startups or tech companies developing a particular software, a design, etc can register for copyright of their work in accordance with the Copyright Act, 1957. New business must also protect their data and must adopt a strong data protection and privacy policy in accordance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology Rules, 2011 and DPDP Act, 2023. A startup must implement a reasonable security practice in their company and must adopt strict Data breach protocols in order to avoid fraud, cheating, and to maintain trust in the market and most importantly in the consumers. Employment Laws, HR policy and other Legal compliances: In order to protect the best interest of both the Employer and the Employee and an efficient work environment, it is crucial to comply with the labour laws in our country by incorporating various legal essentials. This includes conditions of employment, employment agreement, code of conduct, Data protection, Non Disclosure Agreement, reimbursement of expenses, working hours, leave structure and termination clauses. Certain mandatory policies would be Employment Contracts, Provident Funds, Employee State Insurance, Prohibition of Sexual Harassment at Workplace, Maternity Benefits etc. Lastly, Regulatory Compliance: Depending on the nature and scope of the business, one may have to comply with the regulations imposed by regulatory authorities’ such as Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), or Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRBAI). Additionally, environmental regulations must be complied with by a startup and must procure necessary permits and clearances if the nature of the business may have the potential to have an impact on the environment. Thus, in order to avoid pitfalls and serious legal consequences in a Startup or a tech company, it best to ensure that the you tick all the heads in the litigation checklist. The common problems faced by the Startups are

Litigation Checklist for Startups and Tech Companies Read More »

LEGAL COMPLIANCE FOR START-UPS IN INDIA

ESSENTIAL BUSINESS REGISTRATIONS Company may be incorporated as a legal entity under the Companies Act, Indian Partnership Act or a LLP, which requires registration with the MCA by filing SPICe+ form, which combines multiple registrations including PAN/TAN. The process typically takes 5-7 working days and requires at least two directors and one registered office address. GST registration becomes mandatory when your turnover exceeds ₹40 lakhs (₹20 lakhs for some states). Registration can be done online through the GST portal with necessary business documents. LABOUR LAW COMPLIANCES Provident Fund (PF) registration is mandatory once you have 20+ employees. You’ll need to contribute 12% of basic salary for each employee, with a matching contribution from the employee’s side. Monthly returns must be filed through the EPFO portal. Companies with 10+ employees must register for Employee State Insurance (ESI), providing medical benefits to employees. The current contribution rate is 3.25% from employer and 0.75% from employee. TAX COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK GST returns must be filed regularly based on your turnover. GSTR-1 (monthly/quarterly) for outward supplies, GSTR-3B for summary returns, and annual returns. Late filing results in penalties of ₹50-100 per day of delay. Income Tax compliance includes quarterly advance tax payments if liability exceeds ₹10,000, and annual returns filing by September 30th. Maintain proper books of accounts and financial statements. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION Trademark registration protects your brand identity for 10 years (renewable). The application process involves trademark search, filing, examination, and publication. Early registration prevents brand disputes and unauthorized use. Copyright registration automatically exists from creation but formal registration provides stronger legal standing. Essential for protecting software code, content, and creative works. DIGITAL COMPLIANCE ESSENTIALS Privacy policy and terms of service must clearly state data collection practices, usage policies, and user rights. Regular updates needed to align with changing regulations and business practices. Implement reasonable security practices including encryption, access controls, and regular security audits. Maintain documentation of security procedures and incident response plans. EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTATION Formal employment agreements must specify roles, compensation, working hours, leave policy, and termination terms. Include clear non-compete and confidentiality clauses to protect business interests. HR policies should cover workplace conduct, antiharassment measures, grievance procedures, and performance evaluation systems. Regular updates and communication are essential. GST registration becomes mandatory when your turnover exceeds ₹40 lakhs (₹20 lakhs for some states). Registration can be done online through the GST portal with necessary business documents. INDUSTRY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FSSAI license is mandatory for food businesses, with different categories based on turnover. Annual renewal required with regular food safety audits and maintenance of hygiene standards. Fintech startups need RBI registration/approval based on service type. Additional compliances include KYC norms, transaction monitoring, and periodic reporting to regulatory authorities. ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CALENDAR Hold board meetings quarterly (gap not exceeding 120 days), with proper documentation of minutes. Annual General Meeting must be conducted within 6 months of financial year end. File annual returns including MGT-7, financial statements, and other statutory forms with ROC. Directors must update KYC annually through DIR-3 KYC form. Appoint first statutoru auditor within 30 days of the company’s incorporation in the firest board meeting and then conduct periodic internal audits to assess compliance with legal requirements and identify any areas of non-compliance. Stay tuned for more legal insights.

LEGAL COMPLIANCE FOR START-UPS IN INDIA Read More »

Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Analysis of Indian Judiciary’s Approach

– Mandeep Singh, Associate The corporate veil is one of the most fundamental yet complex principles in corporate law. At its heart, this doctrine separates the company as a legal entity distinct from the individuals behind it. Enshrined in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897), the corporate veil ensures that shareholders and directors are not personally liable for the company’s debts and obligations. This concept has revolutionized entrepreneurship by enabling individuals to take risks without fearing personal financial ruin. However, courts have recognized that this legal shield is not impenetrable. In certain cases—particularly where fraud or unjust conduct is involved—the courts may “lift” or “pierce” the corporate veil, holding individuals accountable for the company’s actions. The Concept of the Corporate Veil The corporate veil refers to the metaphorical shield that separates the legal identity of a company from its shareholders or directors. This distinction allows individuals to invest in companies with the assurance that their liability will be limited to the extent of their investment in the firm. The principle behind this is crucial for fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth. By protecting shareholders from personal liability, the law encourages risk-taking and innovation, as individuals know their assets are not at stake in case the business fails. This principle was famously articulated in Salomon v. Salomon, where it was established that once a company is legally incorporated, it becomes an entity distinct from its owners. It can own property, incur debts, and sue or be sued in its name. However, this separation is not absolute, and courts can sometimes look beyond this legal fiction to the individuals behind the company. Emergence of the Corporate Veil The corporate veil doctrine emerged during the industrial revolution when businesses grew in complexity and scope. The decision in Salomon v. Salomon firmly established that upon incorporation, a company becomes a legal person, separate from its shareholders. This shield of limited liability is what gives corporations their power to attract investment and grow without shareholders fearing personal loss. However, as corporations evolved and began to be used as tools for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes, courts around the world saw the need to balance this protection with accountability. Over time, the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil developed, ensuring that individuals could not misuse corporate structures for fraudulent or improper purposes. Lifting the Corporate Veil in India In India, the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil is acknowledged through various statutes and judicial interpretations. The Companies Act, 2013, specifies provisions for lifting the veil in instances of fraud or misconduct, notably: Judicial Reasoning in Lifting the Veil: Courts do not pierce the corporate veil lightly. The reasoning behind lifting the veil often hinges on the nature of the wrongdoing and the role the company played in it. In cases like Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne, where the company was used as a tool to evade contractual obligations, the court saw through the corporate structure and held the individual personally liable. Similarly, in the Indian case of Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court recognized that while corporations are separate legal entities, they cannot be used to shield unlawful actions like tax evasion or fraudulent conduct. The court’s reasoning in these cases underscores that the veil will only be lifted when justice demands it, especially in cases where the company is a mere façade. When is the Corporate Veil Lifted? Courts are generally reluctant to lift the corporate veil, but they will do so in specific situations where justice requires it. Here are some of the most common circumstances: Fraud or Improper Conduct: One of the most straightforward instances where the veil may be lifted is when the company is being used to perpetrate fraud or illegal activities. Courts will not allow individuals to hide behind the corporate structure to escape liability for their wrongdoing. Agency Relationship: Sometimes, a subsidiary company may merely act as an agent for the parent company. In such cases, courts might treat the two as one entity, effectively piercing the corporate veil. This was seen in DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets (1976), where the courts held that the parent company had control over its subsidiaries to such an extent that they were not separate entities. Evasion of Legal Obligations: When the corporate structure is used to evade legal duties, courts may decide to lift the veil. In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd v. Horne (1933), the corporate veil was pierced because a company was formed specifically to avoid a non-compete clause. Tax Evasion: If individuals use a corporation as a device to evade taxes, courts may intervene. The case of Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT (1969) is a notable example where the corporate veil was lifted in India to prevent tax avoidance. Public Interest and National Security: In cases where the corporate form threatens national security or public interest, courts may disregard the separate entity principle. For example, during wartime, the courts lifted the veil in Daimler Co Ltd v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd (1916) because the company was effectively controlled by enemy nationals. Corporate Veil in India In India, the corporate veil doctrine, rooted in English common law, has been widely accepted. The courts have used this doctrine to balance the need for corporate autonomy with the need to ensure accountability. The Supreme Court of India has lifted the corporate veil in several significant cases: In Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1964), the Supreme Court held that a corporation, while a separate legal entity, can be held accountable if the corporate form is abused. Another landmark case is LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986), where Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy emphasized that the corporate veil could be lifted when companies are inextricably connected to serve a single business purpose. The Bhopal Gas tragedy case and the Renusagar Power Co. case are further instances where the Supreme Court of India pierced the corporate veil. In the

Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Analysis of Indian Judiciary’s Approach Read More »

Corporate Liability for White Collar Crimes: Vicarious Liability Responsibility of Corporate Boards

-Samridhi, Associate In a corporate establishment, Section 179 stipulates the powers of a Board of Directors whereby the Board of Directors jointly exercise all powers to carry out actions on behalf of the company by passing resolutions at Board Meetings. It is this meeting of minds of the Board that gives rise to vicarious liability in the instances of white collar crimes. The investigating agencies and the prosecution presumes that all the Directors, regardless of their role and contribution in management, ought to be aware and contributory towards the criminal acts carried out by the company. However, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified in the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668, this presumption can only arise if a provision exists in the statute to fixate such vicarious liabilities. Interestingly, the penal code does not envisage the fiction of vicarious liability to fasten the liability on the management in cases where a company is an accused but several special legislations have incorporated the deeming fiction of vicarious liability to hold all those accountable who were in-charge of the affairs. Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [‘PMLA’] arises out of attributing vicarious liability to the management personnel. The said provision specifically states that where a company is found in contravention of the provisions of PMLA then ‘every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly’. Hence, anyone ‘in charge’ of the affairs of the company during the period of offence is liable to be prosecuted against as it is presumed that the said actions were taken with his knowledge and consent. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also similarly stipulates under Section 141 whereby it deems vicarious liability upon those who were in-charge of the management and operations of the company. Similar provisions have been incorporated across several statutes to ensure that the all those in management personnel in-charge of the affairs of the company remain accountable and aware of the responsibilities and powers exercised by them. However, an exception is provided in favour of those who are able to prove and establish that the offence was carried without their knowledge or that all steps towards due diligence were taken to prevent such contravention. The judicial precedents have also consistently aimed to circumscribe the sphere of the responsibility for those in management. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2) v. Neeta Bhalla [(2007) 4 SCC 70, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that there may be a large number of Directors but some of them may not assign themselves in the management of the day-to-day affairs of the company and thus are not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Thus, the prosecution bears the burden to establish that the person was actively in-charge of the affairs in order to satisfy the legal fiction for vicarious liability. A mere designation as a director is not sufficient to invoke vicarious liability. Moreover, there ought to be specific allegations that the said Director played the attributed role towards contraventions and commission of offences as certain directors may not be involved with running the entire gamut of affairs of the company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609 that the liability must only lie with those who exercised significant and pervasive control over the day-to-day affairs of the company. The prosecution must lead with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that those in-charge had carried out the actions with the criminal intent. This was reiterated in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2019 Order dt. 23.08.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the criminal intent ought to have a direct link with the accused. The requirement of active role and criminal intent arises due to presence of non-executing directors or independent directors along with several instances wherein it was discovered that certain individuals were made merely ‘dummy directors’ to either meet the quorum requirements under the Companies Act or to layer the management affairs of the company and avoid the trail of decision-making from leading to the main culprit. Thus, the exception carved out against the fiction of vicarious liability also safeguards these individuals during the investigation and prosecution stages. This is especially essential in cases wherein the special legislation, such as PMLA, incorporates the reverse burden of proof whereby the presumption is held establish unless the contrary is proved by the accused or any other person. In a country where judiciary is suffering from backlogs, such reversal of the burden of proof leads to instances where the process becomes the punishment in order to prove a lack of active role or no role. Hence, it is essential that the legislature incorporate requisite amendments and clarify the ambit of the vicarious liability for the purposes of investigation and prosecution to avoid further suffering of innocent parties in the process.

Corporate Liability for White Collar Crimes: Vicarious Liability Responsibility of Corporate Boards Read More »

CLIMATE CHANGE & CORPORATE INSOLVENCY

– Nitya Prabhakar, Associate With the advent of climate change, the long-standing debate on its challenges and impacts has gained mainstream traction in the business realm due to the heightened risks to corporate liquidity and solvency. With businesses becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate-related disruptions, insolvency laws must adapt to ensure comprehensive risk management and sustainable recovery. This article explores the comparative analysis of insolvency laws across the globe, with a particular focus on the Indian perspective, highlighting how climate change impacts the insolvency process. Global Trends in Insolvency Laws and Climate Change Globally, insolvency laws have evolved to address not only traditional financial distress but also the emerging challenges posed by climate change by incorporating climate risk into insolvency frameworks by jurisdictions like United States, United Kingdom and Australia. One notable trend is the shift towards Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) Financing, adopted by USA and UK, which enables companies to restructure its debts while remaining in control of its business operations, subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court. In United States, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) voluntarily filed for reorganization in 2019 due to billion dollars liability from wildfires that were aggravated by climate change. PG&E emerged from bankruptcy in June 2020 after a comprehensive restructuring plan was approved, which included compensation for wildfire victims and substantial investments in wildfire mitigation measures. Another global trend is the increased use of Pre-Packaged Insolvency, which can be used as a strategic tool to manage environmental risks/liabilities, facilitate asset transactions and streamline the restructuring process. By transferring environmental liabilities to specialized third-party firms under a guaranteed fixed-price remediation contract, companies can separate these burdensome obligations from their core assets. This not only enhances the attractiveness of these assets to potential buyers but also ensures that environmental remediation is fully funded and compliant with regulatory standards. As a result, this approach helps achieve the rehabilitative goals of bankruptcy by preserving asset value while addressing environmental responsibilities, making it a vital strategy in new-age corporate restructuring. However, critics argue that pre-packaged insolvencies may not always prioritize creditor interests or ensure fair outcomes. Similarly, another growing global trend is Creation of Environmental Trust, which is different from an environmental risk/liability transfer, as it is set up specifically to handle environmental cleanup obligations. These trusts are established as a financial mechanism to ensure the cleanup and remediation of contaminated sites, particularly in cases where the responsible party may be insolvent or unable to fulfil their obligations. These trusts are often created during bankruptcy proceedings to allocate funds specifically for addressing environmental liabilities, ensuring that the necessary remediation work continues even after the company’s assets are liquidated or restructured. A notable example is the case of In re Tronox Inc., where the court approved the creation of custodial trusts funded with $115 million. These trusts were designed to manage and remediate contaminated sites, allowing Tronox to resolve its environmental liabilities while focusing on its core business operations post-bankruptcy. Additionally, countries are increasingly revising their insolvency frameworks to tackle the emerging climate-related challenges affecting corporate solvency. The integration of climate-related financial disclosures, as per the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, is enhancing transparency and helping stakeholders assess climate risks. Sustainable finance initiatives and carbon pricing mechanisms are being adopted to incentivize green investments and penalize high-emission practices, thus reshaping industry dynamics. Further, climate risk disclosure regulations and ESG standards are driving companies to align with environmental goals influencing their financial health. Indian Perspective on Insolvency Laws and Climate Change In India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, has been an instrumental legislation in resolving insolvencies, emphasizing restructuring and rehabilitation over liquidation. However, climate change poses new challenges for Indian businesses, particularly micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which are vulnerable to climate-related disruptions. The Supreme Court has recently in the judgment of Hari Babu Thota, allowed promoters to submit resolution plans even if their entities were registered as MSMEs post-CIRP commencement, which paves the way for a more dynamic interpretation of the IBC, aligning it with contemporary economic and environmental realities. The Essar Steel India Ltd. case which affirms the primacy of Committee of Creditors (CoC) in decision-making process for any concern under insolvency, emphasizes the necessity of considering broader economic and social factors in insolvency resolutions. This principle can be extended to include climate risk assessments as part of the CoC’s evaluation criteria. In the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., where the Corporate Debtor was constrained to file a petition under Section 10 of the IBC due to the adverse effects of rainfall and floods on its solar power plant, the Supreme Court upheld the preservation of the Power Purchase Agreement. The Court ruled against the attempt of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam to terminate the agreement solely on the grounds of insolvency. This decision stresses the impact of climate change on business operations and highlights the necessity for insolvency laws to adapt to emerging challenges, including, but not limited to the rise in non-performing assets due to climate-related stress in the banking sector, the complexities involved in asset valuation and debtor viability assessment. Climate Change and Insolvency: A Need for Proactive Measures The impact of climate change on businesses is multifaceted, affecting supply chains, asset valuations, and overall financial stability. As such, there is a growing consensus on the need for insolvency frameworks to be more resilient to climate-related risks. This necessitates a proactive approach, including legislative reforms, regulatory guidance, and judicial activism. In India, the incorporation of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria into corporate governance and insolvency proceedings could be a significant step forward. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has already introduced mandatory ESG disclosures for listed companies, in alignment with global best practices. Extending these requirements to the insolvency process would ensure that climate risks are adequately assessed and managed. Furthermore, the integration of climate risk assessments into the resolution plans approved by the CoC could enhance the resilience of the restructured entities. This would involve conducting comprehensive environmental impact assessments

CLIMATE CHANGE & CORPORATE INSOLVENCY Read More »

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES IN INDIA: An examination of Master Direction on Fraud issued by the RBI.

– Vishvendra Tomar, Principal Associate Corporate governance is essential for the smooth operation of companies and the broader financial system. It involves the frameworks, policies, and practices that ensure companies operate with integrity and transparency. This is particularly vital in combating white-collar crimes such as fraud, embezzlement, and insider trading. Individuals in positions of trust often commit these crimes, which can significantly damage financial markets and institutions, leading to extensive economic fallout. This article explores the relationship between corporate governance and white-collar crimes in India, focusing on recent regulatory updates like the Master Directions on Fraud issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in July 2024. These guidelines aim to bolster the framework for managing fraud and highlight the importance of strong corporate governance practices. White-Collar Crimes and Corporate Governance White-collar crimes are often sophisticated and difficult to detect, involving methods that obscure illegal activities. Such crimes can result in more than just financial loss; they also damage a company’s reputation and erode stakeholder trust. Effective corporate governance is crucial in addressing these risks through: 1. Implementing Strong Internal Controls: Effective internal controls and audit procedures are vital for detecting and preventing fraud. Regular audits and compliance with financial reporting standards are essential for spotting discrepancies and potential fraudulent activities. 2. Promoting an Ethical Culture: A culture grounded in strong ethical values, supported by clear policies, helps reduce the incidence of white-collar crimes. Organizations should foster an environment where ethical behavior is encouraged and unethical actions are penalized. 3. Enhancing Transparency: Transparency in operations and reporting helps ensure all financial transactions are properly documented and scrutinized. This openness can reveal unusual patterns or anomalies indicative of fraudulent behavior. Key Aspects and Implications of the 2024 RBI Master Directions 1. Scope of Directives: 2. Treatment of Accounts Under Resolution: 3. Penal Measures: 4. Governance Structure for Fraud Risk Management: 5. Framework for Early Detection of Frauds: 6. Red-Flagged Accounts and Fraud Reporting: 7. Reporting Fraud Incidents: Category of bank Amount involved in the fraud LEA to whom complaint should be lodged Remarks Private Sector / Foreign Banks Below ₹1 crore State / Union Territory (UT) Police ₹1 crore and above In addition to State/UT Police, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India Details of fraud are to be reported to SFIO in Fraud Monitoring Return (FMR) format. Public Sector Banks / Regional Rural Banks (a) Below ₹6 crore25 State / UT Police (b) ₹6 crore and above Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) 8. Reporting and Investigation: 9. Closure of Fraud Cases: 10. Special Committee: 11. Staff Accountability: 12. Additional Directives: The revised RBI Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management from July 2024 represent a significant advance in strengthening fraud prevention and control within India’s financial sector. By emphasizing natural justice and providing a comprehensive framework for reporting and compliance, these guidelines aim to enhance transparency and accountability, protecting the integrity of the financial system.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES IN INDIA: An examination of Master Direction on Fraud issued by the RBI. Read More »

DIGITAL COMPETITION BILL, 2024 REGULATING BIG TECH IN THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEMOCRACY

– Mandeep Singh, Associate The Digital Competition Bill, 2024 [‘DCB’], proposed by the Indian government, aims to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital markets and prevent anti-competitive practices by giants in the industry. This legislation seeks to address the unique challenges posed by the rapidly evolving digital economy, focusing on issues such as market dominance, data monopolies, and anti-competitive practices in the digital sphere. The DCB is a depiction of a significant shift in India’s approach to regulating technology companies, aligning with global trends towards increased scrutiny of tech giants. The DCB draws inspiration from the European Union’s Digital Market Act [‘DMA’] passed in the year 2022. The DCB proposes ex-ante forms of regulation i.e., predictive regulation that can foresee and possibly prevent issues that can arise in the Indian markets. Another salient feature of the DCB is that the DCB defines Systemically Significant Digital Enterprise [‘SSDE’] and prohibits SSDE’s from engaging in anti-competitive practices, such as anti-steering, self-preferencing etc. The Competition Commission of India [‘CCI’] is entrusted with the responsibility for identification of SSDE’s and regulating their practices. Legislative Context & Objectives The DCB puts in place obligations for large digital enterprises intending to create a level playing field and promote fair competition within the digital space, it is rooted in the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance and the Competition Law Review Committee. Its primary objective is to amend the Competition Act, 2002, to incorporate provisions specifically tailored to digital markets. DCB aims to foster innovation, protect consumer welfare, and ensure a level playing field for all market participants, including startups and smaller enterprises. By introducing ex-ante regulations, the legislation seeks to prevent anti-competitive conduct before it occurs, rather than relying solely on ex-post enforcement. Furthermore, the DCB aims to prevent large digital companies from exploiting non-public users data and favoring their services over competitors, promote fair practices in the digital ecosystem and prevent self-preferencing by companies only promoting their products on top of search results and excluding similar products etc. Systematically Important Digital Intermediaries (SIDIs) SIDIs are defined as entities with substantial control over gateway services in the digital ecosystem, SIDIs have a significant impact on the digital ecosystem and have a high market share in their respective digital markets. DCB empowers the CCI to designate SIDIs based on quantitative thresholds and qualitative parameters. SIDIs will be subject to enhanced obligations, including mandatory interoperability requirements and restrictions on certain data usage practices. DCB also introduces the concept of ‘digital gatekeepers,’ entities with significant impact on the digital ecosystem and market share which can control access to digital markets, they exhibit strong network effects and vast amount of data. Key Provisions: The legislation prohibits specific anti-competitive practices in digital markets, including self-preferencing, search bias, and bundling of services. It proposes a preventive (ex-ante) approach rather than post-incident (ex-post) approach in order to foresee and prevent potential anti-competitive practices and prevent potential anti-competitive practices before their occurrence. It mandates algorithmic transparency for SIDIs and introduces data portability requirements to reduce switching costs for consumers amongst other obligations on SIDIs. Moreover, the DCB envisages ‘core digital services’ like search engines/social media sites to be designated as SSDE automatically. It has also introduced Associate Digital Enterprises **[‘ADE’], ADE are entities benefiting from data shared by a major Tech company or group of companies, ADEs shall have similar obligations as SSDEs. DCB also addresses the issue of killer acquisitions by lowering the thresholds for mandatory merge notifications in the digital sector. Furthermore, it grants the CCI powers to conduct market inquiries into the digital economy and issue binding directions to ensure fair competition. Enforcement Mechanism & Penalties To ensure compliance, the DCB established a robust enforcement mechanism. It grants the CCI enhanced investigative powers, including the ability to conduct dawn raids on digital entities. DCB introduces significant financial penalties for non-compliance, with fines up to 10% of global turnover of SIDIs for non-compliance with the provisions of DCB with an additional 5% of the global turnover of the SIDI for each day of continued non-compliance. CCI also has the power to suspend or revoke the licenses of SIDI that fail to comply with the provisions of DCB along with this, the CCI can also issue directions to SIDI’s to cease and desist from anti-competitive practices. CCI may in its discretion appoint a monitor to oversee the compliances done by SIDI’s. further, CCI may also order SIDI’s to compensate affected parties for losses suffered due to anti-competitive practices. DCB also provides for personal liability of key managerial personnel in cases of willful non-compliance. The legislation established a specialized digital markets unit within the CCI to oversee enforcement and conduct market studies. NM LAW OPINION: The Digital Competition Bill aims to promote fair competition and innovation in the digital marketplace and targets monopolistic practices, such as self-preferencing, that stifle competition and innovation by promoting a level playing field, the DCB fosters an environment where new entrants and smaller competitions can thrive. Although some argue that the DCB’s provisions may lead to excessive regulation, hindering the ability of companies to innovate and adapt. Moreover, requirements and enforcement mechanisms under DCB may create uncertainty, making it challenging for businesses to comply. Overall, the Digital Competition Bill aims to strike a balance between promoting competition and innovation while protecting consumers. Its success will depend on effective implementation, clear guidance, and ongoing evaluation to address any unintended consequences.

DIGITAL COMPETITION BILL, 2024 REGULATING BIG TECH IN THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEMOCRACY Read More »

Scroll to Top