sebi:WTM/MB/IVD/ID3/12494/2021-22
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Held Noticees violated regulation 4(1) of PIT Regulations and Sections 12A(d), 12A(e) and 15G(i) of SEBI Act for trading in Biocon during UPSI period; inter alia debarred Mr. Kunal Ashok Kashyap and M/s Allegro Capital Private Limited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in/accessing securities market for one year, with disgorgement of wrongful notional gains and monetary penalty.
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 11(1)
- s. 12A
- s. 15H
- s. 15G
- s. 15J
- s. 15
- s. 24
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 5
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 2(1)(d)(i)
- Reg. 30
- Reg. 2(1)
- Reg. 30(1)
- Reg. 2(1)(n)
- Reg. 2(1)(g)(i)
Parties
- Mr. Kunal Ashok Kashyap
- M/s Allegro Capital Private Limited
Holding
The Biocon-Sandoz collaboration information was UPSI from December 20, 2017 to January 18, 2018, Noticee No.1 was a connected person/insider and Noticee No.2 was insider through him, and their purchases during UPSI period violated regulation 4(1) PIT Regulations and Sections 12A(d), 12A(e) and 15G(i) SEBI Act.
Full text
Order in respect of Mr. Kunal Kashyap and Allegro Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of Biocon Ltd. Page 1 of 60 WTM/MB/IVD/ID3/12494/2021-22 BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA CORAM: MADHABI PURI BUCH, WHOLE TIME MEMBER FINAL ORDER
Order in respect of Mr. Kunal Kashyap and Allegro Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of Biocon Ltd. Page 2 of 60 and Exchange Board of India, Act 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “SEBI Act”) and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as the “PIT Regulations”) during the period December 4, 2017 to January 18, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “investigation period”).
Order in respect of Mr. Kunal Kashyap and Allegro Capital Pvt. Ltd. in the matter of Biocon Ltd. Page 3 of 60 shareholding in the trading member which was used by the officers of the company, it is alleged that it puts Noticee No. 1 in a position where he was in regular touch with the officers of the company. Moreover, the allotment of ESOPs to Noticee No. 1 by Biocon shows that the company values his contribution and that there exists a professional relationship between them. 3.6. Biocon was concurrently negotiating agreements with CIMAB and Sandoz which would have had an impact on company’s finances and operations. Noticee No. 1 was having overall responsibility for the negotiation with CIMAB. This when seen along with the frequent communication that Noticee No. 1 had with the CEO and CFO of the company, who had direct knowledge of the unpublished price sensitive information, it is alleged that Noticee No. 1 is reasonably expected to have access to the unpublished price sensitive information. It is therefore, alleged that he is a connected person to the company in terms of regulation 2(1)(d)(i) of PIT Regulations. Hence, it is further alleged that Noticee No. 1 is an “insider” as per regulation 2(1)(g)(i) of PIT Regulations. 3.7. Furthermore, Noticee No. 2 is an artificial person which had a temporary business relationship with the company. Noticee No. 2’s majority shareholder and Director is Noticee No. 1 who as alleged above is reasonably expected to have access to unpubl
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/MB/IVD/ID3/12494/2021-22. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.