sebi:WTM/RKA/CFD-DCR/07/2014
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
SCN set aside / no public announcement directed
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 14(1)
- Reg. 44
- Reg. 11(1)
- Reg. 3(3)
- Reg. 2(b)
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 32
- Reg. 2(e)(1)
- Reg. 3(1)
- Reg. 2(e)(2)
Parties
- Mr. G. Ganesh
Holding
The Whole Time Member held that even if the impugned acquisition breached the 15% threshold under regulation 10 of the Takeover Regulations, 1997, it would not be appropriate to insist on a public announcement under regulation 14(1) in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the SCN was effectively set aside.
Full text
_______________________________________________________________________________ In the matter of acquisition of shares of CG-VAK Software and Exports Limited. Page 2 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________ In the matter of acquisition of shares of CG-VAK Software and Exports Limited. Page 3 of 5 acquisition in question was within this creeping limit of 5%, the acquisition in question was exempted under regulation 11(1) and the noticee was not under obligation to make public announcement as alleged in the SCN. Thus, the noticee has not made any violation of regulation 10 read with regulation 14(1) of the Takeover Regulations, 1997.
_______________________________________________________________________________ In the matter of acquisition of shares of CG-VAK Software and Exports Limited. Page 4 of 5 individual person exceeds the threshold limit prescribed by regulation 10. It is pertinent to note that such a specific and unambiguous provision making an individual liable to make a public offer in case the individual shareholding increases during the course of the acquisition even while acting in concert with other persons is conspicuously missing in the SAST Regulations, 1997. KLL was, therefore, not required to make a public offer and the finding in the Impugned Order qua appellant no. 3,i.e., KLL is hereby set aside. At any rate, since the amendment of the Takeover Code and the inclusion of regulation 3(3) in the SAST Regulations, 2011 the discussion regarding the applicability of regulation 10 of the SAST Regulations, 1997 has been rendered academic. Having said that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, KLL cannot be called upon to make an open offer by applying regulation 3(3) of the new Takeover Code retrospectively.´
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/RKA/CFD-DCR/07/2014. 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.