Navigation
Contact Us
717, Tower B,
One BKC,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400051
contact@resolutpartners.com
Mumbai – 400051
contact@resolutpartners.com
May 21, 2024
Under Indian delisting norms1, the conventional delisting procedure involves the RBB, where public shareholders tender their shares at or above a calculated floor price. The exit price is based on public shareholder bids.
I-Sec, in its delisting, sought exemption from the RBB by going through Regulation 37 of the Delisting Regulations. Regulation 37 is a special route for delisting in cases of delisting listed subsidiaries which permitted when (i) it is driven by a court approved scheme and (ii) the listed holding and subsidiary companies are in the ‘same line of business.’
Existing SEBI guidelines prescribe criteria to determine ‘same line of business’ including: (i) the principal economic activities of both companies falling under the same 3-digit code in the National Industrial Classification Code 2008 (“Business Code”); and (b) at least 50% of both companies’ revenue and net tangible assets being attributable to the same line of business.2 However, I-Sec and ICICI Bank filings suggest that these criteria cannot be met. Hence, I-Sec sought and was granted an exemption from SEBI to go ahead with the Regulation 37 delisting.
Never mind the differing Business Codes, I-Sec and ICICI Bank contended that since both entities are under the same broad head of ‘Financial and Insurance activities’ (though not within the same 3-digit code in the Business Code), SEBI should allow them to delist under Regulation 37.3 SEBI granted the exemption through its letter to the bank on 20 June 2023. Whilst we do not have access to the SEBI’s order granting the exemption, a natural question that shareholders have is whether SEBI went beyond its remit disregarding the same Business Code requirements?
I-Sec’s delisting process was initiated in June 2023 when the share price was valued at INR 640.8 based on valuation reports procured from registered valuers at that time. However, as of the date of shareholders’ vote as of March 27, 2024, I-Sec’s share price stood at INR ~741 on the stock exchanges.
While the I-Sec board approved the delisting at the end of June 2023, the conclusion of the delisting process is expected to be in Q2FY24 – almost a year later due to the regulatory requirements for approvals from stock exchanges, regulators, tax authorities, courts and shareholders. A tabular depiction of the events as on date:
| Date | Event |
| 29 June 2023 | I-Sec board approves delisting (date when the valuation of INR 640 was taken) |
| 15 July 2023 | I-Sec applies to BSE and NSE for approval to file the scheme of arrangement |
| 28, 29 November 2023 | NSE and BSE issue NOC for I-Sec to file the scheme |
| 21 December 2023 | I-Sec files the scheme with NCLT Mumbai |
| 14 February 2024 | NCLT approves calling of shareholder meetings |
| 27 March 2024 | Equity shareholders approve the delisting (share price reaches ~ INR 740) |
Such large time gaps and variations in share valuations in comparison to the general delisting routes, naturally begs the question as to whether the Delisting Regulations or the company law courts should permit for a ‘true-up’ to reach a valuation closer to the value of the shares as on the date of the equity shareholders’ meetings.
In I-Sec’s case, some minority shareholders have raised concerns regarding the valuation methodology employed to procure the valuation report and the suppressed share price for I-Sec due to the delisting process. So, the question is – why did the shareholders vote in favour? They could have voted against the delisting as well.
| Public Shareholder Type | No. of shares held | % of votes polled on shares | % votes in favour | % votes against |
| Institutions | 56299513 | ~93 | ~83.8 | ~16.2 |
| Non-institutions (retail shareholders) | 25400880 | ~62 | ~32.2 | ~67.8 |
Fig. Public shareholder voting results at the equity shareholders meeting of I-Sec held on 27 March 2024
There have been multiple reports and claims by I-Sec public shareholders that ICICI Bank through its employees, agents, and third parties have been contacting I-Sec public shareholders to vote in favour of the delisting. Shareholders have raised concerns about privacy breaches – why were these calls coming from ICICI Bank (I-Sec’s promoters)? How did the bank get the shareholders’ details? These concerns had prompted the Indian stock exchanges, the BSE and the NSE, to ask I-Sec and ICICI Bank to clarify as well. I-Sec on 28 March 2024 in its response to the exchanges stated that it reached out to equity shareholders to explain the proposed scheme and the e-voting process to maximise participation in voting considering that the delisting was the first of its kind in India under Regulation 37. Is this a violation of an explicit legal prescription under the Delisting Regulations? Seems no. However, from a spirit perspective, could such reach-out strategies be seen as side-stepping what should be a fair and transparent public approval process? Depending on the conversations in question, the answer could swing either-ways. However, the act of individually contacting shareholders might not have been the most prudent strategy.
A group of minority shareholders have filed a class-action suit against ICICI Securities. Reports state that the shareholders have taken issue with: (i) ICICI Bank contacting them to influence the shareholders’ vote, (ii) the share-swap ratio for the delisting, and (iii) the exemption granted by SEBI to go ahead with the Regulation 37 delisting. The National Company Law Tribunal’s decision in this matter is awaited.
While the I-Sec delisting will be going ahead, it has been in the limelight for the way the delisting has happened. Avoiding public price discovery through the RBB process, taking an exemption from SEBI to delist under Regulation 37 when RBB process was available, valuations seeming unfair, public institutional shareholder voting being largely in favour while retail shareholders were staunchly against, and arguable undue influence employed by ICICI Bank to persuade shareholders to vote in favour of the delisting raise a few eyebrows from a corporate governance lens. It will be interesting to see how SEBI deals with such delistings going forward and if any concerns raised by public shareholders of I-Sec will be addressed in the future.
1 SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021 (“Delisting Regulations”).
2 SEBI circular on ‘Standard Operating Procedure for listed subsidiary company desirous of getting delisted through a Scheme of Arrangement wherein the listed parent holding company and the listed subsidiary are in the same line of business’ dated 06 July 2021.
3 As per I-Sec equity shareholders meeting held on 27 March 2024.
1 SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021 (“Delisting Regulations”).
2 SEBI circular on ‘Standard Operating Procedure for listed subsidiary company desirous of getting delisted through a Scheme of Arrangement wherein the listed parent holding company and the listed subsidiary are in the same line of business’ dated 06 July 2021.
3 As per I-Sec equity shareholders meeting held on 27 March 2024.
We are delighted to share our most recent and comprehensive research paper discussing at length the legal, tax, regulatory, commercial and strategic issues concerning the setting up of India focussed funds. Over the past few years, the investment funds industry has been the subject of a series of legislative and regulatory interventions designed variously to protect investor interests as well as to enlarge the scope of investment activity. From an Indian fund formation perspective, this is evidenced from the introduction of codes of conduct for various stakeholders,…
Special situations and private credit funds have been increasingly looking at the high yield Indian market. With banks facing liquidity and risk issues, alternate capital with customised solutions seem attractive. Structured commonly through collateralised redeemable bonds with pay-outs deferred until maturity, these bonds may have equity kickers built-in as well, in the form of redemption premium linked to any variable, such as underlying equity share price or cashflows. While offshore capital is interested, currency, tax withholdings, enforceability and regulatory risks dampen the return profile on a risk-adjusted dollar return basis…
Infrastructure has been the highest capital receiver in 2021, and InvITs continue to be the most favoured investment vehicle for sponsors and global investors alike. InvITs have received >USD 10 billion of investments in the last couple of years, with investments from some of the largest fund houses. The roads regulator of India (NHAI) has also launched its maiden InvIT – with an EV of >USD 1.1bn and participation from large pension funds (CPPIB and OTPP). KKR has again sponsored another InvIT in the renewables space (Virescent Infrastructure) – raising capital from a clutch of investors led by Alberta Investment Management Corporation…
The issue of director duties and attendant liabilities has been a subject of immense debate as the role of directors evolves in the Indian context. India is perhaps a decade behind the west in this evolution process, though rapidly catching up driven by increasingly proactive proxy advisory firms and institutional capital taking significant positions in Indian companies, though activist funds are still a rarity. Transcendence from ‘complying with their obligations’ to ‘performing their duties’ has probably been most transformational and manifested only in the past couple of years…
