Background:
For more than fifty years Companies were in India were governed by the Companies Act, 1956.However there was need to replace the old legislation with a new act which could address the changing landscape of the Indian corporate world. The majority of the provisions of the new Indian Companies Act 2013 (‘Act’) came into effect in two phases- 98 sections of the Act were brought into effect in October 2013 and 183 sections were notified and brought into effect in April 2014. However the Act was seen by many as restrictive and cumbersome- particularly for closely held private companies. Private Companies were finding it increasingly difficult to comply with the various procedural requirements prescribed for aspects like raising of further capital, private placement of shares etc. Further some of the compliance requirements under the Act were considered to be too onerous on private and small companies.
In June 2015, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs of the Government of India, constituted the Companies Law Committee (‘CLC’) to make recommendations on the issues arising from the implementation of the Act. The CLC released its report on February 1, 2015 and recommended as many 100 changes to the Act.
Significant Recommendations of the CLC
While the CLC has suggested several changes, some of the more significant recommendations of the CLC are as follows:
- Changes in some key definitions: Under the Act, an associate company has been defined as one in which another company has control of: (i) at least 20% of shares, or (ii) business decisions. It is now proposed that this definition should be changed and an associate company should be defined as one in which another company has: (i) control of at least 20% of voting power, or (ii) control or participation in business decisions.
- Raising of Further Capital by Private Companies: The two sections that deal primarily with raising of further capital under the Act are section 42 and section 62. Section 42 deals with private placement of securities. Under section 42, Companies were required to go through a long drawn out procedure for raising capital by way of private placement of securities. This procedure included opening of a separate designated account where the consideration for the securities could be transferred, obtaining certificate of valuation of securities and submission of separate offer letters disclosing certain information about the company. It has now been recommended that this procedure should be simplified for private companies.
Section 62 of the Act deals with further issues of shares on preferential basis. Under the erstwhile Companies Act 1956, private companies were not required to follow the procedure specified for preferential allotment. However the present Act makes no difference between public and private companies in terms of the procedure to be followed for preferential allotment. This created hardships for closely held private companies and in view of this is now proposed that procedure for preferential allotments for private companies should be simplified.
- Investment through subsidiaries: As per the Act, Companies were restricted from making investments through more than two layers of investment subsidiaries. The CLC has recommended removal of restrictions on layering of subsidiaries. The CLC has explained that the existing restrictions were having a substantial bearing on the functioning, structuring and the ability of companies to raise funds .This is a positive development as this will allow Companies to undertake corporate restructuring which shall benefit their business.
- Forward Dealing Forward dealing involves purchasing securities of a company for a specific price at a future date which is currently prohibited under the Act for directors and key managerial personnel of a company. The Act through Sections 194 and 195 has restricted forward dealing by directors and key managerial persons (‘KMP’s) of a company and insider trading by any person including directors and KMPs respectively. The CLC has noted that since the securities in private companies would not be marketable, they would not qualify as securities within the meaning of Section 195, and thus would exclude private companies from the ambit of the said provision. The CLC observed that it would be unjustified to apply the insider trading regulations to private companies. The CLC further noted that insider trading prohibitions can be problematic in the context of the rights of first refusal that are frequently contained in the shareholders’ agreements of private companies. The CLC has also noted that the regulations specified by the Securities Exchange Board of India in terms of insider trading are comprehensive in the matter (and also apply to companies intending to get listed), and in view of the practical difficulties expressed by stakeholders, sections 194 and 195can be omitted from the Act. While logically this seems to be a sound recommendation, it does not take into account the fact that that there are valid reasons for including the insider trading prohibitions in company law in addition to securities law, as directors have fiduciary responsibilities and there may be directors even in private companies and unlisted who may abuse their position and use confidential information, which have come to them through their position, for personal profit and not act in the best interests of the company. While the CLC noted this, they did not take this aspect into consideration while making their recommendations.
- Thresholds for pecuniary relationships of Independent Directors: The Act specifies that an independent director must not have any pecuniary relationship with the company, its holding, subsidiary or associate company or their promoters or directors, during the two immediately preceding financial years or during the current financial year. There were no thresholds specified and even minor pecuniary relationships were covered due to this provision even though such transactions may not impact the independence of directors. The CLC has proposed to introduce a threshold for pecuniary relationships in relation to qualification for an independent director. Further Clauses 149(6)(e) (i) of the Act restricted the appointment of an individual as an Independent Director in case his relative is or was a KMP or an employee in the company, its holding, subsidiary or associate company during any of the preceding three financial years. In this regard, the CLC has recommended that the scope of the restriction should be modified and the restriction should be only with respect to relatives holding Board or KMP/one level below board positions prior to the appointment of such Independent Directors. However, the CLC has clarified that as it would be possible to influence an Independent Director in case his relative is also working in the situations referred to in the section irrespective of the position he holds, the scope of restriction after appointment of such Independent Directors should, therefore, be retained as originally prescribed.
Conclusion:
The Companies Act 2013 is one of the key and important legislations in the country. Through notifications, circulars, amendment orders and clarifications, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, has brought about approximately 140 changes to the original legislation since its inception. While the recent recommendations are very positive, it must be noted that if brought into effect, these will result in another 100 amendments and significantly alter the landscape of governance of companies in the country. The number of amendments has caused hardships to companies and their advisors as the regulatory and compliance structure remains unclear. Many companies have taken steps to ensure compliance with the existing provisions, only to be told subsequently that the provisions are not applicable to them. One hopes that this is the final major exercise with respect to the amendments to the Act and the act gets a sense of finality.