SEBI

SEBI had mandated large corporates (LCs) to raise at least 25 per cent of their incremental borrowings during a financial year (FY) by issuing debt securities. This measure was envisaged to assist in deepening the corporate bond market in India. SEBI has been monitoring compliance by the LCs with the provisions of the LC chapter.

In the ensuing year, SEBI plans to review the pricing mechanism in case of delisting. In particular, review of the reverse book building process and exploring other alternatives to determine exit price in case of voluntary delisting would be undertaken.

SEBI, while dealing with the matters related to contravention of the provisions of the securities laws, particularly relating to manipulative and unfair trade practices, insider trading, front running, pump and dump activity, etc., faces challenges in finding direct evidences in respect of communication of non-public price sensitive information.

In fact, if the FPI inflows for the last three years are any reflection, they had recorded negative inflows in 2021-22 also, according to finance ministry figures. FPI inflows had entered the negative zone, as they stood at (-) Rs 1,22,241 crore in 2021-22. However, in 2022-23 the FPI inflows further fell to (-) Rs 40, 936 crore.

SEBI said currently, for trading in the derivative segment, SEBI Circular dated December 3, 2009 (now incorporated under Master Circular for Stock Brokers dated May 17, 2023) prescribes that the stock broker shall have documentary evidence of financial capability for all clients.

In its application, the market regulator has sought "appropriate orders" from the apex court when the latter hears the case on Tuesday. Notably, all the offences under the SEBI Act (except offence under section 11C (6), SCRA Act and Depositories Act), the SEBI can initiate prosecution without any period of limitation.

SEBI had pointed out in its reply in the matter of Zee Enterprises to SAT that Chairman Emeritus and Managing Director and CEO of this large listed company have diverted public money to private entities.Subhash Chandra and Punit Goenka had moved SAT against the SEBI order.

Though, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has suspended the order, the harsh order by SEBI has created panic among industry players, who fear that orders of this magnitude is coming for them that will destroy the industry.  A promoter of a large broking firm said: “The SEBI order against IIFL seems to be a clear-cut instance of punishment grossly exceeding the violation and retrospective in nature.” 

An order by SEBI whole time member S.K. Mohanty said, "While the noticee has brazenly contended that the misdeeds of it didn't lead to default, as a regulator, SEBI is required to be proactive in stopping these kinds of mishaps and audacious misconduct from recurring. SEBI cannot afford to be reactive and wait for a default to happen to take action upon such misdeeds as the notice is trying to persuade and impress upon me."

"In the instant case, we have a situation before us where the Chairman Emeritus and the Managing Director and CEO of this large listed company are involved in a myriad of different schemes and transactions through which vast amounts of public money belonging to listed companies are diverted to private entities owned and controlled by these persons," SEBI said in its reply to SAT.