Summary: An allegation of communication of unpublished price sensitive information under Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, cannot be established merely basis proximity between parties or trading pattern. Balram Garg held that cogent material such as emails, letters, etc., will be required. The recent AGEL and RHI Magnesita orders sharpen this further, showing that a call or contact between parties, without more, will not suffice. Ultimately, the outcome of any allegation of UPSI communication is fact sensitive. Together, these rulings establish a clear evidentiary requirement: that SEBI must prove that UPSI was communicated, not merely that the parties had the opportunity to communicate it.
Continue Reading Beyond Trading: The Evolving Law on UPSI Communication