A scheme of arrangement is an oft used mechanism for company restructuring, which may take the form of a ‘merger’, a ‘demerger’ or even a ‘compromise’ with creditors. Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”), read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, were the relevant statutory framework governing this. Continue Reading Objections at the first motion stage: Light at the end of the rainbow?
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), is a comprehensive law, dealing with aspects of money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication, and confiscation thereof. The “proceeds of crime” is the fulcrum of the offence of money-laundering under the PMLA and all actions taken by the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) under the PMLA invariably revolve around it. Accordingly, the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA is of immense relevance. In terms of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, “any property derived or obtained… by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence…” is regarded as proceeds of crime. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[1] (“Vijay Madanlal”), the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of a criminal activity, relating to a scheduled offence, already accomplished. The commission of a scheduled offense, whether registered with the jurisdictional police or under review by a competent forum through a complaint, constitutes the legal basis for any investigation conducted under the PMLA.Continue Reading Shifting Paradigms in PMLA Jurisprudence: Madras High Court reopens settled principles of Automatic Quashing of PMLA Proceedings
In Part I of this series, we had discussed the ambiguities surrounding the rectification of non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). In Part II, we seek to address another critical aspect of the Act – the imposition of liability on a company’s officer for offences and non-compliances by the Company.[1]Continue Reading Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on September 9, 2024, amended Rule 25A of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (effective from September 17, 2024), by introducing sub-rule 5. The amendment is intended to promote seamless mergers and amalgamations between a foreign holding company incorporated outside India and an Indian company, being a wholly-owned subsidiary company incorporated in India, i.e., an inbound cross-border reverse merger.Continue Reading Flipping the Script on Reverse Mergers: Analysis of The Latest Amendment to Merger Rules
The Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) stands as a cornerstone of corporate regulation in India. It lays down a comprehensive compliance framework for body corporates as well as their officers to protect the rights and interests of shareholders and investors. In the first part of this two-part blog series, we seek to address the ambiguities pertaining to proactive rectifications of the non-compliances and contraventions under the Act. In the second blog, we will discuss the threshold for liability of “officers in default” under the Act.Continue Reading Ambiguities in Regulatory Thresholds for Rectifying Breaches under the Companies Act, 2013
More than a decade after the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act” or “the Act”) introduced class action lawsuit provisions, two major applications for initiating such suits have ingressed the halls of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).Continue Reading Class Action Lawsuits: A New Horizon for Corporate Litigation?
The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide an application filed by Anupam Mittal (“Applicant”), the founder of shaadi.com, seeking to restrain Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings and other directors of People Interactive (India) Private Limited (“Respondents”) from enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore. The anti-suit injunction restrained the Applicant from proceeding with his oppression and mismanagement petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) on the ground that parties had agreed to resolve their disputes via arbitration seated in Singapore and disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement were arbitrable under Singapore law.Continue Reading Party Autonomy Restrained? Dissecting Bombay High Court’s Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order in Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.