The Cancelled Export Order: Insider Trading, Late Disclosure and a Related-Party Loan
Sunrise Polymers Ltd, listed on the NSE, held a board meeting on 12 April 2024 at which it learned that its largest customer had cancelled an export order worth ₹140 crore - roughly 31% of the company's annual revenue. The board resolved to issue a press release, but the company informed the stock exchanges only on 22 April, when the share price fell 22%. On 14 April the CFO, Ramesh, told his brother-in-law Vikram at a family wedding that 'the order is gone'. Vikram sold his existing 5,000 shares on 15 April and bought 40,000 shares on 16 April, selling them on 23 April. Ramesh had no trading plan registered with the company. Separately, on 1 May the company advanced an unsecured loan of ₹9 crore to a private company in which Ramesh's wife holds 40% of the equity; the audit committee was not consulted and the board approved it as a routine item. SEBI has begun a preliminary enquiry.
1. Vikram holds no position in Sunrise Polymers. Can he still be proceeded against as an 'insider', and is any defence open to Ramesh for the disclosure made at the wedding?
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - the definition is disjunctive. Regulation 2(1)(g) of the SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 2015 defines an 'insider' as any person who is (i) a connected person, or (ii) in possession of, or having access to, unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI). Vikram satisfies limb (ii): he was told, before the exchange disclosure, about a cancelled order representing 31% of revenue - clearly information that would materially affect price and which was not generally available. His lack of any office in the company is irrelevant once limb (ii) is met. Ramesh is caught twice over - as a KMP (connected person) and as a person in possession of UPSI.
Step 2 - communication is itself prohibited. Regulation 3(1) bars an insider from communicating UPSI except in furtherance of legitimate purposes, performance of duties or discharge of legal obligations. A wedding conversation is none of these; the burden of showing a legitimate purpose lies on Ramesh. Regulation 4(1) then bars Vikram from trading while in possession of UPSI; his sale of 5,000 shares and purchase of 40,000 shares on 15–16 April both fall within the prohibition.
Step 3 - defences. Regulations 4(2)–(5) offer no help: there was no pre-existing trading plan approved under Regulation 5 (a plan must be adopted while not in possession of UPSI and approved by the compliance officer), and Ramesh cannot point to an off-market transmission in the ordinary course of business. The ₹25 crore / three-times-profit penalty under section 15G of the SEBI Act, 1992, disgorgement under section 11B and prosecution under section 24 are all available.
2. Assess the company's ten-day delay in disclosing the cancelled order and identify the provisions breached.
Read the worked answer
Is the event disclosable? Regulation 30 of the SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015 requires disclosure of material events. Cancellation of an order worth 31% of annual revenue is material on any test, and the company had itself decided at the board meeting that a press release should issue - an admission of materiality.
The timing rule matters. Where the event emanates from a board meeting, disclosure must be made within thirty minutes of the conclusion of the meeting; in other cases, as soon as reasonably possible and in any event within twenty-four hours. The cancellation was placed before the board on 12 April, so the outer limit expired on 12 April itself. Disclosure on 22 April is a breach of Regulation 30.
Consequences. Adjudication under the general penalty provision of the SEBI Act, 1992 (fine of ₹1 lakh extending to ₹1 crore) is available against the company and its officers; the compliance officer's role in permitting a ten-day gap will also be examined under the company's own code of practices and procedures framed under the PIT Regulations. The board's minutes recording the decision to issue a press release are the most damaging document, because they fix the company with knowledge. Note that late disclosure also aggravates the insider-trading case: the longer the gap between knowledge and disclosure, the wider the window of UPSI and the greater the profit attributable to trading during that window.
3. What approvals did the ₹9 crore loan require, and what are the consequences of the omissions?
Read the worked answer
Characterise the transaction. The borrower is a private company in which Ramesh's wife holds 40% of equity. She is a 'relative' and the borrower falls within section 2(76) of the Companies Act, 2013 (a private company in which a director or his relative is a member or director), so it is a related party and Ramesh is 'interested'.
Section 185 is the controlling provision. A company may not advance a loan to a person in whom a director is interested unless (a) a special resolution is passed with an explanatory statement disclosing the director's interest, and (b) the borrowing company uses the money for its principal business activities. No special resolution was passed, so the loan contravenes section 185. The exemption for companies whose ordinary business is lending does not apply.
Other approvals missed. Section 177(4)(iv) requires prior audit committee approval of related-party transactions, and Regulation 23 of the LODR Regulations requires the same for a listed company. Section 179(3) requires the board to exercise the borrowing power only at a meeting, not as a 'routine item', and disclosure is required in the Board's Report under section 134(3)(h).
Consequences. Section 185(3) makes the contravention punishable with fine on the company and imprisonment or fine on every officer in default; the loan is also recoverable from the borrower with interest, and SEBI can proceed for the related-party lapse. The correct course was a special resolution plus prior audit committee approval, with arm's-length pricing documented.