By Jayant M. Thakur, Chartered Accountant
There are some provisions of
Securities Laws that need a regular refresh for the reason that they are found
to be frequently violated and entail penalties etc. Insider Trading is
one such provision which one can say is regularly violated. Senior management
and even professionals who ought to know better are found to be on the wrong
side of the law. A recent order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) is worth considering. It reviews the law relating to Insider Trading.
The case deals with the law prior to amendment of 2015. However, the principles
remain the same even under the amended law. The case covers several types of
acts that are treated to be violative of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider
Trading) Regulations 1992 (the 1992 Regulations were replaced by the 2015
Regulations). The case is in the matter of CR Rajesh Nair – Managing
Director of Sigrun Holdings Limited (Adjudication Order number AK/AO-14/2017
dated 16th June 2017).
Broad facts of the case
The facts of the case are
interesting and also contentious since SEBI had to arrive at findings that were
against what the party claimed the facts were. The facts and conclusions as
reported in the SEBI Order are summarised here.
The party against whom the order
was passed was Managing Director of Sigrun Holdings Limited, a listed company.
It was alleged that he carried out several acts in violation of the
Regulations. He sold shares during a time when there was unpublished price
sensitive information (“UPSI”) that he had access to. The Regulations
prohibit an insider having access to or in possession of UPSI to deal in the
shares of the company. The obvious reason for such prohibition is that a person
in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) has an edge
over the shareholders/public generally and would unfairly profit from the same.
He is entrusted with such information in good faith and it will be a betrayal
of `good’ faith if he seeks to profit from it. Hence, he is banned from dealing
in the shares in such circumstances.
As proving insider trading is a
comparatively difficult task, the regulations have provided for a blanket ban
over making opposite trades by an insider during the next six months. In other
words if an insider makes a purchase or sale of shares of the company, he is
debarred from making a sale or purchase for the next six months. SEBI, through
detailed investigation including the questioning of the broker, established
that :
– shares were sold within six months of purchase
– shares were sold on the basis of UPSI
– shares were sold just before the declaration
of operational results which exhibited substantial reduction resulting in
decline of share price
– shares were sold during the period when
trading window was closed
– shares were sold without obtaining
pre-clearance of the Compliance Officer.
Hence, there were multiple
violations of the regulations.
SEBI then computed in detail the
losses he avoided by selling shares earlier by comparing the sale price on the
date of sale with the sale price at the end of six months period.
Investigation, response of MD/broker and
confirmation of findings
SEBI pursued the MD and the broker
concerned to obtain detailed information regarding the trades. The defense put
forth in respect of certain sales was that the MD had not really sold the
shares voluntarily but sales were made by the broker to meet certain “mark to
market” losses incurred by him. Thus, the effective contention was that there
was no violation of the Regulations since this was not within the control of
the MD. However, SEBI examined the facts of the case, the need for margin
money, etc. and found that this contention was not correct and
underlying facts did not match with such contention. Hence, this submission was
rejected and a finding given that the MD had sold the shares within six months
in violation of the regulations.
Ascertainment of profiting from insider
trading
Insider Trading, by definition, is
an attempt to profit from UPSI that gives an edge to an insider. The profits
made are usually demonstrated by actual movement of the price on release of the
UPSI.
However, it has been accepted that
it is not necessary, to conclude that Insider Trading has taken place, that the
market price should have actually moved in the expected direction. Violation of
the Regulations takes place as soon as the insider deals whilst in possession
of the UPSI.
Having said that, the penalty for
insider trading is also related to the profits made – higher the profits made,
higher is the penalty. For this purpose, losses avoided are treated as profits
made. However, there is a stiff penalty of upto Rs. 25 crore where profits
cannot be computed directly.
In the present case, SEBI worked
out in detail the losses avoided. There were two types of trades. One set of
trades while there was sale when trading window was closed. The losses avoided
by sale of the shares by working out the price at which the shares were sold
and the price after release of the UPSI was calculated. The other set of trades
were sales made within six months of purchase. In this case, the sale price for
each lot sold within such six months period was compared with the sale price
immediately at the end of the six month period. The losses so avoided were
calculated.
As a side note, there is an
interesting aspect here. The rule that reverse trades shall not be carried out
for the following six months has an intention, it appears, of ensuring that
insiders do not quickly deal in the shares as this would help control Insider
Trading to some extent. An insider, thus, who buys 1,000 shares on 1st
January should not sell these shares till 1st July. The rule is
absolute. If one buys even 1 share, he cannot sell any number of shares till
six months. This is probably not wholly consistent with what appears to be the
intention. In the present case too, the MD had bought 1,00,000 shares on 5th
February 2010. However, in the following six months he sold 8,81,307 shares. In
the normal course, the ban should apply only to 1,00,000 shares that he
purchased and not to his entire shareholding. To put in other words, the ban
should apply only to the first 1,00,000 shares he sells and not to any further
sale of shares. However, the law, as literally read, applies to all of his
shareholding and hence any quantity of shares sold would attract this ban, and,
hence, the disgorgement of profits. Thus, profit on sale of all 8,81,307 shares have thus been ordered to be disgorged.
Levy of penalty
It is reiterated that the following
violations were held to have been made:-
1. Dealing while in
possession of UPSI
2. Sale of shares within six
months of purchase
3. Sale of shares without
taking pre-clearance of the Compliance Officer.
The losses avoided through sale of
shares in violation of the Regulations were just about Rs. 2 crore.
SEBI noted that a Managing Director
has grave and higher responsibility of complying with such Regulations and
violation of it should deserve a higher penalty. It relied on the following
observation of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (in Harish K. Vaid vs.
SEBI, order dated 3rd October 2012):-
“It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that
keeping in view the quantum of shares purchased, the penalty imposed by the
Board is excessive. The appellant has not derived any benefit as there was no
sale of shares based on UPSI. The adjudicating officer, while imposing the penalty,
although noted provisions of section 15J of the Act regarding factors to be
taken into account while adjudging the quantum of penalty, he has not applied
them correctly to the facts of the case. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to this aspect and are unable to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant. The evil of insider trading is well
recognized. The purpose of the insider trading regulations is to prohibit
trading to which an insider gets advantage by virtue of his access to price
sensitive information. The appellant is the Company Secretary and Compliance
Officer of the company who was involved in the finalization of quarterly
financial results and was fully aware of the regulatory framework and code of
conduct of the company. Under such circumstances, when there is a total
prohibition on an insider to deal in the shares of the company while in
possession of UPSI, the quantity of shares traded by him becomes immaterial.
Section 15G of the Act prescribes the penalty of twenty-five crore rupees or
three times the amount of profit made out of the insider trading, whichever is
higher. Section 15HB of the Act prescribes a penalty which may extend to one
crore rupees. However, the adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10
lakh only on each of the violators. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are not inclined to interfere even with the quantum of penalty imposed.”
Accordingly,
penalties aggregating to Rs. 6.08 crore were levied on the Managing Director.
Conclusion
This Order is a good case study on
how meticulous investigation is made by SEBI particularly in the face of, no
response from the party and incorrect replies from the broker. The contentions
were systematically refuted and it was established that there were violations.
The actual calculation of the losses that were avoided was also made in detail.
The working adopted and principles applied, though simple and logical, are also
relevant and illustrate the methods and principles involved.
The intent of the Regulations which
deal with multiple ways of preventing and deeming acts of Insider Trading are
clarified in this order. As stated earlier, the ban on reverse trade within six
months, need for pre-clearance from Compliance officer and ban on trade when
trading window is closed, are examples of in-built checks and balances.
The case also demonstrates how the
UPSI benefit is to be determined in terms of worsening performance of a company
which was made public only after the sale of shares.
In
conclusion, the case also demonstrates levy of stiff and deterrent penalty
which sets an example for would-be violators.
