Tuesday, 20 September 2022

Explainer Note On Drag Along Right (DAR) and Tag Along Right (TAG) In a Shareholder Agreement

 

Explainer Note On Drag Along Right (DAR) and Tag Along Right (TAG) In a Shareholder Agreement

The Shareholders’ Agreement is a legally binding document that governs the rights liabilities and obligations between the shareholders and Company. It lays down the mechanism in which the Company will be operated by the shareholders by laying down clauses pertaining to appointment of Directors, Shareholder meeting mechanism, board meeting mechanism, voting rights, reserved matters, transfer of shares, issuance of shares, future funding options, termination of agreement, etc. Drag Along Right and Tag Along Right gives shareholder certain rights pertaining to transfer of shares.

The DRAG along clause is considered as a right placed during the investment negotiations between the majority and minority shareholders. It allows the majority shareholders to compel the minority shareholders to sell their shares. It involves the transfer of equity shares. This clause benefits the majority shareholders in liquidity, flexibility and is an easy route for a majority shareholders. This clause may harm minority shareholders’ since selling off their shares may mean that they lose out on any future profits of the company.

The TAG along clause favours all the minority shareholders in a way that whenever promoters/ majority shareholders transfer their shares to incoming investors, the existing minority shareholders can also tag along with majority shareholders to sell their shares at same price and same terms and conditions to a prospective buyer. They are also called co-sale rights.  This clause protects the interests of minority shareholders. 

These rights are regulated by the Shareholders’ Agreement. The Shareholder’s Agreement is a private contract between the shareholders in comparison to the articles of association. The shareholder’s agreement gives a greater flexibility to the parties and make the provisions for resolution of disputes.

Further, while protecting the interest of the investor or any party to shareholders agreement the section 5(3) of the companies act also provides that the provisions of the articles can be altered by a way of entrenchment in the articles. The entrenchment provision lets the minority investors to exercise some amount of control and effectively put their view on board in respect to the concerned rights of minority investor or minority party to an agreement.

Indian Perspective

The Indian Companies Act do not have any provision pertaining to Drag Along Clause and Tag Along Clause and these clauses are purely contractual in nature and usually made a part of the Shareholders Agreement. 

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2013 describes the nature of shares and is reproduced herein below:

“44. Nature of shares or debentures.—The shares or debentures or other interest of any member in a company shall be movable property transferable in the manner provided by the articles of the company.”

The aforesaid provision of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2013 is similar to the provisions of Section 82 of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in V.B. Rangaraj Vs. V.B. Gopalakrishnan and Ors. MANU/SC/0076/1992, held that:

“These provisions of the Act make it clear that the Articles of Association are the regulations of the company binding on the company and its shareholders and that the shares are a movable property and their transfer is regulated by the Articles of Association of the company.”

What emerges from the above discussion is that shares are, therefore, transferable like any other movable property. The only restriction on the transfer of the shares of a company is as laid down in its Articles, if any. 

The question that now arises is that whether Shareholders Agreement can put restrictions or give rights to shareholders on transfer of shares if the Article of Association is silent on the same. 

The Apex Court in the matter of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. The Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613 talked about drag and tag along clauses in an agreement and held that

“(66) SHA, therefore, regulate the ownership and voting rights of shares in the company including ROFR, TARs, DARs, Preemption Rights, Call Options, Put Options, Subscription Option etc. in relation to any shares issued by the company, restriction of transfer of shares or granting securities interest over shares, provision for minority protection, lock-down or for the interest of the shareholders and the company.”

The Apex Court in the abovementioned case held that inter-alia tag along and drag along rights are contractual which are biding no matter whether they are mentioned in the AoA of the company or not. The only precaution that needs to be taken is to make sure that shareholders’ agreement is not violative of anything in the AoA. 

However, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in World Phone India (P.) Ltd. v. WPI Group Inc. USA [2013] 178 Comp Cas 173 (Del), held that where the AOA of a company are silent on the existence of an affirmative vote, it would not be possible to hold that a clause in an agreement between the shareholders would be binding without being incorporated in the AoA.

SEBI vide Notification bearing no. LAD-NRO/GN/2013-14/26/6667 dated 3.10.2013 specified the different set of contracts in which one would not be required to take permission from SEBI in advance which included

“(c) contracts for pre-emption including right of first refusal, or tag-along or drag along rights contained in shareholders agreements or articles of association of companies or other body corporate;” 

In view of the various judgments and SEBI Notification, it is concluded that even though the Indian Companies Act do not provide any provision pertaining to Drag and Tag Clause, these clauses have gained legal validity through Shareholders Agreement and are enforceable rights in India. 

This Article has been Compiled by Ayushi Misra (Senior Associate) and Arun Gupta (Partner). 

  You can direct your queries or comments to the author at info@factumlegal.com

  Disclaimer-

  The contents of this article should not be construed as legal opinion. This article is             intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be     sought about your specific circumstances. We expressly disclaim any financial or other   responsibility arising due to any action taken by any person on the basis of this article.

 

Friday, 16 September 2022

Case Note on Personal Guarantor

 

 Case Note

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi Bench, in the matter of Amit Jain vs Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 292 of 2022) held that section 10A is not applicable against the Personal Guarantors and that proceedings can be initiated against them under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) even if default by the Corporate Debtor occurred between 25.03.2020 to 25.03.2021.

Background Facts:

The Financial Creditor i.e., Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. advanced a loan of Rs. 2.30 crores to CMI Ltd (Corporate Debtor), and the Appellant was stood as a personal Guarantor. On non-repayment of the said loan, the Corporate Debtor was declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 11.09.2020. Consequently, the Financial Creditor had filed a petition under section 95 of the said Code for the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the personal guarantor  i.e., Amit Jain. Therefore, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi had initiated CIRP against the Personal Guarantor vide its order dated 03.02.2022 and appointed the Resolution Professional. Afterward, the Personal Guarantor filed an appeal against the said order in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench.

Issue:

Does the application against personal guarantor under section 95 come under the ambit of Section 10A of the code ?

Analysis/Decision:

In the instant case an Application under Section 95 of the Code was filed against the Personal Guarantor and accordingly interim moratorium under Section 96 was initiated and Resolution Professional was appointed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble NCLAT. The Appellant/ Personal Guarantor contended that since Section 10A bars initiation of proceedings against Corporate Debtor for the default occurred between 25.03.2020 to 25.03.2021 and that the same is applicable to Personal Guarantor as well. That protection under Section 10A has to be given interpretation to protect the Personal Guarantor, failing which the provision will become discriminatory. That the condition precedent for invoking insolvency against Personal Guarantor is default on part of Principal Borrower.

The issue that arose consideration was whether the benefit of Section 10A can also be claimed by a Personal Guarantor and an application under Section 95 shall be barred for a default which has arisen on or after 25.03.2020 till 24.03.2021? The Hon’ble NCLAT held that Section 10A will not be applicable to Section 95 of the Code i.e., to the Personal Guarantors and observed that if the legislature had intended to prohibit filing of an application under Section 95(1) they would have inserted a provision similar to Section 10A in Chapter III of Part III.

12. When Section 10A was inserted in Chapter II of Part I no corresponding amendment was made in Chapter III of Part III of the Code. Had the legislature intended to prohibit filing of application under Section 95(1) by a creditor against the Personal Guarantor for any default committed on or after 25.03.2020, a provision akin to Section 10A could have very well be inserted in Chapter III Part III of the Code.

Further, the Bench stated that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to look outside the statute and relied on “Nemai Chandra Kumar & Others vs. Mani Square Ltd. & Others, (2015)14 SCC 203” & “Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265”

This Article has been Compiled by Aditya Raj (Legal Associate) and Arun Gupta (Partner). 

  You can direct your queries or comments to the author at info@factumlegal.com

  Disclaimer-

  The contents of this article should not be construed as legal opinion. This article is             intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be     sought about your specific circumstances. We expressly disclaim any financial or other   responsibility arising due to any action taken by any person on the basis of this article.

 

Thursday, 15 September 2022

New ODI Regime-Master Series (Part II)

 

Overseas Investments – New India

In a bid to enhance the ease of doing business, India's finance ministry on 22nd August, 2022 notified rules and the Reserve Bank of India brought in revamped regulations for overseas investment by Indian entities.

Overseas investments by a person resident in India shall be governed by the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules, 2022 and the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Regulations, 2022. 

The new mechanism simplifies the existing structure for overseas investment by persons resident in India by widening the umbrella of approved economic activities and significantly reducing specific approvals requirements. The core to these Rules & Regulations are three distinct definitions of Overseas Direct Investment (ODI), Overseas Investment(OI) and Overseas Portfolio Investment(OPI).

We at Factum Legal have endeavored to bring to you a short series on new ODI Rules and Regulations . The series shall be in seven chapters, covering:

i.          Key Points of the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules, 2022.

ii.       Key points of the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Regulations, 2022.

iii.       ODI by Indian Entity under new regime.

iv.       OPI by Indian Entity under new regime.

v.        OI by Resident Individual under new regime.

vi.       OI person resident in India other than Indian entity and Resident Individual under new regime.

vii.      OI in IFSC by person resident in India under new regime.

 We now present to you our Second chapter:







This Article has been Compiled by Divyansh Jaiswal (Associate) and Arun Gupta (Partner). 

  You can direct your queries or comments to the author at info@factumlegal.com

  Disclaimer-

  The contents of this article should not be construed as legal opinion. This article is             intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be     sought about your specific circumstances. We expressly disclaim any financial or other   responsibility arising due to any action taken by any person on the basis of this article.