2025 (1) TMI 17 - AT - SEBI

Stock split constitutes unpublished price sensitive information requiring shareholder approval under Companies Act 2013

Affluence Fincon Service Pvt. Ltd., Amee Dhiren Shah, Dhiren Mahendrakumar Shah HUF Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India

Affluence Fincon Service Pvt. Ltd., Amee Dhiren Shah, Dhiren Mahendrakumar Shah HUF Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment revolves around the following core legal questions:Whether the information of a stock split could be considered as Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, and if so, when did the UPSI period commenceRs.Whether the appellants can be classified as 'insiders' within the meaning of the SEBI regulations, and if they had access to UPSI while trading in the shares of Infibeam Avenues Ltd. (IAL)Rs.Whether the appellants' trading activities were motivated by the possession of UPSI, and if the penalties and disgorgement imposed by SEBI were justifiedRs.Whether the procedural aspects, including the provision of a redacted investigation report, violated the principles of natural justiceRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue A: Whether the information of stock split could be inferred as UPSI in natureRs.Relevant legal framework and precedents: The definition of UPSI under the SEBI (PIT) Regulations includes any information not generally available that is likely to materially affect the price of securities. The case references ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. SEBI, which emphasizes the materiality and ex-ante possibility of impacting prices.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that a stock split is inherently price-sensitive information, as it affects liquidity and affordability, potentially impacting price trends. However, the Tribunal found that the UPSI did not commence on November 22, 2016, as initially claimed, since the presentation on that date was a general briefing without specific reference to IAL's securities.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal concluded that the UPSI period started on March 20, 2017, when discussions specifically included the impact of a stock split for IAL.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the stock split information was UPSI, but the UPSI period commenced on March 20, 2017, not November 22, 2016.Issue B: Whether the appellants can be held as 'insiders' within the meaning of PIT regulationsRs.Relevant legal framework and precedents: An 'insider' under the SEBI regulations is defined as a person in possession of or having access to UPSI. The Tribunal referenced the case of Balram Garg vs. SEBI, emphasizing the need for foundational facts to establish a presumption of insider status.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellants had access to UPSI, as the connections alleged by SEBI were insufficient to establish insider status. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' past investment in IAL and the share broking services provided by ASSPL did not imply access to UPSI.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence for communication of UPSI between IAL insiders and the appellants.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellants could not be classified as insiders, as there was no evidence of access to UPSI.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'What is relevant for disclosure is the materiality and the ex-ante possibility of impacting prices of the securities, which may not come true ex-post due to several other factors affecting the company concerned or/and the securities market in general.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that UPSI must be specific to a company's securities and that mere potential or general discussions do not constitute UPSI. It also emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish insider status and access to UPSI.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal set aside the SEBI order, concluding that the appellants were not insiders and did not trade based on UPSI. The penalties and disgorgement imposed by SEBI were deemed unjustified.The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and imposed no costs.