<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (11) TMI 781 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194893</link>
    <description>A listed investment company&#039;s decision to sell part of its investment portfolio to fund a new acquisition was held not to be price sensitive information under insider trading regulations. Price sensitive information must be likely to materially affect the price of securities, and the statutory explanation for disposal of a substantial part of an undertaking could not be stretched to cover an investment company&#039;s stock-in-trade. Non-disclosure of the funding source, without an inherently price-sensitive transaction, did not amount to a regulatory breach. No violation of the insider trading regulations was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2018 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 781 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194893</link>
      <description>A listed investment company&#039;s decision to sell part of its investment portfolio to fund a new acquisition was held not to be price sensitive information under insider trading regulations. Price sensitive information must be likely to materially affect the price of securities, and the statutory explanation for disposal of a substantial part of an undertaking could not be stretched to cover an investment company&#039;s stock-in-trade. Non-disclosure of the funding source, without an inherently price-sensitive transaction, did not amount to a regulatory breach. No violation of the insider trading regulations was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>