By Gaurav Pingle, Company Secretary, Pune
(E-mail id: gp@csgauravpingle.com)
Background:
Recently, an article was published in Economic Times on the topic of Related
Party Transactions (titled, Related Party deals in Companies
Act need a relook). The article was in relation to
the Annual General Meeting of Tata Sponge Iron Limited wherein the company had
proposed 3 resolutions relating to related party transactions for shareholders
approval. The company faced defeat on all the 3 resolutions. Out of the 45.5%
non-promoter shareholders, only 12.43% participated in the voting; of which
66.76% opposed the resolution. The company faced defeat on all 3 resolutions
for approval of RPTs with just 3.77% of the total shareholders opposing it. It
can be said that the shareholders holding 3.77% virtually bulldozed the wishes
of 96.23%.
Provisions under Companies Act, 2013 & SEBI Listing
Regulations: Under the extant provisions of the Companies
Act, 2013, a related party is prohibited from voting on the resolution as a
shareholder where the related party is party to the contract. Whereas, under
SEBI Listing Regulations all the related parties are prohibited from voting,
irrespective whether the shareholder is a related party or not.
Presently,
under the Companies Act, 2013 (section 184), every director of a company who is
in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or interested in a
contract or arrangement or proposed contract or arrangement entered into or to
be entered into shall disclose the nature of his concern or interest at the
meeting of the Board in which the contract or arrangement is discussed. Such
director shall not participate in the meeting of the board of directors.
Under
the Companies Act, 2013 (section 184), where any director who is not so
concerned or interested at the time of entering into such contract or
arrangement, he shall, if he becomes concerned or interested after the contract
or arrangement is entered into, disclose his concern or interest forthwith when
he becomes concerned or interested or at the first meeting of the Board held
after he becomes so concerned or interested.
Analysis: After
notification of the Companies Act, 2013 and introduction of the SEBI Listing
Regulations, related party transactions have been at the center stage of
corporate governance arena. The crux of the entire issue is – Whether
prohibition on voting by related parties is constitutionally valid? In my view,
such prohibition amounts to depriving a person of his right to vote and it is a
well settled principle of the company law that depriving a voting right is
depriving the property, since vote is property. The shareholders vote is a
right of property, and prima facie may be exercised by a shareholder as he
thinks fit in his own interest. A member can exercise this right even in a
manner adverse to what others may think the interest of the company, provided
his vote is bona fide and contrary to public policy. It is settled in company
law that right to vote attached to a share is property. In
my view, neither Companies Act, 2013 nor SEBI Listing Regulations shall take away
such right of a shareholder (whether as a promoter or non-promoter, whether
related party or not).
I am of the opinion that the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Listing Regulations shall enhance the disclosure requirements for such related party transactions. Such disclosures can be part of Explanatory Statement to the Notice of the general meeting. The law may also direct the companies to give a public notice / advertisement of such related party transactions. The law may also direct the board of directors to provide a declaration that such related party transaction is in the interest of the company with requisite reasoning. The declaration may also contain a provision that all the necessary disclosures by the directors have been made to the shareholders. In my view, not all RPTs are against the interest of the company. Some RPTs may be a requirement of the company to focus on its core business activity. Better disclosures and transparency by the board of directors will also eliminate the possibility (which is now a reality as well!) of majority shareholders being at the mercy of minority shareholders.
I am of the opinion that the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Listing Regulations shall enhance the disclosure requirements for such related party transactions. Such disclosures can be part of Explanatory Statement to the Notice of the general meeting. The law may also direct the companies to give a public notice / advertisement of such related party transactions. The law may also direct the board of directors to provide a declaration that such related party transaction is in the interest of the company with requisite reasoning. The declaration may also contain a provision that all the necessary disclosures by the directors have been made to the shareholders. In my view, not all RPTs are against the interest of the company. Some RPTs may be a requirement of the company to focus on its core business activity. Better disclosures and transparency by the board of directors will also eliminate the possibility (which is now a reality as well!) of majority shareholders being at the mercy of minority shareholders.
In
my book on Related Party Transactions, in one of the Chapters, I have compared
the RPTs provisions under the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI’s Listing
Regulations. There are 26 comparative points on the provisions relating to
RPTs. The other RPT provisions includes scope of related party, type of specified
transaction, ‘pricing parameter’, reference of ‘ordinary course of its business’,
Audit Committee’s approval, recommendation to the board of directors where RPT
is not approved by Audit Committee, ratification of RPTs by Audit Committee,
material RPTs, trigger point for shareholders’ approval, provisions relating to
royalty payment, annual disclosures, etc. The regulators shall harmonize the
said provisions which will ultimately address the real issues in RPTs.
"Whether prohibition on voting by related parties is constitutionally valid? In my view, such prohibition amounts to depriving a person of his right to vote and it is a well settled principle of the company law that depriving a voting right is depriving the property, since vote is property."
ReplyDeleteBut my thinking is that such deprivation is only for a particular transaction , not from other transactions; should not be treated as deprivation from voting rights . He / she is eligible to vote for other transactions except the selected one. It is a natural principle of justice that an interested person should not involve in a process in which he/she is interested. If the intention/purpose of related person is pure and for the well being of Company as a whole, there is no need to fear.