SEBI’s Proposed Redefinition Of UPSI: Enhancing Transparency In Insider Trading Regulations

Posted On - 14 December, 2024 • By - Vatsal Gaur

Introduction:

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) has released a consultation paper[1] on the review of the definition of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (‘UPSI’) under its Prohibition of Insider Trading (‘PIT’) Regulations, 2015. These proposed changes aim to clarify and standardize the criteria for UPSI across listed companies, making it easier for entities to comply with the regulations. The consultation paper details SEBI’s proposed amendments which seeked public comments[2] by November 30, 2024.

Background: Why SEBI Is Revisiting the UPSI Definition

SEBI’s primary motivation behind revisiting the UPSI definition is to bring uniformity and clarity to disclosures. Based on SEBI’s own observations and industry feedback, companies often classify only certain events as UPSI, primarily those explicitly defined in Regulation 2(1)(n) of the PIT Regulations. However, SEBI’s evaluation suggests that this narrow interpretation may result in incomplete compliance, potentially depriving investors of material information.

Consequently, SEBI aims to align the UPSI definition with the material event disclosure requirements under the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (‘LODR’) Regulations, 2015. This alignment intends to bridge any gaps between PIT and LODR Regulations, ensuring that price-sensitive information reaches the market in a timely and transparent manner, thus upholding fair disclosure practices.

Issues Highlighted by Stakeholders:

During SEBI’s preliminary consultation with stakeholders, respondents raised several concerns regarding the impact of the proposed amendments.

Materiality vs. Price Sensitivity: Some stakeholders observed that while certain events might meet the materiality criteria, they do not always affect stock prices directly. They suggested that the UPSI definition should focus solely on genuinely price-sensitive events.

Increased Compliance and Trading Restrictions: The broader UPSI definition could lead to more extensive restrictions on insider trading, as companies may need to keep trading windows closed for longer periods to ensure compliance. This would directly impact the ability of insiders to trade securities, given the extended periods when UPSI is likely to be available.

Stakeholders also advised SEBI to synchronize the revised UPSI definition with any amendments to the LODR Regulations. They also requested that SEBI consider the practical aspects of these changes to ensure that regulatory compliance does not unduly burden businesses.

SEBI’s Proposed Revisions:

To address the highlighted concerns, SEBI formed a working group to develop recommendations. Their objective was to align the PIT and LODR Regulations while minimizing any potential disruptions to business operations. SEBI’s proposals for specific events that should be considered as UPSI:

  1. The working group proposes that information on credit rating assignments, changes, and capital-raising activities be included in UPSI. While new ratings and revised ratings might affect investor sentiment, the group suggests focusing on instances where ratings are upgraded or downgraded. Similarly, capital-raising decisions, which can significantly alter a company’s financial landscape, would be included in the revised UPSI list.
  2. Events resulting from board decisions, such as dividend declarations, buybacks, and changes in capital structure, are already considered UPSI under existing PIT Regulations. However, SEBI proposes expanding this list to include any board decisions regarding fundraising initiatives, such as issuing new equity or debt, as these decisions often have implications for a company’s share price and shareholder value.
  3. The proposal also includes material agreements in the UPSI definition, specifically those that impact management or control, such as shareholder agreements, joint ventures, and contracts with third parties. Agreements influencing control structures are often sensitive and can affect both share value and investor perceptions of governance stability.
  4. SEBI’s proposed revisions recognize that fraud, defaults, and significant legal actions, especially when involving high-level executives, can impact investor confidence and market perceptions. Therefore, SEBI suggests including these incidents as UPSI events, requiring immediate disclosure to help maintain transparency and protect investors.
  5. Changes in key managerial personnel, such as the resignation of directors or statutory auditors, are proposed additions to UPSI. Such events can often signal internal challenges or shifts, making them material for shareholders. SEBI’s proposed inclusion aims to promote timely disclosure of these changes to ensure market transparency.
  6. SEBI proposes to include loan restructuring and insolvency proceedings as UPSI. Decisions about loan restructuring, insolvency applications, and resolution plans have critical implications for a company’s financial standing and shareholder interests. Their inclusion aims to bring uniformity and ensure that any information affecting a company’s debt obligations is available to the public promptly.
  7. Forensic audits intended to detect financial misstatements or fund misappropriations are also proposed for inclusion. This proposal covers the initiation and findings of such audits, which could impact investor trust. By mandating disclosure of forensic audits, SEBI aims to promote greater accountability among listed companies and deter financial misconduct.

Additionally, one of the main concerns arising from the broader UPSI definition is the possibility of longer trading window closures, which would restrict insiders’ trading activities. Recognizing this, SEBI has proposed increasing the flexibility of trading plans for insiders.  SEBI proposes a reduction in the mandatory cooling-off period, which would allow insiders to initiate trading plans more frequently without compromising regulatory compliance. SEBI suggests exemptions for insiders in cases of permanent incapacity or personal bankruptcy, among other conditions. This would ensure that individuals facing unforeseen personal circumstances are not unduly penalized by trading restrictions related to UPSI.

Expected Benefits of the Proposed Changes:

By refining the UPSI definition and aligning it with the LODR material event requirements, SEBI aims to ensure more comprehensive and timely disclosures. This would help establishing a fairer environment for all market participants, as investors would have access to material information that could affect their decisions.  These changes have been made to bring greater consistency across listed entities by establishing a standardized list of UPSI events. This uniformity is likely to reduce ambiguity around disclosure obligations and help ensure that companies comply with regulations more effectively.

Investors benefit from timely, transparent disclosures of material information, which builds trust in the market. With better-defined criteria for UPSI, shareholders and potential investors can make more informed decisions based on a fuller understanding of the risks and opportunities associated with a company.

Challenges

While the revised UPSI definition improves transparency, it could increase the compliance burden on companies, as they may need to close trading windows more frequently. This could potentially disrupt insider trading practices and require additional resources for compliance monitoring.

Although SEBI’s intent is to cover only price-sensitive events, distinguishing between price-sensitive and non-price-sensitive material events could still pose challenges. Companies may need to exercise significant judgment in determining whether an event requires disclosure, potentially leading to ongoing compliance risks. Furthermore, SEBI’s revisions seek to balance regulatory requirements with business practicality, but companies might face challenges if these changes lead to frequent interruptions in trading activities. For insiders who are continuously privy to UPSI, restricted trading windows could affect their ability to trade effectively.

Conclusion:

SEBI’s proposed amendments to the UPSI definition under the PIT Regulations reflect a thorough and well-considered approach to aligning the criteria for sensitive information disclosures with those outlined in the LODR Regulations. The new definition aims to make disclosure requirements more robust and transparent, promoting fair market practices and ensuring that investors have access to the material information necessary for informed decision-making.

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/reports-and-statistics/reports/nov-2024/consultation-paper-on-proposed-review-of-the-definition-of-unpublished-price-sensitive-information-under-sebi-prohibition-of-insider-trading-regulations-2015-to-bring-regulatory-clarity-certainty-_88313.html

[2] https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/publiccommentv2/PublicCommentAction.do?doPublicComments=yes

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com