The Corporate File

Learn more

Beyond Section 62: The Forensic Link Between SBO, SEBI SAST, and Security Issuance

Me (casually opening the SES Guidelines):
Alright… Principle 10.4 – Issue of Securities.
Rights issue, preferential allotment… standard capital raising.

source link

https://www.sesgovernance.com/assets/pdfs/proxy-advisory/1750172548_Proxy-Advisory-Guidelines_FY-2025-26_Website.pdf : Beyond Section 62: The Forensic Link Between SBO, SEBI SAST, and Security Issuance

page no.54

Me (reaching Question 7):
“Whether the issue is being made to promoters or strategic investors?”

…Okay. This is not routine.
This is where governance starts speaking.

Infographic titled 'Who's REALLY Getting the Securities?' discussing governance issues, types of allotment, and key questions related to securities issuance.

The Conversation in My Head

Me 1 (compliance mode):
Check pricing ✔️
Check valuation report ✔️
Check approvals ✔️

Me 2 (governance mode):
Pause.

👉 Who is getting the shares?

Because that determines everything.

Layer 1: Preferential Allotment — The Silent Control Tool

Me:
Preferential issue is governed by:

  • Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013
  • Rule 13 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014
  • Chapter V of the SEBI ICDR Regulations, 2018

Also me:
So yes — legally compliant.

But if allotted to promoters…

This could be:

  • Increasing promoter stake quietly
  • Structuring control below thresholds under SEBI SAST Regulations, 2011
  • Diluting minority influence

👉 Not just capital raising — potential control engineering

🔍 Governance Lens 1: “Skin in the Game vs Free Ride”

  • Fresh cash coming in? → genuine capital
  • Debt conversion? → stake increase without liquidity

👉 If no real money enters → not growth, just control shift

🔍 Governance Lens 2: “Pricing Arbitrage”

  • ICDR formula followed ✔️
  • But timing manipulated ❓

👉 Good news after pricing = hidden discount to promoters

Layer 2: Rights Issue — Looks Fair, But Is It?

Me (relieved):
Rights issue = Section 62(1)(a) → offered to all shareholders.

Me (thinking deeper):
But what if:

  • Promoters renounce strategically?
  • Or subscribe disproportionately?

👉 End result:

  • Promoter stake increases
  • Minority diluted indirectly

🔍 Governance Lens 3: “Substance over Form”

  • Form: Equal opportunity
  • Substance: Control consolidation

Layer 3: Strategic Investors — The “Grey Zone”

Me:
Oh nice, a strategic investor is coming in.

Also me:
Wait… who exactly?

Because legally:

  • Still falls under Section 62(1)(c) + ICDR

But governance-wise:

👉 Is this truly independent?
👉 Or a “friendly party”?

Enter the Real Game Changer: SBO (Significant Beneficial Ownership)

Me (now fully alert):

  • Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013
  • SBO Rules, 2018

👉 Legal ownership ≠ Real ownership

🔍 Governance Lens 4: “Masked Allottee Risk”

Ask:

  • Who is the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO)?
  • Is there indirect promoter linkage?

👉 If unclear → assume control may be hidden

The Most Ignored Risk: Creeping Control

Me (connecting dots):

Under SEBI SAST Regulations, 2011:

  • Promoters can increase up to 5% annually

But…

👉 24% → 24.9% = strategic positioning below 25% trigger

🔍 Governance Lens 5: “Creeping Control Calculator”

  • Check post-issue voting power
  • Not just % change

👉 Is this avoiding open offer intentionally?

The Hidden Red Flag: Blanket Resolutions

Me (frustrated):

“Approve issuance to any investor anytime”

👉 Legally valid
👉 Governance-wise dangerous

🔍 Governance Lens 6: “No Name, No Accountability”

If investor not identified:

👉 This is future dilution without transparency

Bringing It All Together — My Thought Flow

When I read this, I didn’t see a checklist.

I saw a forensic governance framework:

Step 1: Legal Structure

  • Section 62 → issuance
  • ICDR → pricing
  • SAST → control
  • SBO → ownership

Step 2: Governance Questions

  • Who gets shares?
  • Who gains control?
  • Who is behind them?

The Real Governance Insight (This is the punchline 🔥)

Law checks compliance.
SES checks intention.

Summary Table (Compliance vs Governance)

FeatureLegal RequirementGovernance Expectation
PricingICDR FormulaFair vs intrinsic value
IdentityAllottee nameSBO (real owner)
MethodSection 62Why not Rights Issue?
ControlSAST thresholdsDe facto control shift

When I Read This, I Thought Like This:

This one question connects:

  • Section 62 → issuance
  • ICDR → pricing
  • SAST → control
  • Section 90 → ownership

But SES…

👉 Asks one thing: Who really wins?

Source 📌

SES Proxy Advisory Guidelines FY 2025–26:
https://www.sesgovernance.com/assets/pdfs/proxy-advisory/1750172548_Proxy-Advisory-Guidelines_FY-2025-26_Website.pdf

(Refer: Principle 10.4 – Issue of Securities, Question 7)

Final Thought (Top Voice Mic Drop 🔥)

Form says: Capital Raising
Substance says: Control Transfer

And SES?

👉 SES reads substance.

Infographic titled 'Who's REALLY Getting the Securities?' by Smita Hegde, discussing Principle 10.4 related to securities, governance, and strategic investors.

Disclaimer:  Prepared solely for academic and educational purposes. This does not constitute investment advice, professional consultation, or any recommendation

Connect on Linkedin www.linkedin.com/in/smita-hegde-90595b1b5

Leave a comment