For the purpose of compliance with the deposit requirement under IA Regulations and RA Regulations, as an option, IAs and RAs may be allowed to provide units of liquid mutual fund marked as lien in favour of ASB as proposed under para 4 of the consultation paper.
Do you agree with the proposal to allow managers of AIFs to offer co-investment opportunities to investors of AIFs by way of launching a separate CIV scheme?
Do you agree with the construct of CIV scheme as proposed in para 10.5 above?
Whether to discontinue the current framework of offering co-investment through PMS route, if proposal 1 is implemented?
Do you agree that the terms of co-investment by a scheme of AIF and CIV scheme, including the timing of exit, to be identical?
Do you agree with the view that there are no conflict of interest concerns in allowing managers of AIFs to provide advisory services on listed securities irrespective of whether the AIFs managed by them have made investments in such listed securities or not?
Do you agree with the view that there may be conflict of interest concerns, similar to those in investment in unlisted securities, in allowing managers of AIFs to provide advisory services on listed securities that are thinly traded or not traded, in case their AIFs have invested in such listed securities?
Do you agree with the proposal to align the periodicity of KYC review for IGB-FPIs with the timelines prescribed by RBI for their regulated entities?
Do you agree with the proposal to not require IGB-FPIs to furnish investor group details?
Do you agree with the proposal to permit NRI/OCI/RI contribution in the corpus of IGB-FPI without any restrictions?
Do you agree with the proposal to permit NRI/OCI/RI to be in control of IGB-FPI?
Do you agree with the proposal to relax timelines for disclosure of material changes by IGB-FPI?
Do you agree with the proposed timeline of 30 days for intimation of material changes (both Type I and Type II) and submission of supporting documents (if any) by IGB-FPIs?
Do you agree with the proposal to permit transition between regular FPI and IGB-FPI?
Do you agree with the draft amendments to FPI Regulations placed at Annexure A?
Only those PSUs, whose aggregate shareholding of promoter / promoter group along with the other PSUs equals or exceeds 90% of the total issued shares of the Company (Eligible PSUs), may only be eligible for delisting through this separate carve out mechanism.
Such Eligible PSUs may be permitted to be delisted without the requirement of complying with the Minimum Public Shareholding norms.
Such an eligible PSUs may be delisted through a fixed price delisting process, irrespective whether the shares are frequently traded or infrequently traded. However, as currently prescribed, the fixed delisting price shall need to be atleast 15% premium over the floor price.
In cases where the aggregate shareholding of promoter / promoter group along with the other PSUs equals or exceeds 90% of the total issued shares of that company, the requirement of seeking two-third approval from the public shareholders may be dispensed with. Further, since the requirement stems from SCRR, amendment may also be required to be made in the SCRR.
Which option need to be considered for computing Exit Price among the following-
Option A: To provide exit to the public shareholders as per the current parameters for determination of floor price as determined under Regulation 19A of Delisting Regulations.
Option B: Irrespective whether the shares of the company is frequently or infrequently traded, providing exit to the public shareholders on the basis of price determined by an independent registered valuer taking into account valuation parameters such as (i) the book value, (ii) adjusted book value, (iii)comparable trading multiples, (iv) income approach (discounted cash flow method) and (v) any other customary valuation metrics for valuation of shares of companies in the same industry.
Option C: Any other parameter for determination of floor price.
In delisting of such PSUs, the amount lying in the escrow account or the bank guarantee meant for the remaining public shareholders shall be transferred to the designated stock exchange and shall be held by such designated stock exchange for a minimum period of 7 years during which time the investor/s can claim such amount from the Exchange and after that such amount shall be transferred as per applicable laws to Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) for entities established under Companies Act and to SEBI’s Investor Protection and Education Fund (IPEF), if not eligible to be transferred to the IEPF for any reason whatsoever. Investor can claim from IEPF or IPEF as the case may be as per the laid down procedures.
Provide comments/ views/ suggestion on modification to Chapter VII of the Master Circular for listing obligations and disclosure requirements for Non-Convertible Securities, Securitized Debt Instruments and/ or Commercial Paper