Mint Explainer: What did Sebi decide at its 210th board meeting?

In his second board meeting as chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), Tuhin Kanta Pandey approved a sweeping set of regulatory changes aimed at reducing friction across capital markets.
With reforms for startups and PSU delisting norms, tweaks to the structures of alternative investment funds (AIFs) and angel funds, and easier procedures for intermediaries, the regulator moved decisively to bolster its 'ease of doing business' agenda.
Mint breaks down the key decisions from Sebi's 210th board meeting, and what they mean for investors, startups and the broader financial ecosystem.
What did Sebi decide for promoters of startups?
Sebi permitted founders designated as promoters to retain employee stock options (Esops), provided these were granted at least a year before the company filed its draft red herring prospectus (DRHP). Earlier, such holdings had to be liquidated before the listing, creating regulatory headaches for startup founders, already under pressure to become unicorns and reward their early investors with rich exits.
Many are now in wait-and-watch mode. 'The move by Sebi is intended to ease the pain of many promoters who started the business, going from employee to entrepreneur," said Archana Balasubramanian, partner at Agama Law Associates.
Also read | Mint Explainer: How Sebi uncovered Sanjiv Bhasin's alleged stock manipulation scheme
Shubha Yadav, partner at RS Law Chambers, termed the change 'clear and targeted", adding that the one-year cooling-off period 'covers only those share-based benefits including Esops granted one year prior to the filing of the DRHP, which should not raise any legal or compliance challenge during IPO preparation".
Flagging potential grey areas, Ketan Mukhija, senior partner at Burgeon Law said, 'Determining the start of the cooling-off period and ensuring there are no indirect grants will require careful documentation."
How is Sebi easing PSU delistings?
Public sector undertakings (PSU) in which the government and other PSUs hold an at least 90% stake can now delist without the two-thirds public shareholder approval that was previously mandated. The new fixed-price route requires a 15% premium above the calculated floor price, based on historical data and independent valuation.
Prashant Mishra, founder & CEO of Agnam Advisors, said government-owned companies now have a clearer path to exit the stock market through a straightforward pricing system, making it easier for big institutional investors to understand what is happening.
Legal experts said one critical legal question remains: how will minority shareholders' rights be safeguarded? Abhishek Dadoo, partner at Khaitan & Co, said this framework enables the delisting of PSUs that would otherwise struggle to exit, but comes at the cost of diluting minority protections. 'The delisting price is linked to an independent valuation, not the historic market price—which could be higher. The removal of the public vote effectively un-democratises the process." he added.
Can AIF investors now co-invest more easily?
Category I and II AIFs can now offer co-investment schemes (CIVs) within their structure, giving accredited investors a chance to invest alongside the AIF in unlisted companies.
'The approval of the co-investment vehicle is a breakthrough that will significantly expand private capital participation in India," said Gopal Srinivasan, chairman and managing director, TVS Capital Funds. 'Typically, in global practice, 15-20% of a fund's corpus comes through such co-investments, and this is now within reach", he said.
Also read: Sebi's new fee platform aims to protect investors. But not many have taken to it
However, Nandini Pathak, partner at Bombay Law Chambers, emphasised caution, saying the eligibility of co-investors would hinge on their accreditation status. 'Restrictions may continue around exit timing and terms. These advisory rights are being considered for listed co-investments," she said. Pathak suggested fund managers adopt appropriate internal controls and best execution practices, and provide adequate disclosures to the main AIF investors.
How is Sebi changing investment norms for angel funds?
Only accredited investors (AIs) can now invest in angel funds. AIs undergo independent verification to ensure compliance and protect investors. Earlier investments by non-AIs are grandfathered in, with a one-year transition period. Limits for investing in startups have been widened from ₹10 lakh to ₹25 crore), the 25% concentration cap has been removed, and more than 200 accredited investors can invest together. Managers must retain 'skin in the game" of at least 0.5% or ₹50,000 per deal.
Experts said AIFs have long been attracting high-net-worth individuals (HNIs) and relatively sophisticated investors, which gives Sebi more leeway to relax norms and make it easier to do business. 'It is now possible for fund managers to advise on listed securities, allowing them to provide advisory services," said Kush Gupta, director at SKG investment & Advisory. He added that the revision of investment thresholds would give angel funds more flexibility to choose their investments.
What relief has Sebi offered to FPIs who invest only in government securities?
Sebi has eased compliance norms for foreign portfolio investors that invest only in government securities (GS-FPIs). Key measures include longer KYC review cycles, no need to disclose investor group structures. NRIs and OCIs can now be constituents of GS-FPIs without restrictions, and material changes can be reported within 30 days, from from 7 days. These steps aim to attract foreign capital as Indian G-Secs have been included in global bond indices since 2024-25.
Also read: Sebi engages with venture capital funds directly to smoothen transition to AIF
'The risk profiling for FPIs who only invest in G-Secs is now various notches lower than a mix portfolio FPI with significant easing," said Manisha Shroff, partner at Khaitan & Co. However, she flagged some legal ambiguities. 'Sebi's relaxation is currently only for existing and prospective FPIs that exclusively invest in G-Secs. The fine print on how long such FPIs need to remain sovereign-only and if there will be different and fast-tracked registration process remains to be seen."
What is the new settlement scheme for brokers involved in the NSEL case?
Sebi has introduced a one-time monetary settlement plan based on quantity and value of trades. Brokers facing enforcement actions—but not named in charge sheets or declared defaulters—can opt in to close proceedings.
The settlement mechanism for NSEL-related brokers is a bold move to unclog legacy enforcement actions, said Amit Tungare, managing partner at Asahi Legal, said. "Sebi will need to ensure that the settlements do not dilute accountability, particularly in cases involving systemic failure", he said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Stricter regulations lead to drop in derivatives participation: NSE chief

Ahmedabad: With stricter regulations in place, there has been a significant drop in participation in the derivatives segment, said Ashish Chauhan, MD & CEO of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), on Friday. Chauhan was in the city to launch a book based on his life. He also participated in a discussion on Indian financial markets with international tax expert Mukesh Patel. Speaking to the media, Chauhan said, "SEBI increased lot sizes and margin requirements for trading in derivatives to ensure that small investors do not lose money. In June last year, around 55 lakh investors traded in derivatives at least once. That number has now come down to about 30 lakh." He also stated that NSE International Exchange at GIFT City has signed an agreement with the Cyprus Stock Exchange for dual listing and joint product development.

Business Standard

4 hours ago

• Business Standard

Summonses issued to Saluja's lawyers cause unrest among legal fraternity

Not taking kindly to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED's) summons -- later withdrawn -- to two senior advocates Pratap Venugopal and Arvind Datar, legal experts have said though the agency can send such notices, this should be done only in the rarest of the rare cases. 'Normally and ideally unless the ED has concrete clear and irrefutable evidence as to the complicity of the lawyer in the matter of circumvention of any criminal law, a lawyer is a professional and the rules of confidentiality govern the relations with the clients and therefore the lawyer should not ideally be subject to any kind of investigation,' senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose told Business Standard. 'It is the independence of the judiciary which is at stake because if agencies proceed against lawyers, then the lawyers will not be defending their clients,' Ghose said. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on Friday wrote to the chief justice of India, deploring the ED's action and seeking suo motu cognizance of the issuance of the summons to Venugopal. It said the ED's action had ramifications for 'independence of the legal profession' and the 'foundational principle of lawyer-client privilege'. Earlier this month, the ED had first sent notice to Datar, asking him to appear before the agency in connection with legal advice he had given Care Health Insurance on employee stock options (ESOPs) issued to former Religare Enterprises chairperson Rashmi Saluja. After protests from lawyers and representations before the Supreme Court, the notice was withdrawn. On June 18, the agency issued a second summons, this time to Venugopal in connection with the same issue. In its notice, the ED asked Venugopal to furnish records pertaining to communication between him and Care Health Insurance as well as Religare Enterprises. He was also asked to furnish these details on the legal opinion given for the grant of ESOPs to Saluja after the rejection of the grant by the insurance regulator. The summons also required Venugopal to tender details of payment made by Care Health, Religare Enterprises, and other associate entities against the legal service sought by the companies. He was asked to appear on June 27 before the assistant director of the ED in Mumbai. 'Legal opinion falls under the protection of attorney-client privilege. However, the issue becomes legally complex when legal opinion is allegedly used to facilitate an illegal transaction, such as money laundering or/and when the notice does not directly seek privileged communication, but circumstantial information such as payments received or internal communications,' said Alay Razvi, managing partner of law firm Accord Juris. Though lawyers can be summoned under procedural laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, it is contentious and opposed by the legal fraternity, Razvi said. Himanshu Vidhani, partner at law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan, said the ED issuing summons to Datar and Venugopal appeared to be unprecedented. Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (previously Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act), provides protection of the attorney-client privilege. The Madras High Court had in 2002 deprecated the issuance of a summons to an advocate. 'Allowing investigative agencies to question advocates on advice given to clients would destabilise the foundation and independence of the legal profession, particularly in connection with criminal and white collar defence,' said Divyam Agarwal, partner at law firm JSA Advocates & Solicitors. Chinmay Bhosale, advocate at Bombay High Court, said: 'In no way can an advocate be considered responsible for his or her client's actions.' An ED statement said: 'ED has issued a Circular for the guidance of the field formations that no summons shall be issued to any Advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Further if any summons needs to be issued under the exceptions carved out in proviso to section 132 of the BSA, 2023, the same shall be issued only with the prior approval of the Director, ED.'

India Today

4 hours ago

• India Today

ED bars summons to advocates, exceptions need director's approval under law

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday issued a circular instructing its field formations not to issue summons to any advocate in violation of Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This section states that no advocate, at any point of time, should disclose any communication made to him without the client's circular mandates that any summons under the exceptions to this provision require prior approval from the Director of the Enforcement comes amid the probe agency's investigation into a money laundering case involving Care Health Insurance Ltd (CHIL) concerning the issuance of Employee Stock Options (ESOPs) at significantly undervalued prices. The case centres around the Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) issued on May 1, 2022, which were reportedly priced much lower than market value. This issuance allegedly took place despite a formal rejection of the ESOP proposal by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).As part of the ongoing probe, the ED summoned Pratap Venugopal, an independent director of CHIL, to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the ESOPs and the board's discussions following IRDAI's rejection. However, given that Venugopal is a senior advocate practicing in the Supreme Court, the summons issued to him has now been ED said that any documents required from him in his capacity as an independent director will be requested via July 23 last year, the IRDAI directed CHIL to revoke or cancel any ESOPs that remain unallotted. In addition, the regulator imposed a penalty of Rs 1 crore on CHIL for non-compliance with its Watch