Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

When the Script is Deceptive: Misuse of Toehold Acquisitions in Private Placement Bidding

11/1/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Filzah Belal
Filzah Belal is a final year undergraduate law student at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.

The capital market is a free platform for trading in securities, but what happens when external forces act on the market? It influences the prices of the shares, but not at all in an organic way. In this article, I will discuss one such situation when the prices are influenced by external forces in the share market to gain unfair profits – when prospective acquirers gain ‘toehold acquisitions’ in order to enjoy an upper hand in private placement procedure and do so by increasing activity in the script of the company which inorganically increases the shares’ price. Toehold acquisitions are those acquisitions which are done by a prospective investor. These acquisitions are usually done so that the target company knows that the investor is interested in investing Toehold acquisitions are often small acquisitions (hence the reference of the term to the size of a ‘toe’), but they are significant enough to come to the attention of the target company.
In certain situations, toehold acquisitions may become an unfair trade practice. The regulator of the capital market in India is called the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter, the PFUTP Regulations, 2003) under Clause 3(a) provides that no person shall directly or indirectly buy, sell, or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent manner. The definition of fraud under the regulation includes “an active concealment of a fact by a person having knowledge or belief of the fact in a deceitful manner while dealing in securities.” Here the term to be emphasized upon is in a “deceitful manner.”

When a prospective investor acquires a toehold in the target company, he can buy all the shares at once from the share market at once. However, when he chooses to buy these shares in fragments, he increases the activity in the script of the target company. It falsely results in a higher number of market activity in the shares [1] of the target company, thereby increasing the share prices of the target company. This can be inferred as ‘price manipulation’ under the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. 

In SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera [2], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that, “The proof of manipulation almost always depends on inferences drawn from a mass of factual details. Findings must be gathered from patterns of a transaction, the nature of the transactions, etc.” Therefore, to determine whether a party has made several transactions in the target company to manipulate the share prices depends on the party’s intention.

Manipulation is intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive or defraud investors by controlling or artificially inflating the price of securities [3]. Since the prospective investor knows that he can buy all the shares at once instead of buying them in fragments, he shows intent. 

In a private placement, when a prospective investor acquires a toehold, it gives him an added advantage over the other bidders. Toeholds are non-controlling equity stakes which can give their owner the opportunity to interact with the target or its management in ways that are not available to other bidders [4].

In such a situation, it gives the prospective investor double advantage –one, that he gets an upper hand during the bidding procedure involved in a private placement; and second, if that prospective bidder is selected, he gets unfair profits because of the increased share prices (done manipulatively). 

Toehold purchases are not negative in every context and are not per se invalidated by the law at every instance. However, manipulatively increasing share prices can be done even without the intent of gaining an upper hand during the private placement procedure. However, the one constant about trading in capital markets is profit motive. 

Although a genuine increase in the script of the company can also lead to an increase in share prices, it cannot be called “manipulative” because it happened through the natural forces in the market. In contrast, a toehold acquisition by way of multiple transactions done intentionally to increase activity in the script of the company cannot be said to have happened by way of natural forces in the market.

Moreover, it is detrimental to the interests of the other participants in the market. Not only does the company look better because of increased share prices in front of its competitors, but the company also attracts new investors to buy shares under the impression that higher share prices will get them increased profits, which fades once the activity rate of the company’s script returns to normal. In a similar way, it also gives higher hopes to the existing shareholders of the company who may buy more shares as the increasing share prices may look promising, again, only until the activity rate of the company’s script returns to normal. Therefore, toehold acquisitions should not be used as a means to gain unfair profits and/or an upper hand in the private placement process. The practise is unethical and legally questionable.

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

Citations:
[1] “SEBI v. Kishore R Ajmera: Voluminous Trading in Illiquid Scrips.” 2016. IndiaLaw LLP Blog. November 23, 2016. https://www.indialaw.in/blog/blog/commercialcorporate/sebi-v-kishore-ajmera-voluminous-trading-illiquid-scrips/#_ftn1. 
[2] “Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the Matters of Kishore R. Ajmera, Ess Ess Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd. & Other Tagged Matters.” 2016. SEBI. February 23, 2016. https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/feb-2016/order-of-the-hon-ble-supreme-court-in-the-matters-of-kishore-r-ajmera-ess-ess-intermediaries-pvt-ltd-and-other-tagged-matters_31815.html. 
[3] “Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder - 425 U.S. 185, 96 S. Ct. 1375 (1976).” n.d. Community. Accessed October 31, 2019. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ernst-ernst-v-hochfelder. 
[4] Paul, Sertsios, and Giorgo. 2012. “Getting to Know Each Other: The Role of Toeholds in Acquisitions.” SSRN. November 16, 2012. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2176481. 
1 Comment
Bilal
11/2/2019 10:30:20 am

Nice and informative article from legal point of view

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​