India: RBI On Downside Protection – Are We Set For Course Correction?

Last Updated: 1 June 2017
Article by Amitabh Sharma
Abstract

The article analyses two landmark judgments, NTT Docomo Versus Tata Sons and Cruz City Versus Unitech delivered by two coordinated benches of Delhi High Court. It delves upon the courts taking a view on the regulatory autonomy of RBI in dealing with foreign exchange remittance between JV ventures parties, especially in the context of 'put option', damage/indemnity payouts.

Hitherto, the RBI, quite literally had the last word on the interpretation of the provisions of law and policy involving issues around foreign exchange. In that context, the judgment of Delhi High Court in the Docomo Case that RBI will be bound by the determination of a foreign Arbitral Tribunal that no permission of RBI is required for remittance of damages payout from a resident to Non-resident entity, assumes greater significance. The Delhi High Court Judgment in the Docomo Case, by disallowing RBI to intervene purely on technical grounds has come tantalizingly close to almost impinging on the regulatory autonomy of RBI in interpreting and deciding matters involving Foreign Exchange in FDI transactions. Unless overruled by a superior court or better still if RBI acquiesces with the judgment in the Docomo Case, it seems that the regulatory compass under which RBI governs the FDI regime is all set for a major course correction!

Is it 'fait accompli' for the RBI? Whether RBI has any legal remedy against the Foreign Arbitral Tribunal and Single Judge 's determination in Docomo Case, of RBI's powers? Seems that the dust has just not settled yet on the legality of downside protection on an inbound equity investment...

Enforceability of Foreign Awards

Recently, in two separate landmark judgments, two coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court refused to decline the enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Awards on the ground of it being against the fundamental policy of Indian law. The Delhi High Court, in both these Single Judge's judgments, NTT Docomo v. Tata Sons Limited (Docomo Case) and Cruz City v. Unitech (Unitech Case), while passing the judgment decree in favour of the foreign party(ies), not only disallowed the invocation of 'fundamental policy of Indian law' to thwart the foreign Arbitral Awards' enforceability, but also examined at length some fundamental issues pertaining to Indian Foreign Exchange laws and policy irking the foreign investors involved in the cross-border Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) landscape. The Delhi High Court tested the legality of shareholders' agreements (SHA) and delved into issues like, 'put option', 'assured returns', 'downside protection' in view of the restrictions under the foreign exchange law and policy. It also examined in detail, issues around breach of representations and warranties and ensuing damages/indemnity arising in cross border M&A transactions. In the Docomo case, while disallowing the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) intervention application (in the Execution Suit proceeding), the Single Judge held that there are no statutory requirements in India which mandate that RBI must necessarily be heard in proceedings involving enforcement and validity of an Arbitral Award resulting in a remittance of foreign exchange to a non-Indian entity outside of India. "The mere fact that a statutory body's power and jurisdiction might be discussed in adjudication or an Award, will not confer locus standi on such body or entity to intervene in those proceedings," held the Single Judge.

RBI – The Last Word on FDI

Hitherto, the RBI, quite literally had the last word on the interpretation of the provisions of law and policy involving issues around foreign exchange. In that context, the judgment of Delhi High Court in the Docomo Case that RBI will be bound by the determination of a foreign Arbitral Tribunal that no permission of RBI is required for remittance of damages payout from a resident to Non-resident entity, assumes greater significance. The Delhi High Court Judgment in the Docomo Case, by disallowing RBI to intervene purely on technical grounds (as The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not allow a 'third party' to intervene in Execution proceedings/Compromise decree) has come tantalizingly close to almost impinging on the regulatory autonomy of RBI in interpreting and deciding matters involving Foreign Exchange in FDI transactions. Unless overruled by a superior court or better still if RBI acquiesces with the judgment in the Docomo Case, it seems that the regulatory compass under which RBI governs the FDI regime is all set for a major course correction!

Fundamental Policy of Indian Law – Relevance under FERA Vs FEMA

In the Unitech Case, the Single Judge meticulously navigated through the provisions of both the old and new foreign exchange legislations, namely the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), thus narrowing down the applicability of 'public policy' argument in the current day context. The Delhi High Court analysed a catena of judgments including Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. to deduce how the argument of 'public policy' cannot anymore be used to stall the enforcement of a foreign Arbitral Award in the current liberalized economic environment.

Given the policy, legal and economic milieu in which Renusagar case came up before the Supreme Court, it was correctly held that a violation of any provision of FERA would fall foul of the public policy of India. However, under the new dispensation of exchange law provisions under FEMA, the Delhi High Court astutely did not succumb to the temptation of falling for such a dated reasoning. The Delhi High Court in Unitech Case concluded by stating that there has been a paradigm shift in the Foreign Exchange law and policy; the focus has now shifted from prohibiting transactions (from FERA era) to a more permissible and enabling environment (under FEMA). The fundamental policy of FEMA is to manage not to prohibit foreign exchange transactions. The High Court of Delhi thus held that declining enforcement of a Foreign Award because it vitiates the fundamental public policy of India as it may be requiring a particular regulatory compliance or may be violating a provision of FEMA, would not be warranted. It ruled, "a simpliciter violation of any particular provision of FEMA cannot be considered synonymous to offending the fundamental policy of the Indian law." Indeed, even for the skeptics of Indian judiciary, this judicial leaning towards creating a more conducive and facilitative FDI regime through interpretational inventiveness is a very welcoming sign.

Judicial Interpretation of Risk Protection Clauses in FDI Transactions

What is even more encouraging for the votaries of a liberalised economy is that the Single Judges in both the judgments did not just stop at negating the applicability of 'public policy' in challenging the Foreign Arbitral Award, but they went on to examine in detail, the provisions of the shareholder's agreement in the two cases giving rise to the claims of damages/indemnity vis-a-vis the concepts of assured return and down side protection in international M&A deals. The 'put option', a standard risk protection clause for salvaging the economic value of the investments by selling the securities to the other side often at a pre-determined valuation/price in the M&A deals, was discussed in-depth in the backdrop of assured returns/ down side protection. The Delhi High Court in the Unitech Case held that a 'put option' provided to a non-resident (Cruz City) by another non-resident (Burley, an overseas subsidiary of Unitech) back-stopped by the resident Indian parent entity i.e., Unitech, cannot be held as an illegally structured FDI transaction ensuring an "assured return" at a "predetermined rate", and thus is not violating FEMA. Having examined the provisions of the Shareholders Agreement and a "Keepwell Agreement" (akin to equity backstopping/guaranteeing arrangement by parent entity to de-risk the breaches of primary obligations of its subsidiaries to the other parties under the terms of SHA), the Court held that FEMA does not prohibit any 'put option' given to the non-resident entity (Cruz City) by another non-resident entity (Burley). Displaying interpretative ingenuity, the Delhi High Court held that both Unitech and Burley had breached the obligation under the Keepwell Agreement and that Cruz City was indeed entitled to recover from Unitech a sum equal to the 'put option' price by way of damages for the breach of contract, under the terms of Keepwell Agreement.

The Delhi High Court squarely rejected the contention that the provisions of the SHA read with the Keepwell agreement provided an assured return, thus violating FEMA provisions. It held that such restrictions under the foreign exchange policy and law would not be applicable to cases where the foreign investor initiates a damage claim based on a breach of contract. If the FDI has been brought into the country based on specific representations and warranties and such representations and warranties are breached, the foreign investor would be entitled to its remedies under law, including in damages. If Cruz City has been induced to make an investment on a false assurance of the Keepwell Agreement being legal and valid, Unitech must "bear the consequences of violating the provisions of Law, but cannot be permitted to escape their liability under the Award", the Single Judge came out very strongly against Unitech. It termed Unitech's contention that the SHA was a device to circumvent the provisions of FEMA, and all its representations were false and illegal, as 'plainly dishonest', and thus held that permitting it to prevail on such contentions to resist the enforcement of the Award would plainly amount to "rewarding dishonesty and would be manifestly unjust."

Judicial Determination of Docomo Exit Clause

In the Docomo Case, the High Court of Delhi yet again judiciously set out the difference between transactions prescribing assured returns/downside protection on equity instruments and an exit arising out of a breach of a representation by way of a damages claim. The fundamental questions that arose in the Docomo Case was whether the stop loss protection provided to NTT Docomo is legal under the provisions of FEMA? Or in other words, whether Tata's obligation to find a buyer or buyers of the sale shares (and thus guaranteeing NTT Docomo an exit at the minimum of 50% of its investment value by way of damages/indemnity payments), is violative of FEMA? The High Court of Delhi held that Tata could have lawfully performed its obligations to find a buyer at any price, including at a price above the shares' market value, through finding a non-resident buyer. Tata's failure to find such a buyer is a breach, thus entitling Docomo to damages arising out of Tata's non-performance of its obligation under the provisions of the SHA.

The Delhi High Court while adjudicating on RBI's intervention application in the Docomo Case, having reviewed a long series of internal correspondence and file notes between RBI and the Ministry of Finance, probed RBI for taking ambivalent stands on the sticky issues of assured returns/downside protection. While on the one hand, India has been taking fast strides to evolve as a truly liberalised economy, it is somewhat dampening to see such bureaucratic log jam in fast tracking decisions on the fundamental issue of downward protection provided to foreign investors in the cross border M&A transactions.

The internal notes on the RBI files (as exhibited in the Docomo Case) seem to suggest that RBI has indeed been in favour of allowing protection against downside losses to NTT Docomo and other such entities in cross-border equity deals keeping in view the FDI inflow in the country and maintaining the sanctity of contracts. RBI further proposed to the Ministry of Finance to let RBI follow similar principle of downside protection in other cross border M&As, going forward. However, the Ministry of Finance seems to have taken a contrarian view and has advised RBI that such down side protection, technically not being in conformity with the FEMA regulations because of the absence of an enabling framework, cannot be allowed.

Risk Protection Clause in FDI – Is Regulatory Certainty in Sight?

While it is heartening to see the judiciary taking a pragmatic view on the issue of the enforceability of a Foreign Arbitral Award and granting reliefs to the foreign investors in the form of damages for the breaches of representations and warranties and obligations by the Indian parties, the fundamental issue remains far from being resolved. The central issue regarding whether the RBI would eventually allow what is understood in international M&A parlance as 'downside protection', remains unresolved. Relief for foreign investors in terms of successfully arguing and defending the claims for repatriation of foreign exchange outside India before the arbitral tribunal and Indian courts would still largely be dependent on the ingenuity of contracts, how lawyers have structured the exits around damages/indemnities arising out of breaches by the Indian party of the representation and warranties, instead of acknowledging contractual remedies for downside protection under the letter of law and policy. It is about time to set the course right, rather than skirting the issue.

A closer scrutiny of the Unitech judgment reveals that while the High Court of Delhi upheld the enforceability of the Foreign Arbitral Award and made Unitech liable for honouring its obligation by way of damage payout (for the breach of its obligations), the High Court still left the issue of repatriation of funds outside India open ended where it said that the ultimate remittance of funds from Unitech to overseas would still be subject to necessary permission from RBI. Even in the Docomo Case the High Court of Delhi fell short in giving clear instructions to RBI for straightaway allowing the damages payment sans any further clearance from RBI. The High Court of Delhi has taken on record the Consent Terms between NTT Docomo and Tata Sons whereby both the NTT Docomo and Tata Sons have undertaken to obtain all the requisite statutory permissions and clearances. It will be interesting to see how the RBI now proceeds in this matter, and whether it would allow the remittance of damages payment from Tata to NTT Docomo without any further ado. Interestingly, the High Court has instructed that the payment of damages from Tata to NTT Docomo and the incidental share transfer between NTT Docomo and Tata Sons shall be administered through the modalities of form FC-TRS (a statutory form under the provisions of FEMA for transaction of securities between a resident and a non-resident). It is noteworthy that the form FC-TRS does not have any flexibility to allow or accommodate any payouts other than towards consideration for buying/selling of securities between a resident and non-resident.

Any indemnity/damages payment from a resident to non-resident under the provisions of FEMA would normally require permission from RBI, so it will be interesting to see whether RBI reaffirms its authority by sitting again in judgment on the issue of repatriation of funds (damage payout) from Tata to NTT Docomo. Not only Docomo but the entire investment community is watching with bated breath as to what steps RBI will take pursuant to the order in Docomo Case – the question is would RBI resort to technical infirmities arising out of incapability of the form FC-TRS to permit transfer of damages payouts amongst others, thus allowing the 'form over the substance' argument come in the way of fund transfer? Or would RBI, riding on the facilitative Judgment of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, acquiesce and allow, without exercising regulatory superintendence, damage payouts to NTT Docomo? Or would RBI allow, but having affirmed its regulatory powers by granting a special permission to let Tata make the damage payouts?

Supremacy of RBI's Regulatory Powers - Is the Tussle Over?

Docomo Case has far reaching ramifications for the RBI – not only it disallows and sets a precedent that RBI cannot intervene in the enforcement of an Arbitral Award that might result in remitting money to an non-Indian resident entity outside India, it also judicially concludes that, RBI, just as any other entity, be bound by an (Foreign) Award interpreting the scope of its powers or any of its regulations subject to it being upheld by a court when challenged by a party to the Award (which RBI is not). The Single Judge in Docomo Case has also alluded to Arbitral Tribunal's decision that "since the sum awarded to Docomo was in the nature of damages and not the sale price of the shares, the question of having to seek the special permission of RBI did not arise." It concurred with the views of Arbitral Tribunal that the Arbitral Award (for payment of damages) would not require any RBI permission and the Award will be enforceable and "RBI will be bound by such determination of the Arbitral Tribunal and cannot refuse permission." Not only RBI but even the M&A lawyers community in India long held the view that any damages/indemnity payouts from a resident to a non-resident entity would be subject to RBI's clearance.

There are some fundamental questions that would still need to be answered. Whether a foreign Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the regulatory ambit of RBI in matters of (Indian) foreign exchange and policies? Whether the foreign Arbitral Tribunal has the locus standi to conclude that no RBI permission is required for remittance of damages payout from a resident to Non-resident entity? Is it 'fait accompli' for the RBI? Whether RBI has any legal remedy against the Foreign Arbitral Tribunal and Single Judge 's determination in Docomo Case, of RBI's powers? Technically it is open for the RBI to challenge the order passed by the Single Judge (on RBI's Intervention Application) by way of an Appeal before the Division bench of the Delhi High Court by pleading that RBI was a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and the Single Judge has passed a Judgment Decree in contravention to the settled principles of foreign exchange laws as it prevails. Further, another legal remedy which RBI can exercise is to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court and invoke its inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to check and correct the alleged illegality regarding the determination of RBI's powers. It can also argue that since the enforcement of Award would finally entail overreaching FEMA policy, the Supreme Court will have necessary jurisdiction to address such illegality.

Seems that the dust has just not settled yet on the legality of downside protection on an inbound equity investment...

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.