DLF Ltd.诉印度证券交易委员会案

Nandini Agarwal
{"title":"DLF Ltd.诉印度证券交易委员会案","authors":"Nandini Agarwal","doi":"10.59126/v2i4a10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Security Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) and Delhi and Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as DLF) recently engaged in a legal dispute over the details DLF disclosed in its \"red herring prospectus.\" The disclosure relating to three of DLF's subsidiaries, over which SEBI claimed DLF held constructive control, was challenged by SEBI. Additionally, SEBI claimed that DLF concealed an FIR that had been filed against it, substantially impairing the present and future interests of its prospective shareholders. This was deemed by SEBI to be a flagrant breach of both the disclosure and investor protection (DIP) guidelines[1] and the rules for the issuance of capital and disclosure obligations. SEBI prohibited DLF and six of its senior management officers from accessing the capital market for three years as a result of the same. This ruling was contested before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which then investigated the facts and provided more insight into the case that will be examined in more detail. This case sheds significant light on the corporate veil concept, the disclosure obligations when offering shares to seek funds from the capital market, and the conditions and parties involved in a lawsuit to dispute such disclosure of information. Given that DLF is a top building and construction company, there is a focus on establishing the proper standards of transparency. This case establishes a significant precedent for a highly strong corporate and industrial culture.","PeriodicalId":424180,"journal":{"name":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DLF Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India\",\"authors\":\"Nandini Agarwal\",\"doi\":\"10.59126/v2i4a10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Security Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) and Delhi and Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as DLF) recently engaged in a legal dispute over the details DLF disclosed in its \\\"red herring prospectus.\\\" The disclosure relating to three of DLF's subsidiaries, over which SEBI claimed DLF held constructive control, was challenged by SEBI. Additionally, SEBI claimed that DLF concealed an FIR that had been filed against it, substantially impairing the present and future interests of its prospective shareholders. This was deemed by SEBI to be a flagrant breach of both the disclosure and investor protection (DIP) guidelines[1] and the rules for the issuance of capital and disclosure obligations. SEBI prohibited DLF and six of its senior management officers from accessing the capital market for three years as a result of the same. This ruling was contested before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which then investigated the facts and provided more insight into the case that will be examined in more detail. This case sheds significant light on the corporate veil concept, the disclosure obligations when offering shares to seek funds from the capital market, and the conditions and parties involved in a lawsuit to dispute such disclosure of information. Given that DLF is a top building and construction company, there is a focus on establishing the proper standards of transparency. This case establishes a significant precedent for a highly strong corporate and industrial culture.\",\"PeriodicalId\":424180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59126/v2i4a10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59126/v2i4a10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

印度证券交易委员会(以下简称SEBI)和德里金融有限公司(以下简称DLF)最近就DLF在其“转移注意力的招股说明书”中披露的细节发生了法律纠纷。有关DLF三家子公司的披露受到了SEBI的质疑,SEBI声称DLF对这些子公司拥有建设性控制权。此外,SEBI声称DLF隐瞒了一份针对它的FIR,严重损害了其潜在股东的当前和未来利益。SEBI认为这公然违反了披露和投资者保护(DIP)指南[1]以及发行资本和披露义务的规则。因此,印度证券交易委员会禁止DLF及其六名高级管理人员在三年内进入资本市场。这一裁决在证券上诉审裁处(Securities Appellate Tribunal)受到质疑,该审裁处随后调查了事实,并对此案提供了更深入的了解,下文将对此案进行更详细的审查。该案例对公司面纱概念、发行股票寻求资本市场融资时的披露义务、信息披露的诉讼条件和当事人等问题有重要的启示。考虑到DLF是一家顶级建筑公司,建立适当的透明度标准是一个重点。这个案例为高度强大的企业和工业文化树立了一个重要的先例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DLF Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Security Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) and Delhi and Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as DLF) recently engaged in a legal dispute over the details DLF disclosed in its "red herring prospectus." The disclosure relating to three of DLF's subsidiaries, over which SEBI claimed DLF held constructive control, was challenged by SEBI. Additionally, SEBI claimed that DLF concealed an FIR that had been filed against it, substantially impairing the present and future interests of its prospective shareholders. This was deemed by SEBI to be a flagrant breach of both the disclosure and investor protection (DIP) guidelines[1] and the rules for the issuance of capital and disclosure obligations. SEBI prohibited DLF and six of its senior management officers from accessing the capital market for three years as a result of the same. This ruling was contested before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which then investigated the facts and provided more insight into the case that will be examined in more detail. This case sheds significant light on the corporate veil concept, the disclosure obligations when offering shares to seek funds from the capital market, and the conditions and parties involved in a lawsuit to dispute such disclosure of information. Given that DLF is a top building and construction company, there is a focus on establishing the proper standards of transparency. This case establishes a significant precedent for a highly strong corporate and industrial culture.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS AND IMPLICATIONS ON MODERN ISSUES JUDICIAL REVIEW: EXPLORING THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS DUE PROCESS: EVALUATING ITS APPLICATION IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN GOVERNANCE: EXPLORING DECENTRALIZED DEMOCRACY DATA PROTECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: THE INTERSECTION OF PRIVACY AND INFORMATION SECURITY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1