On July 10, the financial market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in the Adani-Hindenburg case placing on record recommendations made by top-court appointed expert committee.
In its affidavit, the SEBI apprised the top court of the recommendations made by the expert committee, which said that violations of securities laws demanded prompt action to limit the negative impact on the securities market. The Supreme Court is slated to hear the matter on July 11.
The regulator said that the expert committee has recommended a robust settlement policy and put in place a coherent policy on settlement of proceedings whereby financial injury commensurate with the alleged violation may be inflicted on the party, and resources need not be expended where a settlement is possible.
SEBI urged the Supreme Court to pass an appropriate order considering the views/ observations of SEBI based on the expert committee’s report.
The SEBI also noted certain observations taken by the board and submitted that of the multiple regulatory approaches to deal with violation of securities laws, one is to expand the definition of a particular clause to address the circumvention.
The application was filed in the petitions related to the Hindenburg report.
The Supreme Court-appointed expert committee has earlier filed its report relating to the Hindenburg matter and informed the Supreme Court that at this stage, taking into account the explanations provided by SEBI, supported by empirical data, prima facie, it would not be possible for the Committee to conclude that there has been a regulatory failure around the allegation of price manipulation.
The expert committee filed the report in pursuance of the direction issued by the top court on March 2. On March 2, Supreme Court set up an expert committee on the issue arising from the Hindenburg Research report on Adani Group companies. Former apex court judge Justice AM Sapre headed the six-member committee.
In its report, the committee said that its remit is not to examine whether the price rise was justified, whereas its remit is to ascertain if there was a regulatory failure.
