National Company Law Tribunal – the myLaw.net blog

Auditors more accountable, need to be more independent under new company law

Seeking greater transparency and corporate responsibility, the Companies Act, 2013 (“New Companies Act”) has changed the role of auditors in companies.

Discussions about the role of auditors took center stage in the United States after a number of corporate scandals — the best documented of them being the Enron scandal, which sounded the death knell for its auditor, Arthur Andersen. Reacting to this scandal, the United States passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act, 2002 (“Sarbanes Act”).

Arthur Andersen (1885-1947) was one of the founders of the firm that came to be known as Arthur Andersen & Co. in 1918.

This law established a separate body for the independent oversight of public company audits. This ended more than hundred years of self-regulation of the public company audit profession. The Sarbanes Act also prescribed that all audit committees (in listed companies) be independent of the management. This independent audit committee, rather than the management, would be directly responsible for the oversight of the external auditor. Additionally, audit firms were prohibited from providing certain non-audit services to the companies they audit.

All these provisions — ensuring that auditors are independent, free from all external influences, and solely responsible for doing their job efficiently — stem from the basic motive of increasing their accountability. Since its notification, the Sarbanes Act has been both critiqued and applauded.

In India, the Satyam scandal brought to the fore the inadequacies in the regulatory scrutiny of accounting. It is shocking that B. Ramalinga Raju could stand before the company’s board and admit that he had falsified accounts for “several years” to stave off a takeover, when a reputed accounting firm such as Price Waterhouse India (“PWC”) had been auditing their accounts for several years. While PWC claimed that they had received adequate evidence from Satyam and had carried out audits in accordance with applicable Indian auditing standards, the scandal begged the question whether it could have been averted if there had been stricter regulatory scrutiny of auditors. The following questions were also asked: Should a company be forced to rotate its auditors? Should there be a greater liability on auditors to deter such scandals? Let us now see whether the New Companies Act provides any answers.

Auditor’s term

Under the Companies Act, 1956 (“1956 Act”), an auditor was appointed at the annual general meeting, for a term of one year. Under Section 139 of the New Companies Act, an auditor will be appointed at the first annual general meeting and will hold office till the end of the sixth annual general meeting, though its appointment will be ratified at every AGM.

Mandatory rotation

The New Companies Act (Section 139(2)) read with the draft rules provide for the mandatory rotation of auditors. Individual auditors will be compulsorily rotated every five years and the audit firm will be rotated every ten years in all companies except one-person companies and small companies. This step was inserted to ensure that auditors do not increase their familiarity and reduce their independence by continuing to audit a company for an unlimited period of time. One questions however, whether such stringent requirements are needed in private companies.

A more basic question is whether the rotation of auditors really results in independence? The Standing Committee on Finance reviewing the Companies Bill was sure that rotation does in fact lead to independence. On the other hand, some feel that companies do not have much choice in relation to auditors, and that such rotation may lead to cartelisation among large audit firms. Another argument is that the rotation policy discourages small and medium-size audit firms from investing in technology and training because of the uncertainty of securing another client of the same size operating in the same industry, given that there are only a few large players operating in a particular industry. Arguments from both the sides appear to have some strength.

Cooling period

A cooling period of five years is also prescribed (Proviso to Section 139(2)) before the reappointment of auditors who complete one term. The same company cannot reappoint such auditors or audit firms for the next five years after completion of one term.

Non-audit services

Similar to the Sarbanes Act, the New Companies Act in Section 144 lists a few services that a company’s auditor cannot provide, directly or indirectly, to the company and its holding and subsidiary companies. The intent is to ensure that the auditor avoids any conflict of interest arising from the provision of other services such as accounting and book keeping, internal audit, management, and actuarial and, investment advisory services.

Tribunal’s power to remove auditors

While no separate regulatory body has been set up to regulate auditors, the National Company Law Tribunal (“Tribunal”) has (in addition to the company itself) the power to order the removal of auditors. The Tribunal under Section 140(5) can order a company to remove its auditor, if it believes the auditor has acted in a fraudulent manner, or abetted or colluded in any fraud.

Reporting fraud

The New Companies Act also enhances the accountability of auditors. It does so by placing on auditors, the onus of reporting fraud noticed by them, during the performance of their duties (Please see the draft rules).

(Deepa Mookerjee is part of the faculty on myLaw.net.)

Companies Bill brings in changes to mergers and amalgamations regime

The Companies Bill, 2012 (“Companies Bill”) proposes a number of key changes to the manner of implementing mergers and amalgamations in India. Let us have a look at Clauses 230 to 240, the provisions that impact the mergers and amalgamations regime as a whole.

Recognition of the forms of business restructuring

In the explanation to Clause 232(8), the Companies Bill has recognised, for the first time, the various forms of business restructuring used in the market.

A merger by absorption: The undertaking, property, and liabilities of one or more companies, including the company in respect of which the compromise or arrangement is proposed, are to be transferred to another existing company.

A merger by formation of new company: The undertaking, property, and liabilities of two or more companies, including the company in respect of which the compromise or arrangement is proposed, are to be transferred to a new company.

A scheme: The undertaking, property, and liabilities of the company in respect of which the compromise or arrangement is proposed, are to be divided among and transferred to two or more — existing or new — companies.

Regulatory approval for mergers and de-merger schemes

The Companies Bill has also proposed replacing the High Court with the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). All merger and de-merger schemes would now have to be filed before the NCLT for approval. While the creation of a single forum for approving mergers and amalgamations is welcome, it is still to be seen when the NCLT will be established. After all, even the Companies Act, 1956 (“Companies Act”) had provided for its establishment. Till the NCLT is formed, the power to approve schemes will continue to lie with the High Courts.

Currently mergers between listed companies need prior approval from the securities regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) (Feb 4, 2013 SEBI circular), and certain combinations need approval from the competition regulator, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”). Clause 230 (5) of the Companies Bill, makes it mandatory that a notice for a merger or de-merger to be sent to the:

Central Government,
Income tax authorities,
Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”),
SEBI,
Registrar,
Stock exchanges,
CCI,
official liquidator, and
any other sectoral regulator.

These notices need be sent only if the particular regulator has jurisdiction over the deal. For instance, a merger between two unlisted companies need not be notified to the stock exchanges or the SEBI. However, depending on the market share in question, it may need to be notified to the CCI. Each regulator has also been given a time period of thirty days to file any representations or objections it may have. Once the thirty-day period expires, it is deemed that the regulator has no objections.

It will be interesting to see how these provisions tie in with the current notification requirements under the Competition Act, 2002 and the SEBI regulations. The Companies Bill does not remove the requirement for notification under the other laws. Notification requirements under the Companies Bill therefore, may amount to an additional procedural step. It is however a step in the right direction because an attempt has been made to consolidate different requirements under one main law.

NCLT can dispose of a creditors meeting

Another interesting proposal is to empower the NCLT to dispense with creditors meetings. Under the Companies Act, all schemes must be approved at a shareholders and creditors meeting, by a majority in number, representing three-fourths of the value, of those present and voting. While this requirement has been retained, given the serious nature of a merger or de-merger, the NCLT can now dispense with calling of a meeting of creditors or a class of creditors where those creditors or class of creditors, having at least ninety per cent value, agree and confirm, by way of affidavit, to the scheme of compromise or arrangement (Clause 230(9), Companies Bill).

This should go a long way in simplifying the process for a merger or de-merger, while at the same time ensuring that a majority of the creditors agree to such a fundamental change in the company.

Fast-track amalgamations

The new Companies Bill seeks to simplify the merger process for a certain types of companies. In a “fast-track approval”, companies need not file schemes with the NCLT. The Central Government has the power to approve the scheme. Once approved, the scheme may be filed with the Registrar of Companies within thirty days. On registration, the scheme will be effective.

Clause 233 of the Companies Bill permits fast-track mergers or de-mergers, between:

Two or more small companies;
A holding company and a wholly-owned subsidiary company; and
Such other classes of companies as may be prescribed.

A small company has been defined to mean a ‘private company’ that has paid-up capital that does not exceed Rupees Fifty lakh (or higher amount as may be prescribed but not be more than Rupees Five crore), or turnover (as per its last profit and loss account) that does not exceed Rupees Two crore (or higher amount as may be prescribed but not more than Rupees Twenty crore) (Clause 2(85), Companies Bill).

This definition is important because the Companies Bill does not provide this exemption to small companies that are public companies. Only small private companies that are merging with each other are entitled to this relaxation.

Cross-border mergers

Clause 234 of the Companies Bill permits mergers and amalgamations between Indian and foreign companies subject to rules prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the RBI. A foreign company can, subject to the prior approval of the RBI, merge, or amalgamate into an Indian company or vice-versa. The Companies Act on the other hand, only permitted a merger of a foreign company with an Indian company.

These are just a few of the broad changes proposed in relation to mergers and amalgamations. In the next post, we will explore the law in relation to the acquisition of minority interests in mergers and amalgamation schemes, and how these changes affect other aspects of M&A law.

(Deepa Mookerjee is a member of the faculty at myLaw.net.)