Redefining Market: SEBI’s Proposed Changes to UPSI Under PIT Regulations

Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) builds the bedrock of fairness and transparency in the securities market. Under Regulation 2(1)(n) of the PIT Regulations, UPSI means information that is not published or by its nature cannot be expected to be published and includes critical information that may reasonably be expected, upon disclosure, to have a material impact on the price of a company’s securities. Moreover, a study done by SEBI itself indicated that listed entities were restricting UPSI classification to only those items specifically listed under the PIT Regulations and failed to consider other material events. This approach defeated the spirit of the law, created ambiguity in compliance, and held back SEBI’s efforts at controlling insider trading and ensuring a level playing field regarding access to vital information.

These issues were sought to be addressed by SEBI, vide a consultation paper in November 2024, which proposed amendments so as to broaden the definition of UPSI. The amendments have been proposed to align UPSI with material events defined under Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations. Better coherence, consistency in compliance, and increased responsibility will go afar toward bringing more transparency and competency to the securities market. The evolution of UPSI, proposed amendments, and their possible implications for market participants will form the basis on which this article discusses these issues.

EVOLUTION OF UPSI:

SEBI constituted a committee known as the NK Sondhi Committee in 2013 to define the ‘general available information’ that the information available to the public will be known as general available information. The committee has chosen not to define a “non-discriminatory basis” rigidly but to assess it case-by-case using practical, reasonable standards. However, the committee opined that every piece of information will not be regarded as Unpublished Price Sensitive Information. The Fair Market Conduct Committee (FMC Committee), which was established in 2017 and is chaired by Shri T.K. Viswanathan, noted that its definition is wide and broad, covering a range of situations.

By adding “material events per the listing agreement,” it accepts such events to be part of UPSI. It recommended deletion of the specific reference to “material events per the listing agreement” from the definition of UPSI under the SEBI PIT Regulations, stating that not all material events that are required to be reported under Regulation 68 of LODR may be UPSI under the PIT Regulations. The proposed amendment to the definition of UPSI to include material events defined under Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations was put forward by SEBI in May 2023. They thought that listed entities would take an astute approach while distinguishing information as UPSI using the principles under PIT Regulations, which has not been the case. Various cases of insider trading, a few with notional profits crossing ₹25 crore, remained undetected owing to failure in categorizing material events as UPSI. SEBI observed that companies, by and large, confined UPSI classification to the illustrative list under Regulation 2(1)(n) as if it were an exhaustive list, leaving much critical information of price sensitivity unclassified. In the 2024 Consultation Paper, material events were again proposed to be inducted under UPSI by naming 13 items specifically for inclusion.

PROPOSED EVENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF UPSI

The recommendations of the SEBI Working Group on amendments with a view to expanding the definition of UPSI were intended to bring in more translucence and coordination with Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations. It contains several key events, namely: Changes in credit ratings, particularly upward or downward revisions, which are proposed because these bear a strong relevance to investor confidence. The decisions about fundraising through the issue of shares or bonds are included since they affect the capital structure of the company. Similarly, agreements affecting management control like shareholder pacts or joint ventures are considered UPSI as they will change the corporate governance structure. Events like frauds, defaults, or arrest of key personnel and resignation of senior management or auditors are included for its material impact on reputation and market perception. On similar lines, restructuring decisions of loans, one-time settlements, or application of insolvency and winding up is proposed, since it shows the financial health and stability.

SEBI..
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Other inclusions involve forensic audits, where the initiation or termination of any investigations relating to financial mismanagement or fraud may indicate material risk. Proposed are regulatory actions, including fines and sanctions, because these have reputational and operational consequences. It involves events relating to the granting and termination of major contracts, as well as any significant litigation outcome, inasmuch as these could have a material impact on the financial performance. Proposals also involve the question of such licenses or regulatory approvals or even its suspension, which are required for operating the business. And last but not least, guarantees or indemnities issued by the company for an amount above the limit, other than in the normal course of its business, is incorporated as they will lead to financial obligations. These proposals have been designed in such a way that their effective implementation will make it mandatory for companies to disclose the main price-sensitive events of every quarter in a timely fashion, enabling investors to arrive at well-informed investment decisions with much-needed transparency, equity, and integrity in capital markets. It gives businesses a better compliance framework where there is less ambiguity on governance practices.

THE BENEFITS OF SEBI’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

If the proposed amendments to the definition of UPSI are accepted, the advantages will be multifarious. The proposals increase transparency and fairness in the market by expanding the purview of events constituting UPSI to ensure that all material and price-sensitive information is made available in a timely manner. This reduces the chances of insider trading and market manipulation, therefore enhancing investor confidence and trust in the regulatory regime
The proposals bring a better and neater framework for compliance, so to say, especially for companies. It then aligns the definition of UPSI with Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations, making it less intricate to identify and classify an event as material. Naturally, this will minimize confusions and thereby the propensity for non-compliance cases. This also reduces, to a large extent, risks on legal and reputational fronts, helping the Company maintain its credibility before investors at large and regulators.
Investors also benefit tremendously due to the changes brought forth, as a result of which equal access is given regarding critical information on which the decisions are based. Well in time disclosure of various events such as key management changes, regulatory action, or forensic audits prevents unreasonable speculation and decreases volatility within the market. The proposals have also ensured better efficiency about the pricing of securities as all material information would be costed into the stock prices in a better way.

The proposed redefinition of UPSI by SEBI would be a great leap forward for increased transparency and fair play in the securities market. Upscaling the scope of UPSI to include such important material events as changes in credit ratings, decisions to raise funds, and key contractual outcomes, SEBI proposes to give investors information that could be timely and relevant and, therefore, have a material impact on stock prices. The addition of new events to the definition of UPSI further promotes accountability and responsibility among the listed entities. Aligning the divulgence obligations with Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations reduces uncertainty in compliance, as it will make insider trading and selective information diffusion harder to occur. This is a step in the right direction to erase the deficiencies of the past when non-disclosure of critical information led to a lot of insider trading and speculation in the market. The inclusions of various events mentioned herein ensure that companies have taken responsibility for their disclosures. In this way, culture compliance and integrity are sown. Eventually, all these changes will provide a better playing field for all participants in the market and thereby shore up investor confidence to encourage a more sound financial ecosystem. The amendment for UPSI reflects SEBI’s intention to update the regulatory frameworks since the financial markets are dynamic.

Author: Dipanshu Raj, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 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
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 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
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010