It is a need of an hour for India to tailor certain reforms, like easing lending restrictions for IBC-approved assets, permitting controlled use of target collateral, creating special IPO windows, and expanding high-yield debt options, would allow the Indian market to benefit from LBOs, alongside also being cautious. 

As the regulatory perimeter expands and matures, the distinction between corporate issuers and trust-based entities will continue to blur—at least in terms of compliance expectations.

SEBI’s delegation of penalty-levying powers to RSEs lacks explicit statutory backing under the SEBI Act and SCRA.

SEBI has shown a number of apprehensions regarding retail investors getting involved in algo trading, citing possible manipulation of the market, unfair access to market information, and excessive volatility.

While the automated framework enhances enforcement efficiency, its blanket application to IRs, without refining definitional clarity and safeguarding individual autonomy risks regulatory overreach, compliance fatigue, and unjust restrictions on bona fide investors.

While SEBI’s reforms mark a significant advance, their true impact will depend on whether they lead to substantive improvements in governance or result in mere procedural compliance.

SIFs may bring advanced investment techniques to India's expanding HNI base and establish a model for emerging markets. However, neglecting world lessons or discounting major threats may repeat the mistakes of the past.

The authors advocate for inclusion of REITs and involvement of appropriate regulatory bodies to govern lending of RWAs through blockchain routes.

This piece explores whether SEBI’s recent reforms are enough to rebuild trust and drive sustainable growth in the SME-IPO space.

As SEBI opens the gates of algorithmic trading to retail investors, this blog critically examines the circular.

The blog analyzes technical implications of GIFT City SPV framework, navigates some potential issues that may arise and proposes solutions.

The SAT ruling in Kunal Kashyap v. SEBI sets a concerning precedent.

The proposed amendments to insider trading regulations, although well-intentioned, raise significant concerns.

SEBI’s proposed expansion of ‘connected persons’ represents a pivotal shift in insider trading regulations.

The homogenous regulatory approach taken by SEBI displays uniform attitude towards use of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

The author examines the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Third Amendment) Regulations 2024.

These amendments are a welcome step by the SEBI for catering to its huge investor base.

The question remains whether startups will adapt to this new regulatory environment.

SEBI amendments are laudable but come with a drawback of over regulation and disturbance of efficient markets.

This piece highlights the departure from settled concept of promoter that has characterized the previous proceedings initiated by SEBI.

The author opposes the SEBI order as it reflects SEBI’s regulatory overreach.

SEBI has disallowed any form of equity crowdfunding. Given the evolving market landscape, this regulatory approach must be revisited.

By holding companies liable for disclosure failure of holding entities, the WTM order undermines the principle of separate legal identity.

The codification of the BJR would balance judicial interference with independence in corporate decision-making.