November 1, 2011

FDI Policy on Options in Equity Instruments Amended


By way of a corrigendum that came out on October 31, 20111 to the FDI Policy issued on September 30, 2011 (“FDI Policy”), the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”), an instrumentality of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, deleted the contentious Clause of the FDI Policy within thirty days of its introduction. The deleted Clause read as follows:

“Only equity shares, fully, compulsorily and mandatorily convertible debentures and fully, compulsorily and mandatorily convertible preference shares, with no in-built options of any type, would qualify as eligible instruments for FDI. Equity instruments issued/transferred  to  non-residents  having  in-built  options  or  supported  by  options  sold  by  third  parties  would  lose  their equity character and such instruments would have to comply with the extant ECB [External Commercial Borrowing] guidelines.”

The deleted provision had the effect of nullifying the equity character of an equity instrument when such instrument was issued or transferred with an in-built optionality (a put option or a buy back provision, for example). Having lost their equity character, such instruments were required to comply with the extant ECB regulations. The regulatory chaos that ensued had led the legal community also to express its discomfort. We have discussed, in elaborate details, the implications and consequences of this change in our hotline “New Consolidated FDI Policy: Entry is welcome – Exit at our ‘option” on October 3, 2011.

The Position Now

Clause received categorical and unequivocal opposition from all industry quarters. Representations were made to the DIPP by industry associations pointing out the severe implications that such a provision could have on legitimate foreign investments in India. Clause cast a cloud of uncertainty over a host of options, including call options, put options, or even tag along and drag along rights or any right that the investor could exercise at a future date, even though these heavily negotiated rights were contractually agreed between sophisticated parties. As we had pointed out immediately following the issue of the FDI Policy2, the ban on put options denied private equity players a safe exit in the event the promoters of the investee company failed to deliver as per the projected business plans. It also adversely affected the ‘options’ available to joint venture partners to consolidate or alienate its stake in the joint venture, in case of a fall-out between the joint venture partners.

Though one may interpret this deletion to mean that options on equity instruments are now permitted, there is an ambiguity whether deletion of Clause merely restores the status quo. While it is definitely a positive and a welcome move on the part of the government to remove this unwarranted ambiguity, one should not jump to the conclusion that the attendant regulatory uncertainty on ‘put options’ that was existent prior to the FDI Policy stands cleared or  that the deletion connotes regulatory acceptance of such options.

It may be recalled that even prior to the FDI Policy, the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) had issued notices on the inclusion of such options in the investment agreements and had raised objections to the legality of such options.

Just to capsulate the issue, the RBI had been issuing notices on a case to case basis with respect to put options being granted to non-resident investors on the following two counts:

(1)     The ECB Perspective: RBI has issued notices to several private equity investors in the past on the ground that equity investments with a put option attached qualified the instrument as a redeemable instrument, which was akin to a debt instrument. Interestingly, RBI was indifferent if such a put option was exercisable on the company or on any of its shareholders; if there was a put option, the regulatory approach was to look at such instruments as ECB. Pertinently, RBI’s objections to options were rather absolute. It had no nexus to the question whether the options warranted the investor an assured return, thus arguably diluting his commitment to the ‘risk’ capital. It also did not treat options differently on the basis of their trigger event. An option available to an investor as an exit mechanism whether on the occurrence of a material event of default or on the failure of the investee company to initiate an Initial Public Offer was treated alike. In our interactions with the regulators, it appeared that the view is grounded on the premise that foreign direct investment is intended to be ‘lasting interest’ in the company, and a put option divorces such lasting interest and commitment to risk capital of the company by allowing the investor an assured exit.

(2)     The Derivative Perspective: Another regulatory approach to options that did not find a mention in the FDI Policy is the RBI’s perception of such options being regarded as derivative contracts separate from the underlying equity security. RBI, in its notices issued to a few private equity investors, regarded any kind of option attached to equity securities as a derivative contract, which are not permissible under the FDI route. This view was taken by the RBI notwithstanding representations that in the first place, no separate consideration over and above the purchase consideration for the securities was paid by the foreign investor to secure these options, and more importantly such options were not independently tradable contracts3.

In fact, the FDI Policy did not clarify whether Clause was intended to apply retrospectively, or in other words whether the new Clause was in the nature of a new policy change or a mere clarification. If the change was clarificatory in nature, retrospective application seemed likely and there were concerns on the regulatory approach to put options granted to the investor prior to October 1, 2011. With Clause deleted altogether, this debate is set to rest.  The risk to enforceability and the likelihood of RBI penalizing the grant of options to a non-resident (on a case to case basis), however, cannot be ruled out for reasons mentioned above.


While the prompt deletion of Clause by the DIPP is indeed commendable and does indicate the regulatory sensitivity towards foreign investments and the need for investor exit, there is a clear need to lend more stability to the extant fluid regulatory environment. To that extent, it may be helpful if amendments as significant as Clause emerge out of a well-formulated policy and comprehensive discussions and fruitful consultations with stakeholders.  Though deletion of Clause has indeed partially mitigated the risks arising out of options attached to equity securities issued to a foreign investor, considering RBI’s approach in the past, there is a clear need for the investor to carefully weigh its reliance on such options as an exit mechanism in light of the risks of unenforceability of such provisions.




1 See Press Release dated October 31, 2011 available at:, last visited on October 31, 2011.

2 See Simone Reis, Nishchal Joshipura and Siddharth Shah, FDI Policy- Is India Still an Option?, Economic Times, October 10, 2011.

3 See Shraddha Nair and Khushboo Narayan, Regulators frown at put option mode of exit, The Mint, August 14, 2011 available at: last visited on October 31, 2011.




- Surya Binoy & Ruchir Sinha

You can direct your queries or comments to the authors



Management by Trust in a Democratic Enterprise: A Law Firm Shapes Organizational Behavior to Create Competitive Advantage, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Sep 2009

NDA: A different approach by Shyamal Majumdar, Business Standard, July 23, 2009.

A law firm head spends his time studying organisational behavior.

NDA: Best performing Indian law firm, says RSG, UK

Nishith Desai Associates receives "In-house Community Firm of the Year" for International Arbitration practice

Nishith Desai Associates receives 'Firm of the Year award' for Technology-Media-Telecom (TMT) practice



Country Q & A, Tax on Transactions Handbook 2011 / 12, Bijal Ajinkya & Mansi Seth, October 2011

The Securities And Exchange Board Of India’s Proposals For A Comprehensive Regulatory Regime For Alternative Investment Funds, BNA International, Siddharth Shah & Bijal Ajinkya, September 2011

Indian Data Protection Rules & The BFSI Sector, BNA International, Gowree Gokhale, Huzefa Tavawalla & Kartik Maheshwari, September 2011

Many a Slip: Enforcing Regulation, Economic Times, Pratibha Jain, September 24, 2011

Cloud Computing

The Indian Telecom Sector

Doing Business in India

Joint Ventures in India

Mergers & Acquisitions in India

Dispute Resolution in India

Real Estate Investment


Data Security and Data Protection in India, August 18, 2011

Alternate Investment Funds Regime in India – A Game Changer!, August 9, 2011

Acquiring a company in USA, July 21, 2011



Welcome to connect with us at interesting conferences, seminars and events.



Introducing NDA Dialawgue and Deal Destination.

Vyapak Desai on CNBC TV 18: The wait is on for MCX-SX in its tiff with Sebi, September 26, 2011

Siddharth Shah on CNBC TV 18: No tax liability on Axis or Enam, Sept 16, 2011

Rajesh Simhan on India Business TV: Assocham Seminar in Mumbai on Mergers & Acquisitions, September 2011

Nishith Desai on CNBC TV 18: Implications of Birla - AT & T - Tata tax judgement, July 23, 2011

Bijal Ajinkya on CNBC Awaaz: Mauritius Tax Treaty, June 22, 2011



Click here to view Hotline archives.

Funding Real Estate Projects - Exit Challenges, April 28, 2011

Real Estate in India - A Practical Insight, March 22, 2011


Hero to ride without its 'Pillion Rider', March 15, 2011

Piramal - Abbott Deal: The Great Indian Pharma Story, Aug 05, 2010



Our email newsletters – Hotlines are very popular for their insights and analysis. Sign-up to receive Hotlines on the following – Tax, CorpSec, HR, Dispute Resolution and our regular updates such as M&A Labs, IP, Pharma, Media, Telecom Updates and Budget and Policy Analyses.


Please visit to access our Research online.





Disclaimer: The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.

This Hotline provides general information existing at the time of preparation. The Hotline is intended as a news update and Nishith Desai Associates neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this Hotline. It is recommended that professional advice be taken based on the specific facts and circumstances. This Hotline does not substitute the need to refer to the original pronouncements. 

This is not a Spam mail. You have received this mail because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.