Skip to main content

Legal Corner by Trilegal: India’s New M&A Guidelines Dampen Hopes of Market Consolidation

The guidelines for telecom mergers and acquisitions are being touted as a harbinger of market consolidation in India. But a closer reading suggests they leave a lot to be desired. 

In the weeks preceding its official release in February 2014, the mergers and acquisitions guidelines for telecommunications services (M&AGuidelines) were projected as beingvital totheprocess of consolidation in India’ssaturated telecom market, which featuresthirteen operators across twenty-two telecom circles. But shoddy drafting,insufficient incentives and latent ambiguities in the guidelines maydeter telecom companies from exploring any immediate partnerships. 

In particular, telecom operators have been put off by the requirement to pay, at the time of a merger or acquisition,the market-determined rates for any spectrum obtainedthrough the erstwhile 'first-come-first- served' system. Under this system, a fixed 'entry fee'was collected by the government from each operator for a given amount of spectrum (4.4 Mhzfor GSM and 2.5 Mhzfor CDMA)which was bundled with the relevant telecom license. Post-2008, operators were forced to bid for spectrum in a highly competitive open auction. In light of this policy change, the Guidelines state that any spectrum that a target company(i.e. the company being acquired)has obtained by paying only the entry fee, will have to be revalued on the basis of the latest auction-derived price. The differential fee (i.e. the difference between the entry fee paid and the auction-derived price for that spectrum) must be paid to the government upon merging. 

With respect to the payment of the differential fee, the M&A Guidelines impose this obligation only on the spectrum held by the target entity. This would seem to imply that if the acquiring entity has not paid for spectrum at market rates, there would be no requirement to rectify therevenue shortfallfor spectrumthat it holds. That apart, there is some confusion on the lock-in period applicable to shares of the resultantentity, pursuant to a merger or acquisition. It is not clear from the language of the M&A Guidelines whether the lock-in timer will restart from the date of the mergeror if it is a continuation of the three year period, starting from the date of the auction. 

Besides the differential fee, the government has also prescribed payment of a one-time feefor any spectrumheld by an operator over and above the spectrum that was administratively allocated along with the license. Given the disputes over the payment of this fee, the Guidelines state that the merged entity will need to submit a bank guarantee for the amount claimed by the government,pending a final decision by the courts on whether the fee is payable by operators. 

The M&A Guidelines have also made it tougher for bigger incumbent operators, such as Bharti Airtel and Vodafone, to merge amongst themselves. The cap on market share for the resultant entity, in terms of revenue and subscriber base, has been fixed at 50 percent in any given band.If the merged entity breaches this limit, it will have to remediate it within a year’s time. However, there is sufficient leeway for the bigger operators to merge their operations with smaller operators, while remaining within the market cap. 

While the M&A guidelines are a welcome addition to the Indian telecom regulatory framework, it falls short of being the catalyst for consolidation that industry stakeholders had anticipated. But the future is not entirely bleak. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India recently recommended that spectrum trading should be permitted, which would allow operators to buy and sell airwaves according to their needs. In the context of mergers and acquisitions, liberal spectrum trading norms may allow investors to value an operator’s business separately from its spectrum, paving the way for bigger operators to acquire smaller operators and new entrants to exit the industry based on such assessments. 

Authors: This article has been authored by Kosturi Ghosh, who is a partner and Amlan Mohanty, who is an associate at the Bangalore office of Trilegal. Kosturi heads the corporate practice group in Bangalore and her area of expertise is private equity and venture capital investments. 

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. 

Popular posts from this blog

VC Interview: Shailendra Singh of Sequoia Capital India

In a recent interview to Venture Intelligence, Shailendra Singh discussed some of the firm’s newer investments in the early stage segment including in the online payments space, the progress at a few existing portfolio companies and the active role the firm is playing in helping its portfolio companies scale and succeed in India and globally. Prior to joining the firm in 2006, Singh was a strategy consultant at Bain & Company in New York and before that, an entrepreneur in the digital media industry.

Venture Intelligence: How does Sequoia go about identifying potential early stage investments in India? Is there anything different you are doing today than, say, a couple of years back?

Shailendra Singh: There is a lot more focus on technology investing and early stage investing. In general, as you might remember a few years ago, we were doing primarily growth investing but in the past 18-odd months, we have had a very strong focus on early stage and that’s continuing. In terms of how…

KPMG Tops League Table for Financial Advisor to Private Equity Transactions in H1 2018

The transaction advisory unit of KPMG claimed the top position in the Venture Intelligence League Table for Transaction Advisor to Private Equity deals in the first half of 2018, advising deals worth $1.7 Billion. KPMG acted as the financial advisor to NHAI in the $1.5 Billion investment by Macquarie to operate 9 highway projects under the toll-operate-transfer (TOT) model. Ernst &  Young (which advised the $730 million asset sale by Indiabulls Real Estate to Blackstone) and Kotak (which advised the Vishal Megamart - Partners Group deal) accounted for the second and third spots respectively.
The Venture Intelligence League Tables, the first such initiative exclusively tracking transactions involving India-based companies, are based on value of PE and M&A transactions advised by Transaction and Legal Advisory firms.
Arpwood Capital (which advised the $760 million investment by Temasek in the $2.1 Billion Schneider Electric buyout of L&;T Electrical and Automation business) …

"Leveraged stock purchase led Arvind Rao to go astray": Forbes India

Forbes India has an article on the series of events leading to the recent controversial exit of Arvind Rao, Co-founder & CEO of listed Mobile VAS firm OnMobile.

On November 23, 2010, Arvind Rao, the 53-year-old co-founder and CEO of OnMobile, bought approximately 6 lakh shares of his company from the open market, representing a little over 1 percent of the company’s total shares....At Rs 277 a share, he had to pony up nearly Rs 16.5 crore to acquire them....So he went ahead and borrowed money to buy the shares, thinking nothing of the interest it entailed or the fact that he’d need to put up nearly half his existing shareholding as collateral...OnMobile’s shares continued to fall from those levels, while Rao’s interest payments ballooned.

...Motivated by OnMobile’s growth all these years, he had never paid much attention to his salary, most of which went towards the monthly rental on his sea-facing apartment in Mumbai and his BMW 7-Series, both paid directly by the company. He reque…