Tag Archives: AIF

Case Study: SEBI Settlement Order in the Matter of SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust (a Category II AIF)

In this post, we look into the Adjudicating Officer’s (“AO”) Order dated November 29, 2017, in the matter of SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust (“Fund”) and SREI Alternative Investment Managers Limited (“Investment Manager”) and the way the matter proceeded further, leading finally to a settlement on July 25, 2018 under the SEBI (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014. The AO’s order cannot be considered to be conclusive because of the subsequent settlement order. However, a review of the entire saga provides some insight into how the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) interprets relevant provisions of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (“AIF Regulations”).

Factual Matrix and Issues Raised before the AO:

The Fund had launched a scheme which was to primarily focus on financing brownfield assets which carries a lower execution risk as compared to greenfield assets. The following issues were dealt with in the proceedings before the AO;

  1. The Fund, instead of making investments of the amount raised from the investors, had gone on to grant loans to several entities, allegedly in breach of the AIF Regulations.
  2. Out of the investible corpus of the Fund, amounts in excess of 25% of the investible corpus were given to investee companies on two occasions, allegedly another breach of the investment conditions prescribed in the AIF Regulations.
  3. The Fund had acted in contravention of the decision of the investment committee of the Fund, and also had failed to follow the investment strategy as specified in their private placement memorandum.
  4. The Investment Manager failed in maintaining the minimum continuing interest of INR 5 crore in the Fund mandated in the AIF Regulations.

Summary of the AO’s order:

In the foregoing paragraphs the arguments on behalf of the Fund/Investment Manager and the reasoning adopted by the AO are summarized:

Issue 1: The defence taken by the Fund/Investment Manager was that the private placement memorandum of the Fund clearly stated that it was the Fund’s investment strategy to invest in forms of finance/loans to various companies. Further, the AO pointed out that the fund was registered as Category II AIF which included a “debt fund” that invests primarily in debt and debt securities. Thus, the Fund was not in contravention of Reg. 2(1)(b) of the AIF Regulations in giving loans as per its investment strategy.

Issue 2:  Reg. 15(1)(c) of the AIF Regulations require the investment commitment to not be more than 25% of the investible corpus of the Fund. According to the Fund, on the alleged date of investment (i.e. June 29, 2015), the investment commitment was indeed only 25%. However, post the investment (i.e. July 9, 2015), due to redemption of units of the Fund and distribution to investors, the total corpus of the Fund fell, and resultantly the investment commitment rose to about 28%. It was argued that since this was just an after-effect of the redemption of units, this was not an infringement of the said regulation. However, the AO ruled that the defence was inadmissible as they themselves had admitted to the investment being in excess of the 25% threshold post July 9, 2015.

Issue 3: According to the minutes of the investment committee of the Fund, and also as mentioned in the Fund’s private placement memorandum, the Fund had decided on the range of interest rates it would charge on their loans (14-16%), and also decided what the corpus of investment for each investee under the scheme would be (INR 50 crore–INR 200 crore). The Fund/Investment Manager took the defence that these ranges were only indicative in nature, and it was not intended that they would be strictly bound by them. However, the AO cited Paragraph 2(c) of SEBI’s Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/7/2/2015 dated October 1, 2015 which prescribed that all managers shall carry out all the activities of the AIF in accordance with the placement memorandum circulated to all unit holders and amended from time to time in accordance with AIF Regulations and circulars issued by SEBI. It was decided that terms of the private placement memorandum must be complied with without any deviation, unless amended following the due process of law.

The AO here tried to propagate strict compliance of SEBI’s 2015 Circular to safeguard the interests of the investors. However, reference may be made to SEBI’s Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/14/2014, dated June 19, 2014 which at Paragraph 2(b) states that only in cases of material deviations from the placement memorandum, the manager is bound to provide an exit to the investors. The investors are to be informed of any changes post-facto and are not bound to take prior approval. The strict compliance with placement memorandum that the AO’s order demands needs careful consideration, therefore.

Issue 4: Under Reg. 10(d) of the AIF Regulations, an Investment Manager is required to have a continuing interest in the Fund of not less than 2.5% or INR 5 crores (whichever is lower) in the form of investment. The defence taken was that the contribution of the Investment Manager reduced to INR 3.13 crore after some of its contribution was repaid to it as an investor of the Fund. The AO however decided that the continuing interest requirement had no exception and must be complied with at all times.

Developments after the AO’s order:

Interestingly, regarding the AO’s decision on whether the Fund could give out loans, the final settlement order dated July 25, 2018 published by SEBI indicates a different conclusion. The settlement order was prepared in consultation with the High-Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) of SEBI. According to the said settlement order, a new show-cause notice dated February 2, 2018 was issued to the Fund for using the investible corpus for the purpose of giving loans.

Further, the Fund and Investment Manager were required to provide an undertaking by way of an affidavit, confirming that they would stop granting loans, the amounts given as loans shall be taken back and, in the future, there will be no loan activity. The reasoning for such conclusion is not captured in the settlement order.

Our Suggestions based out of the matter:

The AO’s order exhibits the strict nature of compliance demanded by SEBI with respect to AIFs in general. The following key suggestions are provided for all Funds and Investment Managers:

  1. It is highly advisable that appropriate protections through indemnities and limiting liabilities are provided in the fund documents for trustees, managers, or settlors. Furthermore, adequate insurance policies to protect the downside from such statutory penalties is also highly recommended.
  2. In light of the strict compliance demanded from the provisions of the private placement memorandum, it becomes increasingly important to draft them with extra attention to the investment strategies that will be adopted and to leave ample flexibility for the manager to execute the same.
  3. The order also reinforces focus and importance of regular monitoring of all regulatory compliances.

Sources:

  1. Order of the Adjudicating Officer, dated November 29, 2017: https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/nov-2017/1511951662889.pdf
  2. Order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, dated May 4, 2018: http://sat.gov.in/english/pdf/E2018_JO2017373.PDF
  3. SEBI’s Settlement Order, dated July 25, 2018: https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/jul-2018/settlement-order-in-respect-of-srei-multiple-asset-investment-trust-and-srei-alternative-managers-limited-_39703.html
  4. SEBI’s Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/14/2014, dated June 19, 2014: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/jun-2014/guidelines-on-disclosures-reporting-and-clarifications-under-aif-regulations_27118.html
  5. SEBI’s Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/7/2/2015 dated October 1, 2015: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/oct-2015/guidelines-on-overseas-investments-and-other-issues-clarifications-for-aifs-vcfs_30772.html

Authors: Mr. Avaneesh Satyang and Ms. Sohini Mandal

Advertisements

Significant Beneficial Ownership: Who is the real owner of the shares?

The recent changes to Section 90 of Companies Act, 2013, is to determine the identity of the person behind the curtain who is having a significant ownership of the company and is essentially controlling the management and daily affairs of the company. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018 (“Rules”) on 13 June 2018. These Rules were made in exercise of powers provided under Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act) which was notified on 6 June 2018.

At present, there are two separate definitions for the determination of a significant beneficial owner. The first, as per Section 90 of the Act, an individual who holds at least 25 (twenty-five) percent of beneficial interest in the company would be categorised as a significant beneficial owner. Such individual can hold beneficial interest either alone or together or through one or more persons, with such person or persons including person resident outside India, or a trust, with such trust including a trust outside India.

The second definition of significant beneficial ownership has been provided under the Rule 2(e) of the Rules, which ascribes the categorisation of a significant beneficial owner to an individual. However, a major deviation under the Rules from Section 90(1) is that the threshold provided for an individual being classified as a significant beneficial owner is 10 (ten) percent in contrast to the threshold of 25 (twenty-five) percent prescribed under the Act. Moreover, the definition as per the Rules provide for an additional condition that the name of such individual who is holding beneficial interest should not be entered in the register of members.

Both definitions have deemed a necessary condition that an individual must be holding beneficial interest in the company to be deemed as a significant beneficial owner. The term beneficial interest has been defined under Section 89(10) as the right of entitlement of a person alone or together with any other person, indirectly or directly, through any contract or arrangement, to exercise any or all rights attached to the shares; or to receive or participate in any dividend or any such distribution in respect to shares held.

Despite the contradiction in the threshold for determination of significant beneficial ownership in a company, the threshold specified in the Rules would be considered as the applicable threshold. This is because Section 90 of the Act provides that the beneficial interest should not be less than 25 (twenty-five) percent or any other percentage as may be prescribed. Therefore, the threshold of 10 (ten) percent as prescribed under the Rules would be the final threshold percentage to determine significant beneficial ownership.

The application of the Rules extends to companies which has shareholders apart from individuals and natural persons with such shareholders holding beneficial interest in the company as per prescribed limits. The application of these rules however, does not extend to holding of shares in instances of pooled investment vehicles or investment funds such as AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds), Real Estate Investment Trusts, Mutual Funds, Infrastructure Investment Trusts.

The Rules elucidate that a beneficial interest would include right of entitlement held either alone or jointly with another person, be it directly or indirectly under any contract or arrangement. The right of entitlement would include the right to exercise any or all rights attached to such shares and receive or participate in any dividend or other distribution. Beneficial owners would be such persons holding a beneficial interest.

The rules deem significant beneficial owners to be such individuals, who while acting alone or together or through one or more persons or through a trust, hold beneficial interest of not less than 10% of the shares in the company with the names of such owners not being entered in the register of members of the company as the holder of such shares.

In cases where the beneficial interest is possessed by persons other than individuals or natural persons, the significant beneficial ownership would be determined as follows:

  1. Where the member is a company – the significant beneficial owner would be the natural person who holds 10 (ten) percent of the share capital of the Company or who exercises significant influence or control in the company through other means.
  2. Where the member is a partnership firm – the significant beneficial owner would be the natural person who holds 10 (ten) percent of the share capital or has entitlement of not less than 10 (ten) percent of profits of the partnership.
  3. Where no natural person can be identified – where no natural person is identifiable for a company or a partnership firm, the senior management official of the entity would be deemed as the significant beneficial owner.
  4. Where the member is a trust through a trustee – for the purpose of identifying the significant beneficial owner, the process would include identification of the author of the trust, trustee, the beneficiaries with not less than ten per cent. interest in the trust and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust through a chain of control or ownership.

The Rules explicitly exempt the applicability of certain funds and investment vehicles that are registered under the SEBI Act. The Rules however, do not deal with the funds that are foreign based and not registered under the SEBI Act. Therefore, if an Indian company has a foreign fund as an investor and has an ownership qualifying under the definition of a significant beneficial owner, it is not clear whether such foreign fund would be required to make a declaration.

The filing compliance under the rules are as follows:

  1. A declaration is required to be filed to the company in which significant beneficial ownership is held within 90 days of commencement of the rules and in case of any change in the significant beneficial ownership, declaration is to be made to the company within 30 days of such change under Form BEN-1.
  2. The company is required to file Form BEN-2 with respect to such declaration within 30 days of receipt of declaration under Form BEN-1.
  3. A company is required to maintain a register of significant beneficial owners under Form BEN-3.
  4. The company can serve a notice seeking information under Form BEN-4. The person on whom the notice has been served is required to revert to the company within 30 days of receipt of notice. Wherein the company is not satisfied with information provided or person fails to furnish required information, is entitled to apply to the Tribunal within 15 days of expiry of the period mentioned in the notice.

As per the Rules, the companies were required to make a filing of Form BEN-2 on receipt of Form BEN-1 within 30 days. However, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) be way of a general circular no. 07/2018 dated 6 September 2018 have clarified that the 30-day time limit for filing Form BEN-2 would commence from the date of the e-form being available on the MCA-21 portal rather than with 30 days of receipt of declaration by the company under Form BEN-1. The MCA further clarified that no additional fee would be applicable subject to the case that the company makes the filing of Form BEN-2 within 30 days of the form being available on the MCA-21 portal.

Source: http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesSignificantBeneficial1306_14062018.pdf

http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/GCCircularBen_10092018.pdf

Fund Formation: On-Shore and Off-Shore Structures

Global interest in the LP (Limited Partner) ecosystem, for investments in India focused businesses, is at an all-time high. According to recent surveys, about 108 India focused private equity firms are in the market looking to raise funds. The first half of the year 2018 has been characterized by large value deals as pension funds, sovereign funds and global buyout funds have increased their India exposure (Source: Economic Times).

The positive regulatory changes have influenced the investor preference for pooling of funds both on-shore and off-shore for investing in India focused businesses. Some of the significant statutory/legislative revisions/clarifications, brought in over the last couple of years, are as follows:-

  • Liberalization of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the home-grown alternative investment funds (AIFs) sector in 2015, which now allows 100% investment in AIFs through the automatic route, as opposed to the prior FIPB approval requirement.
  • Down-stream investments by AIFs with FDI is now deemed as foreign investment, only if neither the sponsor nor the manager nor the investment manager is Indian ‘owned and controlled’. This has led to an opening up of choices for many FDI taking AIFs and have also taken away the mandatory obligation of complying with the pricing guidelines for any downstream investment.
  • Clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) that dividend distribution by off-shore companies with respect to underlying Indian assets would not result in a tax liability since it does not result in indirect transfer of shares.
  • Clarification brought in through the Finance Act, 2017, that indirect transfer tax provisions would not be applicable for capital assets held directly or indirectly by way of investment in Category I or Category II FPIs.
  • Opening up of FDI in limited liability partnerships LLPs and taking away minimum capitalization requirements for investment advisory businesses in March 2017.

[Source: RBI Notifications, CBDT Circular No. 4/2015 and the Paragraph 4 of the Finance Act, 2017]

These changes have led us to consider and advise on various unified as well as co-investment fund structures. Each such structure requires evaluation from compliance and taxation perspective. A very high level overview of some of these structures are given below:-

Direct Investment by an Off-Shore Fund. Also known as a pure off-shore structure, this where an off-shore investment pooling vehicle can pool and directly invest into India portfolio companies, as FDI, FPI or FVCI investment. Few things to be kept in mind for this structure would be:-

  • Spread of LP appetite for India/non-India focused investment;
  • Permanent establishment connotation if the off-shore investment manager is being advised by an Indian investment advisor;
  • Advantage of not having to mirror every investment decision of Indian investment manager.

Indirect Investment through a Unified or Master-Feeder Structure.  The on-shore fund pools investments from Indian investors and the off-shore fund pools investments from global investors and the off-shore fund becomes one of the investors of the on-shore fund, by executing a contribution agreement. Advantages could be as follows:-

  • Indian investors can overcome liberalized remittance scheme (LRS) or overseas direct investment (ODI) or round tripping related restrictions;
  • For global investors, it is easy to invest through an off-shore structure as that helps in operational ease of not having to obtain PAN registration for each investor, not having to report each individual investment with RBI;
  • Global investors still get to benefit from the various Direct Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAA). For example, continued tax benefits for sale of debentures, lower withholding tax rate of 7.5% for interest income, as available to Mauritius investors under the India-Mauritius DTAA.
  • The investment manager gets to pay on the management fee and carry allocation on the entire fund at the on-shore level.

Co-Investment Structure. This is where, typically, the investment management of the on-shore and the off-shore funds are handled by different entities, in the respective jurisdictions. Advantages would be as follows:-

  • The off-shore fund need not necessarily participate in every investment made by the on-shore AIF.
  • The investment spread between the 2 entities could be decided on a case to case basis, depending on availability of funds.

Taxation from an ‘Association of Persons’ perspective, in India, needs to be carefully thought through while adopting this structure and it is suggested to have completely separated investment committees and managements from this aspect.

Disclaimer: Fund structuring is complex matter that requires a case to case evaluation of investor-base, investor jurisdiction spread, taxation at each investor level, demonstration of level of substance and permanent establishment. The purpose of this article is to disseminate information only and readers are requested to seek profession advice shall for any individual requirement.

Post Formation Compliance Requirements for Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs)

AIFs are privately pooled investment funds in India, typically set up in the form of a trust or a company or a body corporate or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). Please see our previous post to read more on a brief introduction to AIFs.

As per the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (the ‘AIF Regulations’), an AIF can be registered in one of the following three categories:

Categories Particulars Type Tenure
Category I Mainly invests in start-ups, SME’s or any other sector which Govt. considers economically and socially viable. Close Ended Determined at the time of application which shall be minimum 3 years.
Category II Private equity funds or debt funds for which no specific incentives or concessions are given by the government or any other Regulator Close Ended Determined at the time of application which shall be minimum 3 years.
Category III Hedge funds or funds which trade with a view to making short-term returns or such other funds which are open-ended and for which no specific incentives or concessions are given by the government or any other Regulator. Open Ended or Close Ended No specific tenure

 

Reporting Mechanism

For proper adoption of the AIF regulations, 2012 the Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued the Operational, Prudential and Reporting Norms for Alternative Investment Funds vide its Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/10/2013 dated 29 July 2013. Furthermore, in order to ensure conformity with the operational guidelines, the SEBI introduced the “Guidelines on disclosures, reporting and clarifications under AIF Regulations” vide its Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/14/2014 dated 19 June 2014.

Following are the reporting obligations for all categories of AIF:

  1. As per Regulation 28 of the AIF Regulations, periodical reports (with respect to funds raised, net investments by the AIF, leverage undertaken if any, exposure, categories of investor, etc) shall be submitted by all AIFs to the SEBI with respect to their activity.
  2. Category I and II AIFs and Category III AIFs that do not undertake leverage shall submit a quarterly report with the SEBI as per the Annexure I.
  3. Category III AIFs undertaking leverage shall submit a monthly report with the SEBI as per Annexure II.
  4. As per the Circular No. CIRCULARSEBI/HO/IMD/DF1/CIR/P/2017/87 dated 31 July 2017 the aforementioned reports shall be submitted through the SEBI Intermediary Portal at https://siportal.sebi.gov.in
  5. Such reports shall be submitted within 7 calendar days from the end of the quarter/end of the month as the case maybe.

Further, all AIFs have to comply with the requirements of preparation of a Compliance Test Report (CTR) as laid down below:

  1. At end of financial year, the manager of an AIF shall prepare a compliance test report on compliance (an exhaustive reporting of the AIF’s activities) with AIF Regulations and circulars issued thereunder in the format as specified.
  2. In case of the AIF is a trust, the CTR shall be submitted to the trustee and sponsor within 30 days from the end of the financial year. In the case of other AIFs, the CTR shall be submitted to the sponsor within 30 days from the end of the financial year.
  3. In case of any observations/comments on the CTR, the trustee/sponsor shall intimate the same to the manager within 30 days from the receipt of the CTR. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of such observations/comments, the manager shall make necessary changes in the CTR, as may be required, and submit its reply to the trustee/sponsor.
  4. In case any violation of AIF Regulations or circulars issued thereunder is observed by the trustee/sponsor, the same shall be intimated to SEBI as soon as possible.

Apart from the aforementioned reporting requirements, Category III AIFs have to comply with certain other reporting and compliance norms.

Risk Management and Compliance requirements for Category III AIFs employing leverage

Category III AIFs that employ leverage have to comply with the following risk management requirements:

  1. The AIF should have a comprehensive risk management framework along with an independent risk management function which shall be appropriate to the size, complexity and risk profile of the fund.
  2. Presence of a strong and independent compliance function appropriate to the size, complexity and risk profile of the fund. The same shall be supported by sound and controlled operations and infrastructure, adequate resources and checks and balances in operations.
  3. Appropriate records of the trades/transactions performed shall be maintained and such information should be available to SEBI, whenever sought.
  4. Full disclosure and transparency about conflicts of interest should be made to the investors. Further, how such conflicts are managed from time to time shall also be disclosed in accordance with Regulation 21 of the AIF Regulations and any other guidelines as may be specified by SEBI from time to time. The details of such conflicts shall be disclosed to the investors in the placement memorandum and by separate correspondences as and when such conflicts arise. Such information shall also be disclosed to SEBI as and when required by SEBI.

Redemption Norms for open-ended Category III AIFs

  1. The Manager of these AIFs should ensure that there is a sufficient degree of liquidity of the scheme/ fund so that it meets redemption obligations and other liabilities.
  2. The Manager shall establish, implement and maintain a liquidity management policy and process so that the liquidity of the various underlying assets is consistent with the overall liquidity profile of the fund/scheme while making any investment.
  3. The Manager shall disclose any possibility of suspension of redemptions to the investors in the placement memorandum
  4. Suspension of redemptions shall be justified by the Manager only if such suspension is in the best interest of the investors of the AIF or if such suspension is required under the AIF regulations or SEBI
  5. Operational capability shall be built by the Managers of such AIF so that redemption can be suspended in an efficient manner. No new subscriptions shall be accepted during the suspension of redemptions.
  6. The Manager shall communicate to SEBI the decision of suspension along with the reason for such suspension and the same shall be appropriately documented.
  7. The Manager shall review the suspension regularly and take all necessary steps to resume operations in the best interest of the investors.
  8. It shall be the duty of the Manager to keep the SEBI informed about the actions undertaken throughout the suspension and also the decision to resume normal operations.

Category III AIFs undertaking leverage shall have to comply with the prudential requirements (calculation of leverage, total exposure, etc) as laid down in the Circular.

Compliance requirements in case of breach of leverage limits for Category III AIFs

Category III AIFs shall ensure that adequate systems are in place to monitor their exposure so that the leverage does not exceed at any time beyond the prescribed limits. The AIF shall report to the custodian on a daily basis the amount of leverage at the end of the day (based on closing prices) and whether there has been any breach of limit. Such reporting shall be done by the end of the next working day (as per Circular No. CIR/IMD/DF/14/2014 dated 19 June 2014).

Reporting requirements in case of breach of limit:

  1. AIF shall send a report to the custodian in case of any breach of limit. The custodian shall report to SEBI providing a name of the fund, the extent of breach and reasons for the same before 10 A.M. on the next working day.
  2. A report shall be sent to all the clients stating that there has been a breach in the limit along with reason, before 10 A.M. of the next working day
  3. The AIF shall square off the excess exposure and bring back the leverage within the prescribed limit by end of next working day. However, an action may be taken by SEBI against the AIF under SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 or the SEBI Act.
  4. A confirmation of squaring off of the excess exposure shall be sent to SEBI by the custodian by end of the day on which the exposure was squared off.

Author: Ms. Alivia Das

Regulatory update: SEBI – Overseas Investment by Alternate Investment Funds (AIFs)/ Venture Capital Funds (VCFs)

SEBI vide circular no. SEBI/HO/IMD/DF1/CIR/2018/103/2018 dated 3 July 2018 with the consultation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has decided to enhance the limit from USD 500 (five hundred) million to USD 750 (Seven Hundred Fifty) million, in terms of the overseas investment by AIFs and VCFs. Further to monitor the utilization of the overseas investment limits, it has been notified that the AIFs/VCFs shall mandatorily disclose the following:

  • AIFs/VCFs shall report the utilization of the overseas investment limit within 5 (five) working days of such utilization on SEBI’s immediate portal at:

https://siportal.sebi.gov.in

  • The AIFs/VCFs shall also report the following on the immediate portal:
  1. If the AIF/ VCF has not utilised the overseas limit granted to them within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of approval by SEBI (“Validity Period”), the same shall be reported within 2 (two) working days after the expiry of the Validity Period;
  2. If the AIF/VCF has not utilized a part of the overseas limit within the Validity Period, then the same shall be reported within 2 (two) working days after the Validity Period;
  • If the AIF/ VCF wishes to surrender the overseas limit at any point of time within the Validity Period, then the same shall be reported within 2 (two) working days from the date of decision to surrender the limit.
  • The other requirements, and terms as specified vide SEBI circulars no. SEBI/VCF/Cir no. 1/ 98645 /2007 dated August 9, 2007 and CIR/IMD/DF/7/2015 dated October 01, 2015, shall remain unchanged.

Source:https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/jul-2018/overseas-investment-by-alternative-investment-funds-aifs-venture-capital-funds-vcfs-_39424.html