The GNLU Moot on Securities and Investment Law is back! Keeping in tune with the last three editions, this time around as well, stay updated with us here, to know what's what.

This edition will witness 36 teams competing for prizes of Winning Team, Runners-Up Team, Best Orator, Best Researcher, and Best Written Submission.

The Registrations are set to begin at 4 pm on 6th September, and the competition will span a period of 3 days, ending with the final round on the 9th of September, 2018. We shall be bringing you live and exclusive updates from the opening ceremony onwards. Do remember to follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Stay tuned for updates!

Day 1: September 6, 2018- Inaugration and Researchers Test

1630 hours: The teams for the competition have started to arrive for the process of registration is underway.

1635 hours: The process of registration has begun and teams proceed to the registration desk. They each receive a folder, t-shirts, and a surprise in the form of pastries!

1640 hours: As the registration continues, let us not keep our eyes off the prize. Presenting the trophies of GNLUMSIL, which have attracted participants from law schools across India.

1702 hours: The excitement is palpable as participant size up the competition, discuss strategy, fiddle with GNLUMSIL merchandise, and dig into their pastries.

1805 hours: The inaugration begins! With a brief introduction to the moot, we call upon Prof. Dr. Bimal N. Patel to officially declare the moot open.

1808 hours: He states that with the constant globalisation, regulatory challenges have increased. The changes in law will be relevant to note. The issues in the present problem are contemprory and  relate to Indian capital markets and class action suits.

1810 hours: He praises the efforts of Dr. Girsh R, Faculty Convenor and the Organizing Committee which make the moot a success and have helped it grow. He assures participants of high technical standards and academic standards of the moot, and also views it as an opportunity to interact with other participants.He wishes them good luck for the moot.

1812 hours: He also shares his experience as a member of the Financial Regulatory Commitee, and the necessity of recognizing the best minds through this committee. He states how it will be beneficial for students when they apply and work in such commissions and how work within these are more enriching than corporate jobs.

1818 hours: He states that the research as well as strategies involved in the exercise of mooting are far more important in the content thereof. He explains how sources of law are used to determine and understand the fact in dispute. He also states that it is crucial to understand which source of law prevails and how law is applied to facts.

1822 hours: Next, Dr. Girish R, Faculty Convenor of the Organising Committee discusses the history behind the moot and the objective of giving this niche areaof securities law. He states that he has had experience of 10 years heading the Committee, and thanks Dr. Patel for his support. 

1826 hours: He states that GNLU also acts as a platform for other students to contribute to the overall development. Professionalism and Sincerity are the basis of preparations behind this moot which begin in February. 

1829 hours: He also declares the prizes for the moot:

1831 hours: He also traces the history of the moot, in terms of previous winners, Christ University Bangalore, NUJS Kolkata, and UPES Dehradun. He also encourages participants to continue their link to GNLU in terms of Training Programmes and Certificate Courses. He wishes best of luck to all participants.

1843 hours: The Organizing Committe Members now begin to brief the participants on the rules of the competition. This includes discussing rules relating to scouting, timings of the rounds, and scoring. Participants listen intently, as these rules will govern their rounds over the last 3 days.

 1852 hours: The researchers now depart for their researchers test, which shall check and test their research ability as well as their understanding of the law. 

After this test, teams will face their first set of preliminary rounds tomorrow, and we shall return with all the updates!

Day 2:September 7, 2018- Preliminary Rounds-I

1000 hours: We officially begin with Day 2 of GNLUMSIL 2018. The stage is set and the courtrooms are ready to host participants. The entire campus booms with the fervour that a moot brings with it, OC members making last minute touches, participants brushing up on their arguments, truly, a moot is in the air!

1020 hours: The first preliminary rounds begin. Participants are presenting their arguments before a bench for the first time, and being questioned on their research.

1045 hours: The preparation for a moot never stops. While the participants of the next round wait, they do not sit idle. We see them tussle with memorials, practice their speeches and do last minute research.

 1700 hours: The first day of the quality mooting offered by GNLUMSIL has come to a close. Tommorrow, the teams shall battle in their second set of preliminary rounds, and we shall also know which teams go ahead to quarters. Stay tuned!

Day 2: 8 September, 2018- Preliminary Rounds-II

1030 hours: Our participants are back in action for the second round of preliminary rounds today. Courtrooms are full of enthusiasm, with nailbiting excitement, as participants present their arguments before the judges.

1100 hours: There are so many unseen faces behind this moot, meet the OC of GNLUMSIL 2018, all ready to make this moot the very best.

 1730 hours: The preliminary rounds for the day have come to an end! Teams have returned to their accomodation to re-energize and shall be returning soon for dinner, and for the announcement pertaining to who all have qualified.

1950 hours: The certificate distribution for the participants begin. 

 2000 hours: The faculty convenor for the GNLUMSIL 2018, Dr Girish R. now addresses the gathering and announces the teams who shall move ahead to the quarter finals. The teams who have qualified are: 101, 102, 115, 117, 118, 120, 138 and 150.

Join us tomorrow for full coverage of the quarters, semis and finals.

Day 4: September 9, 2018- Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals, and Finals

 0930 hours: The quarter finals have commenced. Today, eight teams battle it out for the top spots, in four simultaneous rounds. Teams have gained some experience from their preliminary rounds, and have also got the chance to practice over the last two days. Now, the stakes are higher.

1200 hours: The stage is set for the quarter finals to begin. The teams who have qualified are: 102, 115, 118 and 120. 

These rounds will take place simultaneously in two courtrooms and we will get you the latest updates from the both of them. May the best team win!

1219 hours, CR1: The teams have entered the CR, carrying heavy compendiums and a look of determination on their face. This is a defining moment indeed, something they have been waiting for.

1230 hours, CR 1: The judges have arrived in the CR, there is a sense of both nervousness and excitement in the air as the judges get ready to begin.

1232 hours, CR 2: The judges are welcomed in CR 2 by the participants, and the arguments shall start soon. 

12:33 hours, CR2: 1st Speaker for Appellants has started speaking. She is briefing the judges on the issues the appellants will be dealing with

1234 hours, CR 1: The first speaker of the appellant side begins his arguments, and offers a summary of facts to the judges. The judges instead ask the speaker to focus on the issues.

1236 hours, CR 1: The speaker continues to clarify and explain the facts that he shall be relying on to prove his case. The judge begins questioning the speaker on his basics.

1238 hours, CR 2: The judges are posing questions to the Speaker and do not seem very convinced with her argument. The Speaker however addresses their questions confident

1240 hours, CR 1: The speaker relies on a presumption based on facts to further his case. While he faces torrential questioning from the bench, he remains calm, and cites the law.

1241 hours, CR 1: The judge asks 3 pertinent questions relating to the problem, deviating the participant from his narration of facts, However, the speaker replies with as such structure as the form of the quesiton entailed.

12:44 hours, CR 2: The Speaker seems undeterred by the judges' questions and ambles on with conviction. The judges are still not convinced.

1247 hours, CR 1: The first speaker for the Appellant completes his submissions with an extension of a minute, and the second speaker continues on.

1248 hours, CR 1: The 1st Speaker's time has elapsed and she seeks time from the bench to make one last submission, which is allowed.The Speaker moves on to her next point, and the judges pose more questions to her. The judges seem to be testing the Speaker's ability to convince the bench of her arguments.

1251 hours, CR2: The 1st Speaker's time has elapsed and she seeks time from the bench to make one last submission, which is allowed.

1255 hours, CR2: The 2nd Speaker for the Appellants has begun his submissions. He dives right into the premise of his arguments.

1257 hours, CR 1: The researcher for the Appellants frantically passes chits to the Speaker, clarifying some facts.

12:57 hours, CR2: The Speaker refers the judges to pages of their compendium to make his point, and it is accepted by the bench. He seeks move on to the next construct of his argument, however he is stopped by the bench to clarify a basic point.

1300 hours, CR 1: The bench is constantly trying to catch the appellant speaker offguard, however the speaker remsains strong to his structure. The bench requests for a case law from the speaker.

1302 hours, CR 1: The bench begins asking some basic questions. However, it seems like the speaker was well prerpared for these and had anticipated these questions.

1303 hours, CR2: The judges pose questions in the nature of points contrary to the points made by the Speaker. The Speaker demonstrates conviction in his argument and supports the same by referring to precedent.

1307 hours, CR 1: The speaker keeps asking the judges if they are with him what he is saying. The judges make it clear that they are not with him.

1307 hours, CR 2: The Speaker addresses the bench's questions calmly and coherently.

1309 hours, CR 1: The speaker is able to gauge that the bench is not enthusiastic about his arguments and presents his alternative submissions.

1309 hours, CR 2: The judges listen intently as the Speaker navigates with ease through the factual matrix.

1313 hours, CR 2: With 2 minutes left to his allotted time, the Speaker attempts to move on to the next argument, but the judges bring him back, seeking greater clarity.

1314 hours, CR 1: The judges ask the speaker to refer them to a particular case in their written submissions. The speaker directs the judges to the case, and the submissions for the appellant side come to an end. 

1317 hours, CR 1: The respondents side begins their arguments. As of now, the bench is not questioning the speaker and let her continue, and explain the facts.

1317 hours, CR 2: The Speaker concludes with the Appellants' prayer.

1320 hours, CR 1: The speaker for the respondent is stopped by the judge and is asked a few basic questions, which she deals with,very well. The respondent speaker makes inferences from facts to support her argument, and the bench questions her on the relevance of her submissions.

1320 hours, CR 2: The 1st Speaker for the Respondents begins his submissions. He is calm in tone and demeanour. He outlines the structure of his submissions and the various Respondents he represents.

1325 hours, CR 1: The judges do not seem very convinced by the arguments being made by the respondent. The speaker attempts to explain her argument by taking the bench back to the law as well as the moot proposition.

1325 hours, CR 2: The judges seek clarity but presenting contrasting situations to the Speaker and test the Speaker on his understanding of the basics.

1328 hours, CR 1: The judges are still unconvinced, however, the speaker remains calm, and continues making her submission. The judges ask her to give them some law to substantiate her argument, and she struggles for a while, but still makes her  point logically.

1328 hours, CR 2: Arguments proceed, and the judges continue to question the speakers. The speaker also receives help from the researcher to be able to answer.

1333 hours, CR 1: The judges question the speaker on the bindingness of the decision placed before them by the Speaker. The Speaker states that she is ready to answer any questions. The judges however, ask her to make another argument.

1335 hours, CR 2: There are 5 minutes to his allotted time, and the Speaker displays the same calm demeanour that he started off with. The judge looks bewildered as the Speaker ploughs on with one particular submission.

1338 hours, CR 2: The judges ask the speaker to move on to his next submission.

1338 hours, CR 1: The judges are currently deliberating and will soon call upon the second speaker for the respondent to begin her submissions. 

1341 hours, CR 1: The second speaker from the respondent side begins her submissions. She argues strongly and persuasively. 

1348 hours, CR 2: The judges grill the Speaker on interpretation of the facts of the case. The Speaker cites a precedent to assert his point.

1354 hours, CR 1: The judges ask the speaker for an alternative argument, as they do not seem convinced by the first argument. The judges ask the speaker why a presumption should not be drawn against them. The speaker uses and moulds facts in her favour, as she runs out of time.

13:56 hours, CR 2: The judges continue to question the Speaker every time he attempts to move on to a new argument. He is finally allowed to after the judges accept his submission.

13:59 hours, CR 2: As he begins his next argument, he is tested on his knowledge of basics. His co-counsel passes him a note, and another, as he furiously finds answers to the judges questions.

1400 hours, CR 1: The rebuttals begin with the appellants apologizing for referring to the wrong case, and directing the bench to the wrong case. Further, the appellants begin to point out loopholes in the arguments of the respondent and seeks extra time of 30 seconds.

1400 hours, CR 2: The Speaker moves on to the last submission. More questions from the judges follow.
 The co-counsel passes him another note and the Speaker calmly addresses the questions posed to him.

1404 hours, CR 2: The time for Speaker 2 for the Respondents has elapsed. The Speaker continues to address the questions of the judge. Having exceeded his allotted time, he is directed to conclude his arguments.

1405 hours, CR 1: The respondent side gives their replies to the rebuttals, and enlists them in sequential order for the bench. 

1408 hours, CR 1: The rounds in CR 1 have come to an end. 

1408 hours, CR 2: The judges seem unwilling to accept his submissions, while the co-counsel continues to pass notes to the Speaker.

1409 hours, CR 2: The Speaker finally concludes with the Prayer of the Respondents.

1415 hours, CR 2: The rounds in CR 2 have come to an end.

The rounds in both the courtooms have come to an end, and now teams must wait anxiously to receive results and know who shall advance to the finals of GNLUMSIL 2018.

Final Rounds

The two teams battling it out are 118 and 120.

1525 hours: The finals courtroom is filling up with an excited audience, ready to see an exhilirating round of mooting, with the best teams of the competition battling it out, one last time.

1530 hours: Our judges are arrived. Participants are now ready to begin.

1532 hours: The first speaker for the appellants begins with his arguments. The judges ask the speaker to move straight to the arguments.

1534 hours:The first submission of the appellants is that the present appeals are maintainable in light of S. 15(z) of the SEBI Act.The appellant notes that a PIPE Deal as well as there are questions relating to research and analysis of information available, these significant questions are brought before the court. Mr. Murali Neelakantan asks the speaker to explain what the question of law is, in this case. The appellant is able to satisfy him with his answer.

1536 hours: The first argument of the appellants is that the information in the Information memorandum was price sensitive and unpublished. He also seeks to establish the test of probability and magnitude in this case.

1537 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan and Ms. Akila  Agrawal asks the appellant whether what he is presenting is  a per se argument which makes an information memorandum per se violative of law. The appellant moves on to establish how the PIPE Deal was a business decision. In response to the question by Ms. Akila  Agrawal, the appellant explains the PIPE Deal as preferential allotment. Ms Agrawal further asks the Appellant whether there is any legal binding under the ICDR for a PIPE transaction or whether disclosures are only part of good governance.

1542 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan asked the participant whether any publication of the Information Memorandum was made. To this, the speaker replies that all approvals were obtained only after the Information Memorandum was made.

1546 hours: The speaker cites the case of Chandrakala v. Ajudicating Authority and the principle of reasonable investor. Mr. Murali Neelakantan asks whether informal guidance would be enough to bring the Information Memorandum to public notice. The Speaker states that such informal guidance could be confidential as well.

1547 hours: The Appellant further states that Regulation 3(1) of Model Code of Conduct relating to Insider Trading places duties on insiders to preserve price sensitive information through confidentiality agreements, the lack therof is unlawful.

1549 hours: The Appellant also relied on the case Rakhi Trading Ltd. which stated that irrespective of volume of transaction, if there is any informal practice going on, cannot be allowed. Therefore, even though Skylight acquired only some shares, this quantity is not significant. Further, The penalties imposed fall well within section 15(g) of the SEBI Act 1992.

1556 hours: 2015 Act would apply, as the cause of action arose after that. Further, he relied on the case of  E. Sudhir Reddy v. SEBI, actual price impact is necessary to see whether the same is price sensitive or not. 

1557 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan and  Mr. Murali Neelakantan ask what makes the infomation given price sensitive and how disclosure requirements would be made.As the appellant speaker digresses, the judges bring the speaker back to the point.

1559 hours: The speaker was then asked if the company can be faulted for the toehold acquisition. The speaker states that in light of the regulations and the Code of Conduct, the company can be held liable.Ms. Akila Agrawal also seconds this question. The SEBI argues that communication was wrongful on part of ZCFL and trading was wrong on behalf of Skylight.

1603 hours:.Mr Sundaresan proposed a hypothetical that if one was to suppose that there was a standstill clause and yet the counter party traded - would they then be liable? the appellant conceded that theywould not.

1605 hours: Mr. Neelakantan inquired about the counsel's attribution of causation - that the information caused the share prices to go up. He said there was nothing in the facts that indicated it caused prices to go up, and also market experience showed that the cause of price fluctuation is never really known. The counsel referred to the factual matrix to answer this question.

 1607 hours: The Appellant Speaker has run out of time, and his extension of 60 seconds also ends. Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan asked whether Moses Suares could be held liable if he had not traded as well.

1608 hours: The second speaker of the appellants proceeds with his argument with regard to the Section 245 under the Companies Act.

1610 hours: He laid out a road map - saying that he would make submissions with respect to: 1. The application under 245 was maintainable because IPAI has the locus to bring the application. 2. All statutory requirements under section 245 have been fulfilled. 3. The NCLT had the jurisdiction to grant compensation. 4. There was prejudice to investors due to wrongful conduct of the company.

1612 hours: The appellant argues that mismanagement under Section 241 can be as pari materia to wrongful conduct under Section 245. The use of same words, as well as the keeping of Section 245 in the chapter of oppression and mismanagement shows intent to make the meaning of Section 245 similar to that of mismanagement under Section 241.

1613 hours: The appellant speaks about the purpose behind a class action suit, and how the new section pertaining to the same was added to save investors, after the Satyam Scam.

1615 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan begins questioning the appellant on the disclosure of the Raider Deal. Mr. Murali Neelakantan also asks who shall pay the compensation due.

1620 hours: The main point of discussion is the difference between UPSI and material information. For the former there is a requirement under Clause 36 of the Listing agreement to disclose the information. The judges collectively sought to know at what point one could ascertain that the information had become of such a nature that it must be disclosed.The counsel submitted that the SAT in the past has ruled that a test of materiality for information encompasses details of a transaction being negotiated at an advanced stage. The Judges sought to know from the regulator - how many companies over the last few years have disclosed near final agreement that have not been signed yet. The main point behind this was to show that there were further violations of the SEBI Act and its Regulations.

1627 hours: The judges ask the appellant speaker who shall pay compensation and whether there will be joint or several liability. Mr. Parekh asked which aspect of section 245 was being invoked - fraud or unlawful or wrongful act or omission. The counsel submitted that the wrongful conduct here was the vioation of the SEBI Act and Regulations there under, and clause 36 of the Listing Areement. The appellant runs out of time and the judges hear the prayer.

1630 hours: The respondents begin with their submissions. The respondents seek to prove that the information used was not unpublished. To this regard, the respondents rely on the meaning of unpublished. The existence of PIPE transaction was published, as the informal guidance given was already in the public. Plus, the contents of the Investment Memorandum was also public. While these could be price sensitive, this information was public.

1634 hours: The respondents now seek to rebut the presumption that there was insider trading. The respondent relied on the case of Chandrakala v. SEBI wherein it was held that in cases of insider trading, genuine transactions must be protected.

1636 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan states that the respondents had access to the transaction with Raider It is claimed by the respondents that Skylight was not in possession in UPSI and its transaction was genuine and done in the regular course of business. Further, Clause 8(5) of Informal Guidance Scheme states that two different kinds of guidance would be given in case of dissimilar facts. Therefore, the guidance given to Asian Bearings is of no value.

1643 hours: Clause 36 of Listing Agreement states that any material information which affect prices must be disclosed. The meaning of material is nowhere given. But material means what is prejuidicial to investors. All these transactions would not be prejuidical as all transactions would be on the stock exchange.

1644 hours: The judges collectively ask the participant the meaning of 'public information'. Seeing the judges not satisfied, the speaker changes it to material information. She argues that Qualitatively and quantitatively, the information must affect the operations of the company for it to be material. Since the PIPE transaction was only a small acquisition in the company, the parameters of affecting the operations of ZCFL were not met and so it was not material and did not have to be disclosed. She ends her submissions and calls upon her co-counsel to argue.

1647 hours: The second speaker from the respondent wishes to prove that Jack D'Souza did not divulge any UPSI. She relies on facts like there was no concrete and credible form  of communication of UPSI. Moses Suares was unable to understand the code used by Jack D'Souza. Further, as he was the brother in law of Jack D'Souza, he does not fall within connected persons.

1653 hours: The respondent seeks to prove that there was no relation between Moses Suares and Janesh Shah, and they were only sharing one whatsapp group. Further, as investment analysts, it is in their ordinary course of business to show interest in investment. She invoked the burden of proof here to contend that there was no preponderance of evidence against the Respondents

1657 hours: Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan asks whether any material transaction needs to be disclosed. The respondent speaker states that materiality to an extent depends on time. The bench asks two questions, pertaining whether it was material and whether it was material before it was signed. 

1704 hours: The judges ask whether mens rea is relevant in case of insider trading. The respondent states that as motivation is important in the case of insider trading. This shows an element of mens rea as necessary in the case of insider trading.The respondent counsel also rebutted the point made by the Appellants that for a finding of insider trading, means rea was not relevant by invoking a note to regulation 4 - that a person who trades on UPSI must be motivated by the UPSI. This shows that there must be some mens rea. If there was none, he can be exonerated.

1706 hours: The speaker of the appellant rebuts the submissions of the respondent, and attempts to show how the respondents have attempted to mislead the court.

1710 hours: The respondents rebut the case of the appellant by stating that that the case of Laurel Energetics v. SEBI is diffrentiated from the facts of the present case.

1711 hours: With this, the final rounds come to an end. Soon, the results shall be declared. 

Valedictory Ceremony

All teams have gathered in the Orientation hall, waiting anxiously for the results of today.

1740 hours: The dias today is honored with the presence of our finale judges- Ms. Dharmishta Raval (Partner, Raval & Raval Advocates), Mr. Sandeep Parekh (Founder and Managing Parter, Finsec Law Advisors), Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan (Advocate, Bombay High Court) and Mr. Murali Neelakantan (Executive Director, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals), along with our director Prof. Dr. Bimal N Patel.

1745 hours: Mr Sandeep Parekh congratulates all the participants of the competition as well as all the members of the OC for their hard work

1748 hours: Mr. Sundaresan was happy that a niche area of law, usually out of the ambit of the usual court system due to tribunalization, was being given importance and was happy to be part of the process.

1750 hours: Mr. Neelakantan was happy to be called because it was reminded him of going back to law school. took him to a time when he prepared for jessup in college. He hopes that people will start writing about the issues in the problem and create more jurisprudence that the Supreme Court must take note of.

1755 hours: Ms. Dharmishta Raval addressed the gathering next, and stated that many of the questions in the moot proposition were questions to which even the judges did not have answers.She congratulated the teams on their excellent performance.

1800 hours: Jindal Global Law School and Symbiosis Law School, Pune battled it out in the finals today. The winner of GNUMSIL 2018 is Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat. 

The detailed results are:

1810 hours: The student convenors of the GNLUMSIL OC, Ms. Sanskrii Sanghi and Ms Aarthi Krishna address the gathering, expressing their thanks for all their coordinators, as well as the fellow OC members.

1814 hours: The vote of thanks was delivered by Dr. Girish R. who spoke about the entire process of organizing the moot, thanked the sponsors for their support, as well as members of the OC and participants.

With this,GNLUMSIL 2018 officially comes to a close. This is the live blog team signing off. See you next year!