After a successful and well attended first edition of RCLS – Real Estate & Construction Legal Summit 2012, Lex Witness proudly presents 2nd Annual Real Estate and Construction Legal Summit 2013 scheduled for 25th April at Hotel Le Meridien in Delhi. Global investors are now more selective in their investment portfolios. Recent trends signal greater emphasis on due diligence and inclination of investing in properties as returns are easy to find out. The industry demand for a single window clearance to speed up the approval still has to see light of day. Meanwhile the many approvals that involve, local, state, central, environmental agencies to name a few often result in stalled projects leading to increase in cost and financial losses.New and upcoming regulation which includes Land Acquisition Act and Real Estate Regulation Bill provides a paradigm shift in the way real estate companies in India go around their business. www.rcls2013.com

Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi advised Mitsui and Company (Mitsui) in relation to receiving an unconditional clearance from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) relating to Mitsui’s acquisition of 26.71% shareholding of Arch Pharmalabs Limited (Arch). The acquisition takes Mitsui’s shareholding in Arch to 31.96%. Given the intense debate surrounding regulation of M&A activity in the pharmaceutical sector in the recent past, this order marks the first approval by the CCI of a transaction in the pharmaceutical sector. After discussing the relevant markets, the CCI has noted that given the fact that there are no horizontal overlaps in the relevant markets in India, and that the vertical overlaps are minor, the proposed transaction does not raise any competitive concerns. Mitsui and Arch were represented before the CCI by the competition team at Amarchand Mangaldas, Delhi, led by Partner Shweta Shroff Chopra along with Principal Associate – Designate Harman Singh Sandhu, and Associate Yaman Verma.

The Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court in two recent judgments namely Hem Corporation v. ITC Limited and Hawkins Cookers Ltd v Murugan Enterprises have ruled that use of words on a product package, even though they may not serve as brand names, would amount to infringement, if such words are identical or similar to prior registered trademarks. These cases give brand managers important guidelines to keep in mind while choosing the brand architecture of their products.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment has directed Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited to refund to SEBI the ~USD 3.16 billion they had raised along with an interest of 15% by November 30, 2012, and also to furnish details, along with the application forms etc., of the 6.6million subscribers from whom the Appellants had raised the monies. The Sahara Judgment while upholding the Securities Exchange Board of India and Securities Appellate Tribunal order has also clarified ambiguities in certain provisions of law used by India Inc. to raise public monies without intervention from SEBI.

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Board of India issued an informal guidance to R Systems International Limited under the SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme 2003 with respect to applicability of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 to acquisitions made through market purchases. This is a significant clarification from SEBI on whether an acquirer, in case of market purchases, can consummate the acquisition of shares of a target company (which triggered the open offer) before expiry of the open offer period.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently issued a formal opinion explaining its decision dated May 31, 2012 to temporarily prevent Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. from pursuing a hostile takeover bid against Vulcan Materials Co. The Order upholds the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery on the matter and has garnered the attention of the corporate houses considering M&A transactions and the legal practitioners, alike. While the Order reminds and reinforces the significance of confidentiality agreements in M&A deals, the novelty of the Order is that it highlights the possibility of confidentiality agreements taking the shades of ‘standstill agreements’ in certain case.