Mediaboss Marketing

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2021 which seeks to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018.

In Regulation 282, in sub-regulation (3), the words Institutional Trading Platform shall be substituted with the words Innovators Growth Platform.

In Regulation 282 after sub-regulation (3), the new sub-regulation shall be inserted, namely if an issuer has issued SR equity shares to its promoters/ founders, the said issuer shall be allowed to make an initial public offer of only ordinary shares for listing on the Innovators Growth Platform subject to compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and continued compliance with the provisions for SR equity shares in accordance with sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6.

The notification seeks to insert a new Regulation 290A in respect of exit of issuers whose securities are listed and trading on the Innovators Growth Platform pursuant to an initial public offer.

Under Regulation 290A, the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009, in respect of the matters not specifically dealt or excluded under this regulation, shall apply mutatis mutandis to delisting of specified securities under these regulations.

An issuer company whose specified securities are traded on the Innovators Growth Platform pursuant to an initial public offer may exit from the Innovators Growth Platform, ifsuch an exit is approved by the board of directors of the company in its meeting; such an exit is approved by the shareholders of the company by a special resolution passed through postal ballot or e-voting, after disclosure of all material facts in the explanatory statement sent to the shareholders in relation to such resolution.

Provided further that the special resolution shall be acted upon only if the votes cast by the majority of public shareholders are in favor of such exit proposal.

Delisting price is based on a floor price determined in terms of regulation 8 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, as may be applicable, and an additional delisting premium justified by the acquirer / promoter;

The post offer acquirer / promoter shareholding (along with the persons acting in concert with the acquirer / promoter), taken together with the shares tendered reaches seventy five per cent of the total issued shares of that class and at least fifty per cent shares of the public shareholders as on date of the meeting referred to in clause (a) of this sub-regulation are tendered and accepted; and

Recognised stock exchange(s) where its shares are listed approves of such an exit. in regulations 292, the existing sub-regulation (3) shall be substituted with the following, namely, A company not satisfying the conditions laid down under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 292, shall, as on date of application for migration under the regular category, have fifty per cent of its capital held by Qualified Institutional Buyers.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in

Go here to see the original:
SEBI notifies Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2021 - taxscan.in

The Herald

Herald Reporter

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of Zimbabwe came into force yesterday following the required assent by more than two thirds of the National Assembly, two thirds of the Senate and the consent of the President.

The Amendment Act, gazetted yesterday, deals with a number of issues: The selection of vice-presidents and who fills a presidential vacancy, the number of non-parliamentary technocrats in Cabinet, the retention of the specially elected extra women members of the National Assembly for another 10 years with more detail given of who must be in that group, the addition of 10 specially elected extra youth members, the terms of office of judges and other matters concerning their conditions, the appointment of the Chief Secretary to the Office of the President and Cabinet, matters relating to how the independent Prosecutor General can be removed, the make-up of the provincial and metropolitan councils, and the addition of extra women councillors in local authorities.

Under the Constitution there was a temporary arrangement for the first two Presidential terms, whereby the President would appoint up to two vice presidents and basically they served on the same terms as other Cabinet members.

When there was a Presidential vacancy, through death, resignation or impeachment, the political party that had nominated the winning candidate who had just died or left office would name the successor to serve out the rest of the term.

From 2023 the system was supposed to change to an arrangement where every Presidential candidate would select in advance the two candidates for First Vice-President and Second Vice President and the three would stand as a single ticket. There was to be automatic promotion in the event of a Presidential or First Vice-Presidential vacancy, with arrangements set out for a new Second Vice-President.

Under the Second Amendment Act the temporary arrangement has been made permanent.

There were arguments that this system now made permanent allowed a President to name their successor. In fact the opposite is true. Under the default 2023 new system the President would, in effect, be naming theirsuccessor in advance. Under the temporary system now made permanent, the party that won the Presidency makes that choice, with the only condition being that the successor must meet the constitutional qualifications for President.

The only time in independent Zimbabwe when there was a vacancy in the Presidency, in 2017 after the resignation of Robert Mugabe, the winning party, Zanu PF through a central committee vote, chose Emmerson Mnangagwa to serve out the term to mid 2018.

In the 2013 Constitution there was a provision for the life of two Parliaments, 10 years, for an additional 60 women members of the National Assembly to join the 210 members elected in constituencies. These 60, six from each province, would be elected by proportional representation based on the votes cast for each party during the constituency elections in that province.

The time limit was set on the assumption that over a decade parties would be nominating more women for constituency seats and that something close to gender parity would be obtained without the extra seats.

This is now considered to be work in progress rather than attainable soon, so the arrangement has been extended for another two Parliaments, that is another 10 years.

However, the amendment does now require that the party lists used for elections ensure that at least 10 of the extra women are under 35, that women with disabilities are represented on the lists, and that an Act of Parliament is passed that gives the terms of how young women with disabilities are represented on the lists.

This is likely to be an amendment to the Electoral Act.

The constitutional amendment, besides ensuring that there must be at least 10 young women, also adds an extra 10 seats to the National Assembly for people aged 21 to 35, one from each province but elected by proportional representation using the national constituency vote for each party.

Each partys list must have men and women alternating in the list. The result of the two clauses will produce a minimum of 20 MPs under 35, five men and 15 women, although younger people can still win constituency seats or be nominated for more of the special womens seats.

A batch of clauses deal with the judiciary. For initial appointment to the bench, the amendment retains the present system of nomination, interviews, and a short list of three names submitted to the President. But this system no longer applies for promotions on the bench.

The President, acting on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, can promote a judge to a higher court.

The retirement age of judges is now set at 70 but they can elect to serve, so long as they decide before their 70th birthday, until they are 75 although must submit a medical report that confirms they are mentally and physically fit to remain in office.

Constitutional Court judges now serve a single 15-year term and cannot be reappointed. But if they are still under 75 at the completion of that term they have the option of returning to the Supreme or High Court.

In a brief clause the Civil Service is now called the Public Service, but more importantly 10 percent of new appointments to the Public Service must now be people with disabilities.

The post of Chief Secretary to the Office of the President and Cabinet is now a Constitutional post with the holder and their deputies appointment by the President after consulting the Public Service Commission.

But the Constitution now formally names the Chief Secretary as the most senior member of the Public Service, which has been the case but not formally, and makes it clear that Permanent Secretaries shall report to the Chief Secretary on any matter affecting them as a class.

That basically also makes the group of top public servants a constitutional class that can act together.

The Prosecutor General in the 2013 Constitution basically served on the same conditions as a judge, with the same dismissal procedure to ensure independence.

The amended section retains the independence and the need for a tribunal, consisting of two present or past Supreme Court judges and a High Court judge or a person qualified to be a judge. The President appoints the tribunal if he considers the question of removal needs to be investigated.

The slight differences from the procedure for a tribunal investigating a judge, where the Judicial Service Commission needs to make a recommendation before the President appoints a tribunal, was to make it clear that while the Prosecutor General is the leading lawyer who appears in court, they are still below a judge in status.

With the Second Republic taking devolution seriously, such as granting budgets to local authorities, and wanting effective provincial councils as the top tier of the devolved structures, the amendment Act goes into the membership of these councils to ensure that the members come from the bottom up with no one moving in from the top down.

So MPs and senators are barred from sitting on councils, largely because Parliament is expected to oversee the councils and no one can be a judge of themselves.

There is a small naming change; the provincial councils for metropolitan provinces are now called metropolitan councils.

The members of each council are the chairperson, who is chosen by the rest of the council from two candidates submitted by the political party that won the most National Assembly seats in the last general election, or if there is no single party in that position, then the party that won the most National Assembly votes. This was already in the Constitution.

This means that while the winning party in a province names the chairperson, the rest of the council members can have an input into which person from that party they would prefer in the centre chair.

Every mayor and chairperson of every urban and rural local authority in the province, regardless of what they are called, sits by right as a member of the provincial or metropolitan council.

Then in addition, there must be 10 women members elected from party lists on the basis of how their parties performed in the last Parliamentary election. But women with disabilities must now be included on those lists. The details will be set in amendments to the Electoral Law.

Local authorities now also get specially elected extra women councillors. An Act of Parliament is now needed to allow at least 30 percent extra seats reserved for women using proportional representation on party lists based on how the party candidates performed in the last general election for the council.

To clear one slightly ambiguous area over international agreements with financial commitments, the amendment Act now states that except for loan agreements and guarantees, already dealt with in the Constitution, any agreement not an international treaty but which is concluded or executed by the President with foreign organisations or entities and which imposes fiscal obligations on Zimbabwe does not bind Zimbabwe until approved by Parliament.

Go here to see the original:
2nd Amendment now part of Constitution - The Herald

To the editor: A well-written letter to the editor ("Letter: 'Well-regulated' an important part of 2nd Amendment," Eagle, April 23) pertaining to the Second Amendment of the Constitution was lacking one important fact.

The Second Amendment was submitted for ratification on Sept. 25, 1789, and the ratification was completed on Dec. 15, 1791, taking 2 years, 2 months and 20 days.

Thats 15 years after the revolution and many years before the Civil War. Neither of those conflicts had much more than black powder muskets.

Based on that knowledge, is it possible to assume that the same framers of the Constitution who forgot to include such an important item were never the less considered brilliant enough to foresee the type of weapons available today? How about the many citizens who voted for ratification?

In the late 1950s, after the Korean War, the standard weapon carried by the U.S. soldier was the .30-caliber M-1. Its capacity was nine rounds eight in a clip and one manually inserted in the chamber. Nothing like those magazine-capable, rapid-fire assault weapons available today.

Was the well-regulated militia referred to in the amendment really describing the "Minute Men" of the revolution? Did America at that time have a sanctioned standing military presence, or was it the farmers, merchants and others who rallied to the defense of the nation when its existence was threatened from foreign invasion?

If reasonable people can interpret the word "arms" to include high-powered, multi-shot, magazine-capable assault weapons, then where does it end? How about flame-throwers, grenades, shoulder-mounted guided missile launchers, etc.?

Reasonable people should also be willing to limit if not completely ban the ownership of such unreasonable weapons by other than a completely well-regulated military.

Al Nadeau, Dalton

See the article here:
Letter: More thoughts on the Second Amendment | Letters To Editor | berkshireeagle.com - Berkshire Eagle

Concealed weapons on campus? HB102 directly raises that issue. But in spite of arguments to the contrary this is not a Second Amendment issue as it relates to campuses. What is at issue is the Regents constitutional right to manage Montanas University System.

Our history is rife with examples where politics and vested interests have interfered with our higher education system. In 1915, at the behest of the Legislature and the Anaconda Company ACM University President Craighead was fired for not towing the ACM line. Later a law professor was terminated for the same reason and a popular teacher was forced out for documenting the blatant favorable taxation granted to mining interests. Throughout the 1950s and 60s mineral and timber interests in the state exercised considerable control in the Legislature. Eventually the people had enough.

The frustration of Montanas people about politics in higher education resulted in the 1972 Constitution creating Montanas Board of Regents and granting it full authority over the higher education system: The government and control of the Montana university system is vested in a board of regents of higher education which shall have full power, responsibility, and authority to supervise, coordinate, manage and control the Montana university system . That broad power underwent judicial review and was affirmed in 1975 by the Montana Supreme Court in State ex rel. Judge. That opinion forms the basis for the Regents sole authority over the university system since that time.

The regents and the university system are responsible for more than 50,000 students, faculty and staff statewide. Many students are under the age of 18, making the university system responsible to a degree for these minors. How to manage weapons within this large and diverse population is a serious responsibility, and one which the Regents have embraced to the apparent consternation of certain members of the legislative branch.

With the concealed carry law, the Legislature attempts to substitute its judgement for that of the regents. Knowing that implementing concealed carry will impose costs on the university system, a million dollars was added to the budget bill in a transparent attempt to bribe or extort their way out of their unconstitutional overreach. A caveat to the budget provides that the right to the extra money is void if the regents challenge the constitutionality of HB102. Not win the case, just challenge the Legislature. The Legislature does not want the regents to oppose HB 102, apparently hoping to buy their way out of a constitutional challenge.

The Legislature is going about this backward. The regents are constitutionally charged with management of the university system. If the Legislature believes the regents policies regarding guns on campuses are unconstitutional, as some have asserted, their path is to challenge the regents and university systems rules in court, not to simply substitute their judgement for that of the regents. If a court determines the university systems current gun policies must be revised the regents will follow the orders of the court. The Legislature has no legitimate role in this process.

The long-term efforts of Montanans to remove politics from higher education came to fruition in the Constitutional Convention in 1972. HB 102, along with the million-dollar bribe, invades the province of the regents to manage the university system. If the regents exercise their legal right to challengeHB102 they are punished. This intrusive precedent should not be tolerated. If the budget amendment and HB102 are not constitutionally challenged the regents and the university system can anticipate that future legislative overreach coupled with blackmail funding amendments will become commonplace. The hard-earned and longstanding constitutional independence of the Montana University System from political control is at stake. We shouldnt let that happen.

Steve Barrett is a retired practicing attorney and former chair of the Montana Board of Regents

See original here:
Open carry on campus - Not a Second Amendment issue - The Havre Daily News

Catch up on any news you may have missed. Wochit

Following Saturday's rally in support of the Second Amendment at Salem's Riverfront Park, several people reported on social media allegations of individuals being escorted out of the park or assaulted by rally attendees.

Questions were raised about what appeared to be a lack of obvious police presence. Police and the city were criticized for allowing a group without a permit to gather and then prevent others from using a public park.

The rally attracted about 200people, and Statesman Journal staff in attendance reported seeing few officers during the event.

When asked by the Statesman Journal about the public's concerns, Salem police officials said they did havea presence at the rally andweremonitoring it for violence to keep the downtown park safe.

Salem police spokesman Lt. Treven Upkes said the department is working to set the record straight after disinformation on social media spread during and following the event.

He said the allegations that the department wasn't monitoring the rally and didn't have a planned response simply weren't true.

"We actually assigned around 30 officers to the event," he said, adding that some were on call should help be needed and officerssome visible, some less visible were present throughout the entire rally.

Plainclothes officers may havedeployed depending on the event, Upkes added.

He saidit is standard procedure to avoid deploying uniformed officers into a crowd if there is no counter protest or overt criminal activity.

"We're not going to insert ourselves into those rallies and protests, be itright or left, once again to point out that neutral ideology," Upkes said."We're not going to inflame any situations by our presence or doing things."

During the rally, speakerswarned of a coming civil war, endorsed 2020 electionconspiracy theories and encouraged attendees to run for local elected office.

The Proud Boys, Tick Licker Firearms,Fifty1Fifty Tactical and the Stolen Voices Foundation were among the event's sponsors, with Proud Boys members also providing "security." About 30 people in Proud Boys attire tactical gear andblack-and-yellow clothing were seeing carrying pistols.

Open carry of such firearms is legal in Salem parks.

The rally was supposed to be headlined by Republican Rep. Mike Nearman, but he did not speak.Nearmanwas chargedFriday with official misconduct in the first degree and criminal trespass in the second degree stemming from a riot at the Oregon Capitol building Dec. 21.

Salem did not issue a permit for the Saturday rally due to pandemic restrictions. The city has not given out permits for months in an effort to deter large gatherings that may spread COVID-19.

The date that permits would be given changed from May 1 to May 31 shortly before the Saturday event.

Upkes said the park can be used for events on a first-come, first-served basis.

In a statement, police officials said:

"Please remember, theCity of Salemcannot stop constitutionally protected activities, nor can the Salem Police Department."

Event organizer Magen Marie Stevens speaks at a May Day Second Amendment rally at Riverfront Park in Salem, Oregon on Saturday, May 1, 2021. (Photo: BRIAN HAYES / STATESMAN JOURNAL)

Community members expressed concern the Police Department was showing favoritism by not having a heavy presence at the rally.

Those concerns were further compounded by rumorsthat the Proud Boys' security teams were telling people to leave, escorting people out of the public park and had even assaulted someone for taking photos of the event.

Upkessaid the police received a report afterthe event by someonewho said they were harassed by rally attendees and told to leave. The personmaking the reportdeclined to be listed as victim for the prosecution, according to police.

Upkes said police also received a call during the rally that participants were attacking people.

"We were on-site for (that report) and determined it was not occurring, and the caller did not return or answer our calls," he said.

Police officials said the dispatch center also received two separate false reports. One caller reported intoxicated people terrorizing people near the carousel, and another reported Proud Boys with clubs, chains and knives.

Officers in the area at the time of the calls saw no such activity, police said.

Demonstrators gather at a May Day Second Amendment rally at Riverfront Park in Salem, Oregon on Saturday, May 1, 2021. (Photo: BRIAN HAYES / STATESMAN JOURNAL)

Upkes encouraged people experiencing or seeing violence to immediately report it to 911 and added that many of the people reporting harassment on social media never reached out to police.

Upkes also pointed to the nuance of whether escorting people out of the park was illegal. Simply telling someone to leave the public area and even walking with them isn't necessarily a crime. But pairing that order with the threat of violence, menacing or harassment is, he said.

Before the rally on Saturday, Salem Police Department officials said their goal was to allow for constitutionally protected activity and prevent or intervene to stop the violence.

Upkes said it feels like people alleging favoritism to the far-right rallies and protests are forgetting the arrests and enforcement actions they've made at recent far-right gatherings.

"I think we're doing our job at this point in that both sides, quote-unquote, don't like how we handle their events," he said.

In a statement, police officials encouraged those who were escorted out of the park to contact the police department at 503-588-6123, option 1to file a police report.

"We understand the concerns of those who read the social media commentary," police officials said."We share those concerns because officers were in the area, and if those circumstances were occurring, any criminal behavior could have been addressed with immediacy."

Reporter ConnorRadnovich contributed to this story

For questions, comments and news tips, email reporter Whitney Woodworth at wmwoodworth@statesmanjournal.com, call 503-910-6616 or follow on Twitter @wmwoodworth.

Read or Share this story: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/05/03/salem-police-respond-complaints-inaction-second-amendment-rally/4930606001/

Link:
Salem police respond to complaints of inaction at Riverfront Park Second Amendment rally - Statesman Journal