Given that most shareholders would like to have agreements with clauses to protect minority rights, or to buy/sell partners at a later date, it was never clear why the government never allowed them. One argument was that such agreements camouflaged debt as equity. If Company A owns 26 % shares in Company B and Company C—which owns 74 % of B—has a call option, it is possible to argue A is just a front for C which has probably even funded the purchase of A’s shares. Since the law, in many sectors such as telecom, requires a 26% Indian shareholding, such deals are not unheard of. But then why have a law which makes such a formality necessary? While the law never allowed such call and put options, what’s interesting is that when the NDA government sold shares of Balco and Hindustan Zinc to Sterlite Industries, it gave Sterlite a call option which allowed it to buy the government’s residual stake in these firms at a pre-determined price. Why the NDA entered into such a contract when the law didn’t allow it is not clear; nor is it clear why, after the contract was signed, the law wasn’t amended to make such contracts legal. Anyway, when the time came to honour the call, the government had changed and the UPA refused to allow the residual stake sale. Sterlite never went to court to press for its rights, presumably because taking on a government isn’t the brightest thing for a running business.
If the issue was restricted to Anil Agarwal, it may not have mattered that much, but such clauses are pretty much standard in most private equity contracts for instance—$15 billion of private equity money was invested in India between January 2012 and August 2013. Nor is it just PE agreements, several JVs that Indian and foreign firms have signed have such options—if an investee firm does not generate certain returns, for instance, the investor firm can have a put option to allow it to cash out at a pre-determined price. Some foreign insurance firms would have liked to own 51%