We support your international growth

From 18 November 2025, UK company directors, equivalent officers, and persons with significant control (PSCs) will be legally required to verify their identity with Companies House.

This verification aims to enhance transparency and combat misuse of the companies register. Verification can be completed through GOV.UK One Login or via an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP), such as an accountant or solicitor. Upon successful verification, individuals will receive a personal code, which must be provided during company filings, including confirmation statements and appointments.

Individuals who do not verify their identity may face restrictions on their ability to act as directors or PSCs.

While verification is mandatory for these roles, other individuals involved with companies will be required to verify their identity at a later stage. Contact us to get detailed advisory or assistance in completing this process.

Since 2015, Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) in India have been allowed to receive 100% Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) under the automatic route, provided they operate in sectors where 100% FDI is permitted without performance-linked conditions.

Before this, FDI was only allowed in companies, restricting foreign investors from setting up LLPs in India. Additionally, LLPs can make downstream investments in other Indian entities, but only if both the investing LLP and the downstream entity operate in sectors that allow 100% FDI under the automatic route.

Sectors with restrictions, such as real estate, agriculture, print media, and lottery businesses, remain outside the purview of this relaxation.

As of July 1, 2025, SEBI has revised SME IPO regulations to enhance financial robustness and transparency. Key requirements include: SMEs must demonstrate a minimum EBITDA of ₹1 crore in at least two of the last three financial years; the Offer for Sale (OFS) portion is capped at 20% of the issue size; funds raised cannot be used to repay loans from promoters or related parties; promoters’ shareholding exceeding the Minimum Promoter Contribution (MPC) is subject to a phased lock-in of 50% after one year and the remaining 50% after two years; and for IPOs exceeding ₹50 crore, appointment of a monitoring agency is mandatory to oversee fund utilization.

For a detailed breakdown of these updated criteria and their implications, click here to read our full blog -

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through its notification dated 4 September 2025, has expanded the Fast-Track Merger (FTM) framework under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013, to provide greater flexibility in corporate restructuring.

The widened scope now includes unlisted companies with borrowings up to ₹200 crore and no defaults, mergers within group companies, and even foreign holding to Indian subsidiary mergers. Demergers, including division or transfer of undertakings, can also be carried out under FTM. Procedural updates require filing Form CAA-10 (declaration of solvency) with GNL-1 and Form CAA-11 (meeting report and valuer’s report) within 15 days as an attachment to RD-1.

For listed companies, schemes must be shared with regulators such as RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, and relevant stock exchanges. Safeguards remain in place, including obtaining 90% approval from shareholders and creditors, with the Registrar of Companies authorized to refer the scheme to NCLT if not in the public interest.

These changes enable smoother mid-sized company and corporate group restructurings, including cross-border transactions, making India’s corporate law more adaptable while maintaining accountability.

Expanding into India presents a significant opportunity for global companies, but establishing a subsidiary requires careful navigation of regulatory and procedural requirements.

While the process may appear straightforward—choosing a structure, typically a wholly owned subsidiary, completing registrations, and commencing operations—in practice it involves multiple layers, including securing digital signatures, appointing local directors, ensuring FDI compliance, and timely reporting to authorities like the RBI and MCA.

Recent regulatory updates tightening definitions of “foreign-owned firms” highlight that even indirect holdings may trigger compliance obligations, emphasizing the need for transparency and correct sequencing of steps. Companies must balance speed with adherence to these regulations to avoid delays or scrutiny, treating subsidiary formation not as a mere checklist but as the foundational step of their India strategy.

Mandatory compliance includes obtaining approvals, fulfilling sector-specific requirements, and maintaining proper reporting structures, all of which ensure legal protection and build credibility with regulators, partners, and customers. Done correctly, this approach positions global firms to leverage India’s scale, talent, and growth potential while establishing a strong operational base.

Proxy Advisory Firms and Their Growing Influence on Boardroom Decisions

A decade ago, investor activism in India was relatively limited, with shareholders having minimal influence over boardroom decisions beyond routine approvals.

Today, the landscape has shifted significantly, with proxy advisory firms playing a pivotal role in shaping corporate governance. Firms like Institutional Investor Advisory Services (IiAS) provide detailed recommendations to institutional investors on how to vote on shareholder resolutions, executive remuneration, board appointments, and other strategic matters.

By analyzing proposals and assessing their alignment with best practices and shareholder interests, these advisory firms ensure that investors can exercise their rights effectively and make informed decisions. This growing influence not only enhances transparency and accountability in corporate governance but also drives companies to adopt more responsible and sustainable business practices.

As a result, proxy advisory firms have become an emerging yet critical force in India’s business ecosystem, bridging the gap between investors and corporate boards while strengthening overall market confidence.

India’s capital markets regulator, SEBI, released a discussion paper proposing changes to the structure of large IPOs, including increasing the allocation for Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) while reducing the retail investor quota.

This came in the context of rising average IPO sizes in recent years, even as retail participation had remained largely flat. For promoters and corporates planning to list, this shift towards a stronger institutional tilt required strategies to focus on anchor placements, QIB roadshows, and careful valuation positioning. The balance between accessibility and strategic investment increasingly leaned towards institutional participation, which influenced book-building dynamics and overall demand patterns.

As IPOs grew larger and more complex, structured planning, investor readiness assessments, and compliance-driven execution became critical. Early-stage clarity on these aspects helped mitigate risks and optimize outcomes, making awareness of such regulatory changes foundational for promoters, CFOs, and boards considering capital market options.

Did you know? The legendary Infosys story wasn't just about IT — it was also one of India’s earliest examples of how ESOPs could build wealth, loyalty, and long-term ownership. When Infosys was still in its early stages, the founders couldn't offer high salaries — so they offered stock instead.

Fast forward a few years, and many early employees didn't just have jobs — they had equity in something they helped build. That sense of shared ownership is what made people stay, contribute deeply, and think like founders.

That’s the real power of ESOPs — not just financial upside, but alignment, belief, and a stake in the journey.

Bombay HC Clarifies: OPCs Don't Mean Personal Risk | July 3, 2025

The Bombay High Court ruling in the case of Endemol vs. Innovative Film Academy clarified the extent of personal liability for entrepreneurs operating under a One Person Company (OPC) structure. The case involved a ₹10 crore debt claim against both the OPC and its sole director, Saravana Prasad. Since no personal guarantee had been provided and no misconduct was established, the Court declined to consider the director’s personal assets.

The ruling reaffirmed that an OPC is a separate legal entity, meaning business debts do not automatically translate into personal liability, and that personal responsibility arises only in cases of personal guarantees, fraud, or misuse of the corporate structure. With over 68,000 active OPCs in India, this judgment provides significant assurance to founders navigating funding, debt, or disputes.

Entrepreneurs are advised to remember that limited liability does not equate to zero liability—misuse, fraud, or inadequate documentation can still lead to personal exposure. Personal guarantees should be strategic, corporate compliance must be maintained diligently, and roles and responsibilities documented clearly. While an OPC may suit current needs, scaling the business may require transitioning to a Private Limited or LLP structure, underscoring that the choice of legal structure is a critical first layer of protection.

That’s the real power of ESOPs — not just financial upside, but alignment, belief, and a stake in the journey.