Corporate Takeovers in Indian Entertainment: Its Legal Framework and Challenges

With the recent merger of Disney’s Star India and Reliance Industries Limited’s (RIL) Viacom18, corporate acquisitions in India’s entertainment industry have come under increased legal and regulatory scrutiny.  In addition to changing the media environment in India, this $8.5 billion deal brought to light important legal issues that regulate such deals.  Using the Reliance-Disney merger as a case study, this essay explores the framework of law, regulatory clearances, and antitrust consequences of corporate takeovers in the Indian entertainment sector.

CORPORATE TAKEOVERS IN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

Corporate takeovers are when a firm buys out or merges with another, usually to increase activities, create strategic synergies, or solidify market dominance.  These kinds of deals are significant in the entertainment industry because they have the power to shape consumer preferences, rivalry in the marketplace, and cultural narratives.

Due to an increasing middle class, rising usage of the internet, and a multilingual viewers, the Indian entertainment business is one of the fastest-growing in the world.  However, in order to maintain equitable competition and safeguard the interests of consumers, this expansion has also drawn regulatory attention.  The Reliance-Disney acquisition is a prime example of the difficulties in negotiating India’s corporate takeover laws.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING CORPORATE TAKEOVERS

  1. Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act 2013 provides a structured framework for the concept of mergers and acquisitions in India. Sections 230 to 232 of the Act provide for the procedural steps for the schemes involving mergers and amalgamations:

  • Approval of the Scheme: Under Section 230 (6) of the act, it must be approved by at least 75% of the creditors and the respective shareholders of the company.
  • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The following scheme must be approved by this authority, as mentioned under Section 232 (1) of the act, making sure to follow all the statutory requirements

In the Merger of Reliance and Disney, the NCLT approved the scheme (CA(CAA)/64/MB-IV/2024) dated 30 August 2024. This approval was followed by extensive disclosures and adherence to the norms mentioned in the Act

  1. Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations

Any listed entity company shall comply with the SEBI’s Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) Regulations 2015. RIL, being listed, had mandated in its Regulation 37 that any entity involved in the scheme of arrangement shall file a draft scheme with the stock exchange for a Non-Objection Certificate (NOC) before approaching the NCLT

Some of the disclosures include:

  • Financial details of the transaction
  • Timelines for the regulatory approvals
  • Government Structure involved in the post-merger

In accordance with these rules, RIL informed the BSE and NSE of important information on the merger, including as its $1.4 billion investment in SIPL (the joint venture company), Mrs. Nita Ambani and Mr. Uday Shankar’s leadership positions, and remarks regarding anticipated advantages.

  1. Competition Act 2002

Any merger or acquisition that is above certain asset or turnover benchmarks is required by Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, to notify the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The following are the thresholds:

  • Assets: around USD 54 million, or INR 4.5 billion.
  • Revenue: INR 12.5 billion, or around $150 million USD.

These benchmarks were set by the Reliance-Disney transaction because of its INR 703 billion (about USD 8.4 billion) valuation. On 28 August 2024, the CCI issued conditional clearance.

Media & Entertrainment
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

ANTI-TRUST CONCERNS IN CORPORATE TAKEOVERS

To determine if the merger will negatively impact market competition, the CCI’s analysis concentrated on several critical areas:

  1. Dominance of the Market

 The combined company is expected to influence the following:

  • 40% of TV viewership for advertising.
  • 42% of total TV market share.
  • 34% of the OTT streaming market share.

 This degree of market dominance raised concerns over less competition and fewer options for consumers.

  1. Rights to Broadcast Sports

Disney and RIL own major cricket broadcasting licenses, including Disney for ICC tournaments and the IPL.  The merger raises concerns about undue influence over sports broadcasting until these rights expire in 2027 and 2028, which unifies these rights under a single organization.

  1. The Effect of Advertising on the Market

 After the merger, SIPL will get about 40% of TV ad income.  Higher advertising costs and fewer options for smaller marketers may result from this.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY DISNEY AND RIL

 RIL and Disney made the following claims to allay regulatory worries:

  1. Cricket Broadcasting Rights Expiration: They stressed that rivals can bid for additional rights when the existing cricket broadcasting privileges expire in 2027 for Disney and 2028 for RIL.
  2. Benefits for Advertisers: They contended that after the merger, advertisers would still have efficient ways to reach particular demographics.
  3. Market Dynamics: They gave authorities their word that fair market practices would be maintained through competitive bidding procedures.

IMPACT ON STAKEHOLDERS

  1. Customers

 Consolidation may result in unified content offers across platforms, but it may also raise subscription fees and lessen the variety of material available.

  1. 2. Rivals

 Because of SIPL’s vast resources and market reach, smaller businesses could struggle to compete.

  1. Promoters

 Advertisers may have to pay higher rates because there is less competition in the TV and OTT advertising sectors.

The complex relationship between corporate strategy and regulatory compliance in India’s entertainment industry is highlighted by the Reliance-Disney merger.  Such takeovers present serious problems with regard to market domination and consumer welfare, even if they can spur innovation and growth.

 Stakeholders may guarantee that corporate takeovers enhance India’s dynamic media ecosystem without sacrificing fairness or competition by abiding by regulatory frameworks such as the Companies Act, SEBI rules, and the Competition Act.

 Strong regulatory control will continue to be necessary as India’s entertainment sector develops in order to strike a balance between business goals and the general welfare- a challenging but vital responsibility for both regulators and legislators.

Author: Achyuta Gopi Shankar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010