Related party transactions: A deep dive for investors
Related party transactions can either reflect efficient business arrangements or signal value extraction from minority shareholders. For Indian investors evaluating US stocks, understanding the SEC's disclosure framework—significantly different from SEBI's approval-focused approach—proves essential for identifying companies where insiders may enrich themselves at your expense. This guide provides the regulatory knowledge, analytical tools, and red flag indicators you need to evaluate RPTs effectively.
Related-party transaction analysis is a critical component of fundamental analysis for Indian investors evaluating US stocks.
What are related party transactions?
The SEC defines "related persons" more broadly than many investors realise. Under Regulation S-Krealise04, companies must disclose transactions exceeding $120,000 where the company participates and a related person has a direct or indirect material interest.
Related persons include directors and executive officers, nominees for director positions, beneficial owners of more than 5% of any voting class, and the immediate family members of all these individuals. The SEC explicitly includes spouses, parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, siblings, in-laws, and anyone sharing a household (except tenants or employees).
This definition captures far more people than Indian investors might expect. A transaction with your CEO's brother-in-law's company triggers disclosure requirements. A purchase from an entity controlled by a board nominee's adult child qualifies. The 5% beneficial ownership threshold (lower than SEBI's previous 20% threshold, recently reduced to 10%) means that significant institutional shareholders and their families are subject to scrutiny.
Not all related party transactions signal problems. Companies engage in RPTs for several legitimate reasons. Lease arrangements with properties owned by founders often predate the company going public and may offer favourable terms locked in when the business was small. Service agreements with affiliated companies can provide specialised expertise or cost-specialised services. Purchases from related suppliers may ensure supply chain reliability or quality control. Employing family members with genuine qualifications fosters loyalty and institutional knowledge.
The key differentiator between legitimate and problematic RPTs lies in pricing, transparency, and approval processes—not mere existence.
Disclosure requirements for related party transactions
Indian investors must navigate various filing types to uncover related-party information. The DEF 14A proxy statement, filed before annual shareholder meetings, provides the most comprehensive RPT disclosure. Look for a dedicated section titled "Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions"—typically appearing after executive compensation tables.
The Form 10-K annual report addresses RPTs in Item 13 (Part III), though companies frequently incorporate this section by reference from the proxy statement. Financial statement footnotes—usually Notes 15-25—contain quantitative details about receivables from, payables to, and transactions with related parties. The accounting standard ASC 850 requires separate disclosure of related party receivables and payables on the balance sheet.
For material agreements executed during the year, Form 8-K requires disclosure within four business days under Item 1.01. This means significant new RPTs should appear quickly, not just in annual filings.
NYSE Section 314.00 requires companies to conduct prior review of all RPTs through the audit committee or another independent board body, assess potential conflicts of interest, and prohibit transactions inconsistent with company and shareholder interests. NASDAQ Rule 5630 mandates ongoing review and oversight by the audit committee or comparable independent body.
Under Item 404(b), companies must describe their policies and procedures for reviewing RPTs, including what transactions are covered, standards applied, and responsible persons. Absence of a disclosed RPT policy itself constitutes a red flag.
Red flags to watch in related party transactions
Academic research and SEC enforcement patterns reveal consistent warning signs. A landmark study by Henry, Gordon, Reed, and Louwers examining 83 SEC enforcement actions found that RPT frauds were more likely to involve CEO/CFO participation (87.1% versus 60.3% for non-RPT frauds) and lasted longer (836 days on average versus 576 days).
Unusual transaction terms include zero or below-market interest rates on loans, missed due dates or inadequate collateral, and vague explanations such as "for prior services provided." Research by Kohlbeck and Mayhew found that "tone at the top" RPTs—transactions reflecting management's personal benefit rather than business necessity—correlate with subsequent financial restatements.
Complex corporate structures designed to obscure relationships—special purpose entities, chains of related entities with unclear ownership, circular ownership patterns—enabled the most notorious accounting frauds. Undisclosed related parties discovered through news reports, short-seller research, or SEC investigations represent severe red flags, as companies have clear obligations to identify and disclose these relationships.
Pattern indicators include RPT values growing faster than revenue, concentration of transactions with specific related parties, large one-time transactions without clear justification, and increasing frequency of RPT activity—particularly near quarter or year-end.
Tunnelling extracts value from the company to insiders through below-market sales to related parties, above-market purchases from them, or excessive compensation disguised as service fees. Earnings manipulation uses fictitious sales to related parties, sales at inflated prices, or round-trip transactions to inflate revenue.
The Enron case provides the textbook example. Andrew Fastow, Enron's CFO, created LJM1 (named after his wife, Lea and children, Jeffrey and Matthew) and the larger LJM2 Co-Investment with approximately $390 million from major financial institutions. These entities purchased poorly performing assets from Enron, removing them from Enron's balance sheet through what appeared to be sales but were, in fact, sham transactions. Fastow personally earned $45 million from LJM dealings.
Arm's length pricing in related party transactions
The arm's length principle requires transactions between associated parties reflect prices and terms that independent, unrelated parties would agree to under comparable circumstances. This standard, codified in OECD guidelines and IRS Section 482, protects minority shareholders from value extraction.
The Best Method Rule under Treasury Regulation requires selecting the method that yields the most reliable arm's length result. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method directly compares prices to comparable transactions between unrelated parties—most reliable when highly comparable data exists. The Resale Price Method starts with the resale price to independent customers and subtracts the arm's-length gross margin, appropriate for distribution operations. The Cost Plus Method applies an appropriate markup to costs incurred, common in manufacturing or service transactions.
Non-arm's-length pricing indicators include prices significantly above or below market without justification; interest-free or below-market loans to insiders; asset sales at valuations unsupported by independent appraisals; service fees without evidence of services rendered; and the absence of formal contracts or negotiation documentation. Consistent losses on related-party transactions, despite profitability with third parties, and profit margins inconsistent with industry norms suggest systematic mispricing.
Companies cannot claim arm's length terms under ASC 850-10-50-5 unless they can substantiate this—look for specific disclaiming language in footnotes.
Promoter group transactions and controlling shareholders
Family-controlled companies and those with controlling shareholders present elevated RPT risks. In the US context, private equity sponsors frequently face scrutiny over monitoring fees, transaction fees, and portfolio company arrangements.
Super Micro Computer's 2024 accounting crisis illustrates these risks. On August 27, 2024, Hindenburg Research released a report citing "glaring accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party transactions, sanctions and export control failures." SMCI had extensive transactions with Ablecom Technology, led by CEO Charles Liang's brother—the CEO and his wife own 10.5% of Ablecom, which receives hundreds of millions annually from SMCI.
Events escalated rapidly: SMCI announced a delayed 10-K filing on August 28 (stock dropped 21%), the Wall Street Journal reported a DOJ investigation triggered by a whistleblower on September 26, and on October 24, Ernst & Young resigned as auditor—stating it was "unwilling to be associated with financial statements prepared by management." The stock plunged 33% on October 30, wiping out approximately $10 billion in capitalisation.
Tesla's 2024 capitalisations include extensive transactions across Elon Musk's companies: approximately $2.4 million to SpaceX for commercial and licensing agreements, $3.6 million to The Boring Company for tunnel construction at Gigafactory Texas, $2.8 million to a Musk-owned security company, and $30.3 million to Redwood Materials (founded by board member JB Straubel).
In January 2026, Tesla announced a $2 billion investment in xAI, Musk's AI company, as part of xAI's $20 billion financing round. Musk formed xAI in March 2023 without immediately disclosing this to Tesla shareholders, raising questions about competing priorities and capital allocation.
Impact on minority shareholders
Value extraction through RPTs occurs through below-market sales to related parties, above-market purchases from them, or excessive fees—dilution results from equity issuances to associated parties at below-market prices. Preferential treatment gives controllers better terms, timing, or access to information. Freeze-out transactions force minorities out at unfair valuations.
Directors, officers, and controlling shareholders owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty under Delaware law. The duty of loyalty prohibits self-dealing and using corporate resources for personal gain. Controlling shareholder transactions face heightened "entire fairness" scrutiny.
The MFW Framework (Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp.) provides business judgment rule protection for controlling shareholder transactions only when both conditions are met: approval by an independent special committee fully empowered to reject the transaction, and approval by a majority of minority shareholders through an informed, uncoerced vote.
The SEC whistleblower program offers awards of 10-30% of monetary sanctions collected (with a minimum of $1 million), permits anonymous reporting through attorneys, and provides anti-retaliation protections. Nearly $2 billion has been awarded to approximately 400 whistleblowers, with 84% reporting internally first.
Shareholder derivative lawsuits allow shareholders to sue on behalf of the corporation when directors have harmed the company through self-dealing. Claims require standing (shareholder at time of wrongdoing), demand on the board (or showing demand futility), and particular allegations.
Corporate governance concerns and oversight mechanisms
NYSE and NASDAQ require audit committees composed entirely of independent directors, with a minimum of three members, who meet enhanced independence standards. Related-party transactions should be approved by disinterested independent directors, with conflicted members recusing themselves from voting.
Glass Lewis recommends at least two-thirds board independence. He will recommend against re-electing a governance committee chair if there is "inadequate" RPT disclosure for two consecutive years, or if RPT involves a director without disclosure of amounts received. ISS examines related-party transactions when assessing director independence, applying a 3-year look-back for material financial relationships and a 5-year look-back for former employment.
Effective policies include pre-approval requirements before transaction execution, independent review procedures assessing business justification and arm's-length terms, ongoing monitoring with regular reporting to audit committees, and annual review and ratification of ongoing transactions.
Recent SEC enforcement illustrates current priorities. Lyft Inc. paid a $10 million penalty in September 2023 for failing to disclose a board director's financial interest in a $400+ million pre-IPO stock transaction. Maximus Inc. paid $500,000 for failing to disclose the employment of two siblings of an executive officer whose compensation exceeded $120,000 annually. Private fund advisers faced $600,000 combined penalties in December 2024 for failure to disclose conflicts arising from familial connections to portfolio company executives.
Practical framework for analysing party transactions
Calculating the RPT-to-Revenue Ratio (Total RPT Value / Annual Revenue)—an increasing trend warrants concern regardless of the absolute level. The RPT-to-Assets Ratio (Total RPT Value / Total Assets) exceeding 5% warrants deeper investigation. RPT Concentration (Single Related Party RPT / Total RPT) above 50% suggests over-dependence on specific relationships.
Step 1: Locate disclosures by downloading the latest DEF 14A and 10-K from EDGAR, searching "related party" in both documents, and reviewing financial statement footnotes.
Step 2: Identify all related parties by listing directors, executives, and 5%+ shareholders, noting disclosed family relationships, identifying affiliated companies, and checking for undisclosed relationships in news or research reports.
Step 3: Catalogue each transaction, documenting the related party name and relationship, transaction type and dollar amount, terms (interest rates, payment schedule, stated business purpose, and approval process used), and the approval process used.
Step 4: Analyse terms by comparing to market rates, assessing whether the company benefits, checking for independent valuations, and reviewing independent director approval.
Step 5: Trend analysis comparing to prior years (minimum three years), calculating ratio trends, noting new related parties, and tracking changes in transaction values.
This RPT due diligence analysis should form part of your broader methodology for [how to analyse US stocks](https://wwanalyseAnalysesta.in/blog/how-to-analyse-us-stocks](https://www.winvesta.in/blog/how-to-analyse-us-stocks) before making investment decisions.
Critical differences between US and Indian regulations
Understanding these differences prevents Indian investors from applying inappropriate expectations to US stocks.
The related party threshold in the US covers 5%+ shareholders, while India uses 10%+ shareholders (recently reduced from 20%). The disclosure threshold in the US is a fixed $120,000, while India uses ₹1,000 crore or 10% of turnover. The US system focuses on disclosure through board/audit committee review, while India mandates shareholder approval for material RPTs. In India, related parties cannot vote on material RPTs—a protection absent in US regulations.
The most critical distinction: the US relies on disclosure while India relies on approval. Indian investors familiar with SEBI's requirement that shareholders approve material RPTs—with related parties excluded from voting—should understand that US shareholders rarely vote on RPTs. The protection mechanism in US markets is transparency and independent board oversight, not shareholder democracy.
Access all filings through SEC EDGAR (sec.gov/edgar/search), where you can search "related party" across all filings, filter by company ticker or CIK number, and review historical disclosures going back to 2001.
RPTs are generally acceptable when they demonstrate efficiency gains, align strategically with company objectives, reflect historical arrangements predating the IPO with stable terms, provide full transparency with complete disclosure and independent approval, and offer pricing at or below market rates with supporting documentation.
RPTs become concerning when they show vague descriptions without a specific business purpose, demonstrate terms more favourable to insiders than comparable market transactions, feature approval by conflicted parties without proper recusal, exhibit patterns of escalation with values or frequency increasing over time, involve complex structures suggesting concealment intent, or show inconsistency with changing explanations or missing documentation.
The Super Micro Computer case illustrates how related party concerns can destroy shareholder value rapidly—and how early warning signs (prior SEC settlements, transactions with family-controlled suppliers, accounting complexity) were visible to investors willing to conduct thorough analysis. Tesla's extensive related party network demonstrates that even iconic companies require ongoing governance scrutiny.
For Indian investors, leveraging SEC EDGAR's comprehensive database andunderstanding the regulatory philosophy—transparency over approval—positions you to identify both companies with strong governance and those where insiders may be extracting value at the expense of minority shareholders
Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or brokerage companies, and not of Winvesta. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Ready to earn on every trade?
Invest in 11,000+ US stocks & ETFs
Table of Contents
Related party transactions can either reflect efficient business arrangements or signal value extraction from minority shareholders. For Indian investors evaluating US stocks, understanding the SEC's disclosure framework—significantly different from SEBI's approval-focused approach—proves essential for identifying companies where insiders may enrich themselves at your expense. This guide provides the regulatory knowledge, analytical tools, and red flag indicators you need to evaluate RPTs effectively.
Related-party transaction analysis is a critical component of fundamental analysis for Indian investors evaluating US stocks.
What are related party transactions?
The SEC defines "related persons" more broadly than many investors realise. Under Regulation S-Krealise04, companies must disclose transactions exceeding $120,000 where the company participates and a related person has a direct or indirect material interest.
Related persons include directors and executive officers, nominees for director positions, beneficial owners of more than 5% of any voting class, and the immediate family members of all these individuals. The SEC explicitly includes spouses, parents, stepparents, children, stepchildren, siblings, in-laws, and anyone sharing a household (except tenants or employees).
This definition captures far more people than Indian investors might expect. A transaction with your CEO's brother-in-law's company triggers disclosure requirements. A purchase from an entity controlled by a board nominee's adult child qualifies. The 5% beneficial ownership threshold (lower than SEBI's previous 20% threshold, recently reduced to 10%) means that significant institutional shareholders and their families are subject to scrutiny.
Not all related party transactions signal problems. Companies engage in RPTs for several legitimate reasons. Lease arrangements with properties owned by founders often predate the company going public and may offer favourable terms locked in when the business was small. Service agreements with affiliated companies can provide specialised expertise or cost-specialised services. Purchases from related suppliers may ensure supply chain reliability or quality control. Employing family members with genuine qualifications fosters loyalty and institutional knowledge.
The key differentiator between legitimate and problematic RPTs lies in pricing, transparency, and approval processes—not mere existence.
Disclosure requirements for related party transactions
Indian investors must navigate various filing types to uncover related-party information. The DEF 14A proxy statement, filed before annual shareholder meetings, provides the most comprehensive RPT disclosure. Look for a dedicated section titled "Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions"—typically appearing after executive compensation tables.
The Form 10-K annual report addresses RPTs in Item 13 (Part III), though companies frequently incorporate this section by reference from the proxy statement. Financial statement footnotes—usually Notes 15-25—contain quantitative details about receivables from, payables to, and transactions with related parties. The accounting standard ASC 850 requires separate disclosure of related party receivables and payables on the balance sheet.
For material agreements executed during the year, Form 8-K requires disclosure within four business days under Item 1.01. This means significant new RPTs should appear quickly, not just in annual filings.
NYSE Section 314.00 requires companies to conduct prior review of all RPTs through the audit committee or another independent board body, assess potential conflicts of interest, and prohibit transactions inconsistent with company and shareholder interests. NASDAQ Rule 5630 mandates ongoing review and oversight by the audit committee or comparable independent body.
Under Item 404(b), companies must describe their policies and procedures for reviewing RPTs, including what transactions are covered, standards applied, and responsible persons. Absence of a disclosed RPT policy itself constitutes a red flag.
Red flags to watch in related party transactions
Academic research and SEC enforcement patterns reveal consistent warning signs. A landmark study by Henry, Gordon, Reed, and Louwers examining 83 SEC enforcement actions found that RPT frauds were more likely to involve CEO/CFO participation (87.1% versus 60.3% for non-RPT frauds) and lasted longer (836 days on average versus 576 days).
Unusual transaction terms include zero or below-market interest rates on loans, missed due dates or inadequate collateral, and vague explanations such as "for prior services provided." Research by Kohlbeck and Mayhew found that "tone at the top" RPTs—transactions reflecting management's personal benefit rather than business necessity—correlate with subsequent financial restatements.
Complex corporate structures designed to obscure relationships—special purpose entities, chains of related entities with unclear ownership, circular ownership patterns—enabled the most notorious accounting frauds. Undisclosed related parties discovered through news reports, short-seller research, or SEC investigations represent severe red flags, as companies have clear obligations to identify and disclose these relationships.
Pattern indicators include RPT values growing faster than revenue, concentration of transactions with specific related parties, large one-time transactions without clear justification, and increasing frequency of RPT activity—particularly near quarter or year-end.
Tunnelling extracts value from the company to insiders through below-market sales to related parties, above-market purchases from them, or excessive compensation disguised as service fees. Earnings manipulation uses fictitious sales to related parties, sales at inflated prices, or round-trip transactions to inflate revenue.
The Enron case provides the textbook example. Andrew Fastow, Enron's CFO, created LJM1 (named after his wife, Lea and children, Jeffrey and Matthew) and the larger LJM2 Co-Investment with approximately $390 million from major financial institutions. These entities purchased poorly performing assets from Enron, removing them from Enron's balance sheet through what appeared to be sales but were, in fact, sham transactions. Fastow personally earned $45 million from LJM dealings.
Arm's length pricing in related party transactions
The arm's length principle requires transactions between associated parties reflect prices and terms that independent, unrelated parties would agree to under comparable circumstances. This standard, codified in OECD guidelines and IRS Section 482, protects minority shareholders from value extraction.
The Best Method Rule under Treasury Regulation requires selecting the method that yields the most reliable arm's length result. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method directly compares prices to comparable transactions between unrelated parties—most reliable when highly comparable data exists. The Resale Price Method starts with the resale price to independent customers and subtracts the arm's-length gross margin, appropriate for distribution operations. The Cost Plus Method applies an appropriate markup to costs incurred, common in manufacturing or service transactions.
Non-arm's-length pricing indicators include prices significantly above or below market without justification; interest-free or below-market loans to insiders; asset sales at valuations unsupported by independent appraisals; service fees without evidence of services rendered; and the absence of formal contracts or negotiation documentation. Consistent losses on related-party transactions, despite profitability with third parties, and profit margins inconsistent with industry norms suggest systematic mispricing.
Companies cannot claim arm's length terms under ASC 850-10-50-5 unless they can substantiate this—look for specific disclaiming language in footnotes.
Promoter group transactions and controlling shareholders
Family-controlled companies and those with controlling shareholders present elevated RPT risks. In the US context, private equity sponsors frequently face scrutiny over monitoring fees, transaction fees, and portfolio company arrangements.
Super Micro Computer's 2024 accounting crisis illustrates these risks. On August 27, 2024, Hindenburg Research released a report citing "glaring accounting red flags, evidence of undisclosed related party transactions, sanctions and export control failures." SMCI had extensive transactions with Ablecom Technology, led by CEO Charles Liang's brother—the CEO and his wife own 10.5% of Ablecom, which receives hundreds of millions annually from SMCI.
Events escalated rapidly: SMCI announced a delayed 10-K filing on August 28 (stock dropped 21%), the Wall Street Journal reported a DOJ investigation triggered by a whistleblower on September 26, and on October 24, Ernst & Young resigned as auditor—stating it was "unwilling to be associated with financial statements prepared by management." The stock plunged 33% on October 30, wiping out approximately $10 billion in capitalisation.
Tesla's 2024 capitalisations include extensive transactions across Elon Musk's companies: approximately $2.4 million to SpaceX for commercial and licensing agreements, $3.6 million to The Boring Company for tunnel construction at Gigafactory Texas, $2.8 million to a Musk-owned security company, and $30.3 million to Redwood Materials (founded by board member JB Straubel).
In January 2026, Tesla announced a $2 billion investment in xAI, Musk's AI company, as part of xAI's $20 billion financing round. Musk formed xAI in March 2023 without immediately disclosing this to Tesla shareholders, raising questions about competing priorities and capital allocation.
Impact on minority shareholders
Value extraction through RPTs occurs through below-market sales to related parties, above-market purchases from them, or excessive fees—dilution results from equity issuances to associated parties at below-market prices. Preferential treatment gives controllers better terms, timing, or access to information. Freeze-out transactions force minorities out at unfair valuations.
Directors, officers, and controlling shareholders owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty under Delaware law. The duty of loyalty prohibits self-dealing and using corporate resources for personal gain. Controlling shareholder transactions face heightened "entire fairness" scrutiny.
The MFW Framework (Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp.) provides business judgment rule protection for controlling shareholder transactions only when both conditions are met: approval by an independent special committee fully empowered to reject the transaction, and approval by a majority of minority shareholders through an informed, uncoerced vote.
The SEC whistleblower program offers awards of 10-30% of monetary sanctions collected (with a minimum of $1 million), permits anonymous reporting through attorneys, and provides anti-retaliation protections. Nearly $2 billion has been awarded to approximately 400 whistleblowers, with 84% reporting internally first.
Shareholder derivative lawsuits allow shareholders to sue on behalf of the corporation when directors have harmed the company through self-dealing. Claims require standing (shareholder at time of wrongdoing), demand on the board (or showing demand futility), and particular allegations.
Corporate governance concerns and oversight mechanisms
NYSE and NASDAQ require audit committees composed entirely of independent directors, with a minimum of three members, who meet enhanced independence standards. Related-party transactions should be approved by disinterested independent directors, with conflicted members recusing themselves from voting.
Glass Lewis recommends at least two-thirds board independence. He will recommend against re-electing a governance committee chair if there is "inadequate" RPT disclosure for two consecutive years, or if RPT involves a director without disclosure of amounts received. ISS examines related-party transactions when assessing director independence, applying a 3-year look-back for material financial relationships and a 5-year look-back for former employment.
Effective policies include pre-approval requirements before transaction execution, independent review procedures assessing business justification and arm's-length terms, ongoing monitoring with regular reporting to audit committees, and annual review and ratification of ongoing transactions.
Recent SEC enforcement illustrates current priorities. Lyft Inc. paid a $10 million penalty in September 2023 for failing to disclose a board director's financial interest in a $400+ million pre-IPO stock transaction. Maximus Inc. paid $500,000 for failing to disclose the employment of two siblings of an executive officer whose compensation exceeded $120,000 annually. Private fund advisers faced $600,000 combined penalties in December 2024 for failure to disclose conflicts arising from familial connections to portfolio company executives.
Practical framework for analysing party transactions
Calculating the RPT-to-Revenue Ratio (Total RPT Value / Annual Revenue)—an increasing trend warrants concern regardless of the absolute level. The RPT-to-Assets Ratio (Total RPT Value / Total Assets) exceeding 5% warrants deeper investigation. RPT Concentration (Single Related Party RPT / Total RPT) above 50% suggests over-dependence on specific relationships.
Step 1: Locate disclosures by downloading the latest DEF 14A and 10-K from EDGAR, searching "related party" in both documents, and reviewing financial statement footnotes.
Step 2: Identify all related parties by listing directors, executives, and 5%+ shareholders, noting disclosed family relationships, identifying affiliated companies, and checking for undisclosed relationships in news or research reports.
Step 3: Catalogue each transaction, documenting the related party name and relationship, transaction type and dollar amount, terms (interest rates, payment schedule, stated business purpose, and approval process used), and the approval process used.
Step 4: Analyse terms by comparing to market rates, assessing whether the company benefits, checking for independent valuations, and reviewing independent director approval.
Step 5: Trend analysis comparing to prior years (minimum three years), calculating ratio trends, noting new related parties, and tracking changes in transaction values.
This RPT due diligence analysis should form part of your broader methodology for [how to analyse US stocks](https://wwanalyseAnalysesta.in/blog/how-to-analyse-us-stocks](https://www.winvesta.in/blog/how-to-analyse-us-stocks) before making investment decisions.
Critical differences between US and Indian regulations
Understanding these differences prevents Indian investors from applying inappropriate expectations to US stocks.
The related party threshold in the US covers 5%+ shareholders, while India uses 10%+ shareholders (recently reduced from 20%). The disclosure threshold in the US is a fixed $120,000, while India uses ₹1,000 crore or 10% of turnover. The US system focuses on disclosure through board/audit committee review, while India mandates shareholder approval for material RPTs. In India, related parties cannot vote on material RPTs—a protection absent in US regulations.
The most critical distinction: the US relies on disclosure while India relies on approval. Indian investors familiar with SEBI's requirement that shareholders approve material RPTs—with related parties excluded from voting—should understand that US shareholders rarely vote on RPTs. The protection mechanism in US markets is transparency and independent board oversight, not shareholder democracy.
Access all filings through SEC EDGAR (sec.gov/edgar/search), where you can search "related party" across all filings, filter by company ticker or CIK number, and review historical disclosures going back to 2001.
RPTs are generally acceptable when they demonstrate efficiency gains, align strategically with company objectives, reflect historical arrangements predating the IPO with stable terms, provide full transparency with complete disclosure and independent approval, and offer pricing at or below market rates with supporting documentation.
RPTs become concerning when they show vague descriptions without a specific business purpose, demonstrate terms more favourable to insiders than comparable market transactions, feature approval by conflicted parties without proper recusal, exhibit patterns of escalation with values or frequency increasing over time, involve complex structures suggesting concealment intent, or show inconsistency with changing explanations or missing documentation.
The Super Micro Computer case illustrates how related party concerns can destroy shareholder value rapidly—and how early warning signs (prior SEC settlements, transactions with family-controlled suppliers, accounting complexity) were visible to investors willing to conduct thorough analysis. Tesla's extensive related party network demonstrates that even iconic companies require ongoing governance scrutiny.
For Indian investors, leveraging SEC EDGAR's comprehensive database andunderstanding the regulatory philosophy—transparency over approval—positions you to identify both companies with strong governance and those where insiders may be extracting value at the expense of minority shareholders
Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or brokerage companies, and not of Winvesta. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
Ready to earn on every trade?
Invest in 11,000+ US stocks & ETFs
