Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cyrus Mistry'S W.R.T. Tata Group Details
Cyrus Mistry'S W.R.T. Tata Group Details
TATA GROUP
Details:
Mistry who was dismissed as Tata Sons chairman on October 24 by
its board alleged lack of corporate governance and failure on the
part of directors to discharge the fiduciary duty owed to shareholders
of Tata Sons and other Group companies. Following Mistrys e-mail,
proxy advisory firms feel that the reporting and governance structures
between Tata Trusts, Tata Sons and other operating companies
needs to be clearly defined. The e-mail seems to be suggesting that
Ratan Tata regards Tata group as a fiefdom, and Independent
Directors aren’t truly independent and assertive. Minority investors of
listed operating companies need the reassurance that Tata Sons is
just the dominant shareholder and one individual isn’t running the
whole group, said Shriram Subramanian, founder and managing
director of In Govern Research Services.
Experts feel that the boardroom battle between Ratan Tata and Cyrus
Mistry and the corporate governance issues emanating from this
dispute will hurt corporate India.
Case Law:
REEBOK INDIA SUFFERS A MAJOR SCAM
Details:
Reebok India, owned by Adidas AG, alleged a Rs.870 crore fraud by
its former managing director (MD) Subhinder Singh Prem and former
Chief Operating Officer (COO) Vishnu Bhagat, in acriminal complaint
filed at the Gurgaon police’s Economic Offence Wing in May, 2012. In
March 2013, Adidas, the parent company, announced a 153 million
Euros loss on account of the Reebok India episode.
Gurgaon police had arrested Singh and Bhagat along with three
others Sanjay Mishra, Prashant Bhatnagar and Surakshit Bhat.
Allegedly, these individuals have been siphoning off funds by creating
ghost distributors across the country and generating forged bills over
the last five years.
JUDGEMENT
Agencies probing the alleged Rs 870 crore corporate fraud in the
operation of Reebok India have detected a systemic mismanagement
in the business planning and running of the company.
The Income Tax department has alleged tax evasion of Rs 140 crore
in the case. The IT department’s first goal is to ensure that the
company later does not claim any bad debt. A bad debt is that amount
that is owed to a business or individual and has to be written off by the
creditor as a loss because the debt cannot be collected because of a
host of reasons.
As soon as the scam came to light, affairs of the company came under
close government scrutiny. While the IT department documents
investigated the accounts and imports of the firm, the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office is probing the entire governance affairs of the
company under Section 235 of the Companies Act. A forensic audit
was conducted by the German arm of Ernest & Young which revealed
many falsifications of documents and books.
It is interesting to note that accounting officials of the firm and the
auditors were not held liable for their deliberate or mistaken oversight
in identifying the irregularities in the account books which led to the
alleged financial irregularities.
CASE LAW:
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LOSES LICENSE TO FLY
Details:
The financially troubled Kingfisher Airlines lost its flying permit after a
deadline to renew its suspended license expired. The Directorate
General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has suspended Kingfisher Airlines
license to fly till further orders pursuant to Clause 15 (2) of Schedule
XI of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, after the airline failed to deliver a viable
financial and organizational revival plan.
The debt-ridden carrier was grounded since October 2012 after
repeated strikes by workers over unpaid wages. Kingfisher owes
various public sector banks $1.4bn ( 870m) in debts and has been
trying to raise funds after lenders refused to give fresh loans.
JUDGEMENT
The airline now owes money to staff, airports, tax authorities and its
lenders and may have to be liquidated.
CASE LAW:
SAHARA TOLD TO REPAY $3 BILLION TO SMALL INVESTORS.,
Details:
Unlisted conglomerate Sahara, one of India’s biggest business groups
was ordered by the Supreme Court of India after a prolonged legal
battle with capital markets regulator SEBI to refund 174 billion rupees
raised by dubious means from 22 million small investors. From 2008-
11, they received 174 billion rupees through what is known as an
optionally fully convertible debentures. The Sahara was also asked to
pay 15 percent interest to the investors of the fund which has been
illegally raised from the public without resorting to proper legal
procedure.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court, whose order reaffirmed an earlier ruling that the
fundraising did not meet the rules, ordered two unlisted Sahara group
firms to refund money they had raised with the interest within three
months. The judgment closed a much exploited loophole of the
corporate fundraising laws in India and underscored an increasing
assertiveness by India’s judiciary and regulators as businesses and
financial markets expand at a fast pace in Asia’s third-largest
economy.