Source :Moneylife: May24,2010
While the big multinational Standard Chartered Bank was allowed to blank out disclosure of litigation, then why were Indian banks such as Lakshmi Vilas Bank and United Bank of India not allowed this favour?
Even as the first-ever Indian Depository Receipt (IDR) issue of Standard Chartered Plc is set to open in the Indian capital markets on 25 May 2010, questions about its non-disclosure of numerous litigations still remain open. The bank’s name was involved in the 1992 Harshad Mehta securities scam, which rocked the Indian capital market. However, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has turned a blind eye over all its pending litigations and has quietly passed the red herring prospectus (RHP), while Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd and United Bank of India have had to disclose all their pending litigations.
Standard Chartered has been taking the stand that the litigation is not ‘material’. The question then remains, why did SEBI seek a disclosure from these two Indian banks?
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, in which the Harshad Mehta Group held 2,700 shares in connection with the 1992 securities scam, disclosed the case in its draft red herring prospectus which reads: “The Bank has 14 cases as on date involving title suits relating to shares between various parties wherein the Bank is a proforma party and awaiting decision of the said courts. Noteworthy to mention is a case filed in the Sub Court under Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992 by the Custodian in 1996 for shares held by (the) Harshad Mehta Group totalling 2,700 shares held by various parties and the matter is still pending.”
Similarly, United Bank of India, which hit the market earlier this year, disclosed all its cases against its chairman and directors, civil proceedings, labour and employment cases and other cases related to the bank. There was no mention of the bank’s involvement in the scam. The RHP had one case filed by SEBI against the bank, 18 civil cases, approximately 162 cases pertaining to labour and employment issues (as on 1 March 2010) and three other cases.Even as the first-ever Indian Depository Receipt (IDR) issue of Standard Chartered Plc is set to open in the Indian capital markets on 25 May 2010, questions about its non-disclosure of numerous litigations still remain open. The bank’s name was involved in the 1992 Harshad Mehta securities scam, which rocked the Indian capital market. However, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has turned a blind eye over all its pending litigations and has quietly passed the red herring prospectus (RHP), while Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd and United Bank of India have had to disclose all their pending litigations.
Standard Chartered has been taking the stand that the litigation is not ‘material’. The question then remains, why did SEBI seek a disclosure from these two Indian banks?
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd, in which the Harshad Mehta Group held 2,700 shares in connection with the 1992 securities scam, disclosed the case in its draft red herring prospectus which reads: “The Bank has 14 cases as on date involving title suits relating to shares between various parties wherein the Bank is a proforma party and awaiting decision of the said courts. Noteworthy to mention is a case filed in the Sub Court under Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992 by the Custodian in 1996 for shares held by (the) Harshad Mehta Group totalling 2,700 shares held by various parties and the matter is still pending.”
“As of the date of this Draft Red Herring Prospectus, neither the Company, any member of the Group, any Director, or any material associate of the Company (emphasis ours) are involved in any material governmental, legal or arbitration proceedings or litigation and the Company is not aware of any pending or threatened material governmental, legal or arbitration proceedings or litigation relating to the Company, any member of the Group, any Director or any material associate which, in either case, may have a significant effect on the performance of the Group, and there are no liabilities or defaults (including arrears and potential liabilities) in relation to such material proceedings or litigation which would be required to be disclosed under the SEBI Regulations,” states page 419 of Standard Chartered’s red herring prospectus.
However there are at least half-a-dozen cases filed against the bank by the Enforcement Directorate in 2002.
Earlier, Arijit De, head of external communications of Standard Chartered India replied to an email query by Moneylife: “The IDRs represent the shares of Standard Chartered (SC) plc, UK, the ultimate parent company of Standard Chartered Bank, India. In accordance with the disclosure requirements under SEBI Regulations, IDR Rules, other applicable laws and international practice, SC plc has made appropriate disclosures of all material issues in the draft offer document filed with SEBI. We have nothing further to add beyond what is disclosed in the DRHP.”
Moneylife had previously reported about this issue and had raised the matter with SEBI but we have still not received any response.
No comments:
Post a Comment