Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Overwhelming support for FTIL - Shareholders object to merger strongly

At the foreground, responses and objections, particularly, against the merger, zoom past everything else currently. As the proposed idea of amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL sprung up lately, support for FTIL, against the government’s decision to do so has been scampering in boundless and humongous volumes across the social media. Albeit the severity ratcheted enormously, nothing obviated the views, ideas and opinions from deluging the social media spouts indiscriminately.
Pained by extreme throes, shareholders have inundated several media platforms with their overwhelming responses against the proposed merger by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Definitely not a rumpus, but a disciplined swarm of views of shareholders, creditors and employees flocked the board, objecting to the proposed amalgamation.
Subsequent to FTIL management’s urge to vote on the government’s proposal - as per the records, close to 99.55% of the shareholders of the company voiced against the idea of merger, which translates into 18,700 shareholders; these shareholders also represent 79.5% of the equity capital in the company. Supplementing their votes, were the votes of the company’s creditors, 1000 employees and the board of directors, according to the news reported by Business Standard on March 10, 2015.  
“The merger proposal is detrimental to the interest of 63,000 shareholders and over 1,000 employees of FTIL. Nearly 80 per cent of our shareholding and a majority of other stake holders have clearly indicated they are against the proposed amalgamation in the name of public interest of trading clients of NSEL...….”
It was also stated by FTIL that the fallout of votes were computed; the shareholders emailed their responses to the MCA, marking a copy to FTIL, coinciding with the final date of the voting deadline stipulated by the high court; the responses were verified by competent bodies viz. KDS & Co. and an independent auditor, the report further stated.
Spread across 26 states, 5 union territories and 12 nations, the 18,700 shareholders took the baton of responsibility and initiative of voicing their views and responses, in order to make them heard by the law dispensing authorities and judiciary, at large. The exercise of monitoring was, supposedly, to prevent the responses from frittering away from people’s attention and the media, as they may be substantially crucial in making the authorities take cognizance of FTIL shareholders’, creditors’ and employees’ interests and concerns at stake.
It was also observed that the suggestions, concerns and objections on the draft order of the proposed merger inexorably persisted and continued to flow in, besides the ones that couldn’t get through due to mailbox getting filled up by the flooding mails. As per the company’s record, roughly 12,500 e-mails bounced back; thus the hard copies of those were sent to the MCA, in the form of a CD (compact disc), ensuring no response, email or objection is left unnoticed, unread and unheeded.
On the occasion, Venkat Chary, Chairman, FTIL, reacted, saying, “The merger proposal is detrimental to the interest of 63,000 shareholders and over 1,000 employees of FTIL. Nearly 80 per cent of our shareholding and a majority of other stake holders have clearly indicated they are against the proposed amalgamation in the name of public interest of trading clients of NSEL. While the recent report clearly questions the genuineness of 13,000 numbers of trading clients coupled with entitlement thereof, whereas the approximate 80% shareholding are real investors with complete know your client (KYC) bonafide owners of the Company who have objected to the amalgamation and have expressed solidarity and faith in the Company and its management.”
In all fair-mindedness, with no prejudice whatsoever, the spate of responses is believed to impact the happenings positively; though not eerily dishevel the process, but make the authorities believe in FTIL’s healthy existence, and re-emphasise the phenomenon and sanctity of “Limited Liability” beyond anything that may be misperceived and misarticulated to be irking and slovenly, in the whole episode.

No comments: