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.

(Source - http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/majority-of-ftil-shareholders-objects-to-nsels-amalgamation-with-it-115031000984_1.html) 

FTIL puts firm foot down - FTIL challenges MCA’s petition firmly; Court stays MCA’s petition till March 11 which has been further extended till March 16

At the outset, embattled state of affairs can be dispelled with rectitude and mettle. FTIL toughly rebutted the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ petition seeking supersession of the present board of directors of FTIL. Also, the Company Law Board (CLB) hearing that was to take place on 3^rd March, 2015, was stayed a day before, stating that it would be heard by the court on 4^th March, 2015, and no action will be initiated until then, according to the news reported by Business Standard on 2^nd March, 2015.

Further developments ensued, when the hearing took place before the court on 4^th March, 2015; the court adjourned the hearing till 11^th March, 2015 which has been further extended till March 16. In other words, the hearing for the petition filed by FTIL to stop the elimination of its board of directors, making FMC a party, will be heard on 16^th March, 2015. 

On 1^st March, 2015, Sunday, in the FT board meeting, a resolution was passed to oppose MCA’s petition to CLB seeking supersession of FTIL board strongly, terming it to be a clear attempt by MCA to render ineffective approach, and actually overthrow FTIL’s challenge and opposition to the proposed amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL.

“After considering on the matter and also considering that the issue is totally prejudice, mala-fide and not in the interest of FTIL its Board, its employees, its shareholders and other stake holders, we have decided to contest all issues raised by Union Of India vigorously as per the law of the land.”

Also, in the meeting, it was made clear that the material act of the new board since their joining has been its resolve to oppose the draft order and the proposed forced amalgamation by MCA, alluding such allegations of ‘mismanagement’ to be seemingly mala-fide and deserve to be challenged.

On the occasion, Mr.Venkat Chary, acting Chairman, FTIL, said, “After considering on the matter and also considering that the issue is totally prejudice, mala-fide and not in the interest of FTIL its Board, its employees, its shareholders and other stake holders, we have decided to contest all issues raised by Union Of India vigorously as per the law of the land.” He further added that as the Board is competent enough to deal with the current situation, the company will file a petition before the Honourable Bombay High Court or the Company Law Board or at any other appropriate forum as it deems fit.

In the meeting, It was further resolved that it is inequitable to seek replacement of the entire board since four legal suits are sub judice, which includes the representative suit, fit and proper and writ petition filed opposing amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL, as per the FTIL’s press note published on BSE website on 2^nd March, 2015.

FT also added in their press note that the board strongly believes that it has acted prudently in the larger interest of over 63000 shareholders.

It was further stated by the court that FTIL and its lenders are yet to file a reply to the MCA by 4^th March, 2015, stating why the NSEL-FTIL merger should not take place. FT has endeavoured to ply forward with grit to whittle out a trajectory, to legitimately protect the interests of all the shareholders, employees and other stakeholders.

Now, as per the latest developments that took place on 4^th March, 2015, the stay is retained by the court till 11^th March, 2015; the objective is to restrain the government, and seek reply from the ministry of corporate affairs.

 (Source 1 – 1. http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/ftil-opposes-mca-s-petition-to-clb-for-removal-of-ftil-board-in-court-115030200113_1.html

2.  http://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachLive/Financial_Technologies_(India)_Ltd_020315.pdf

3. http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/hc-extends-stay-on-ftil-board-s-supersession-for-a-week-115030400890_1.html) 

FTIL Considers ATOM, DGCX Stakes Sale; urges shareholders to oppose merger of FTIL-NSEL

Departing mobile transaction and payment gateway – ATOM, is being contemplated by FTIL; there have been indications from FTIL of this revelation. It intends to sell 95% of the stake of the subsidiary of FTIL. It has also pointed out its intentions of divesting from Bourse Africa and Bahrain Financial Exchange, apart from its 27.3% stake in Dubai Gold and Commodity, according to the news piece featured in Business Standard on 26^th February, 2015.

Many in the business world may have been slow on the uptake, then FTIL came into being with innovative ideas and solutions, and ATOM was one of them. Thus the exchange business and its stakeholders got a perpetual whirl to enjoy the comfort of easy transactions.

A letter from Mr. Venkat Chary to 68000 FTIL shareholders indicated all of those, besides his appeal to them to oppose the merger of NSEL-FTIL merger as per the suggestions of Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

“as it is against the interest of FTIL shareholders and not legal, as NSEL is a limited liability company”.

The content of the letter indicates that the government may have sought this as recourse to compensate investors; but on the other hand, as per the content of the letter, Rs.2, 153 crore has been released by FTIL through sale of various assets and the stake sale processes. Thus he urges, in his letter, to the shareholders, to oppose the proposed merger, saying, “as it is against the interest of FTIL shareholders and not legal, as NSEL is a limited liability company.”

On the occasion, FTIL had also listed the cash and asset positions of the company in detail. More than might, rectitude and intents to take care of shareholders, employees and scrupulously thinking about limited liability as sacrosanct is believed to make right. Apart from FTIL, significant minority shareholders of FTIL viz. Bharat and Ravi Sheth, and earlier, four banks – DBS Bank, Union Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and Syndicate Bank, had opposed the merger.

It would be to the business world’s chagrin, if radical and imposing demeanour is adopted. At the foreground, going by several views and news in the recent past by numerous media mouthpieces, it visibly emerges that merger will, most definitely, enervate the sanctity of business functioning and limited liability tradition terribly. The gravitas of the situation needs to be given due attention, as it is supposed to impact many aspirations, careers and growth of the economy at large.

(Source - http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ftil-in-talks-to-sell-stake-in-atom-dgcx-115022600748_1.html) 

Is the government targeting FTIL under Sections 397, 398 read with Section 388 (B), 388 (C), 401, 402, 403, 406 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956, to negate the company’s challenge to Section 396?

And so the FTIL saga continues. In the latest edition, another salvo was fired by the government against FTIL. In the most recent attempt to annihilate FTIL’s existence as an independent business enterprise, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in a petition to Company Law Board (CLB) had sought to supersede Financial Technologies (India) Ltd. (FTIL)’s current board under Sections 397, 398 read with Section 388 (B) and 388 (C) 401, 402, 403, 406 and 408.

No doubt the government has immense power to rein in errant and unlawful actions of companies. FTIL, an independent company, cannot and should not be punished when all the matters are sub-judice.

In any case, from all angles, the decision of MCA to file an instant company petition on March 3 with CLB is nothing short of browbeating the company into submission. More so as it comes just three days before the time given to FTIL to file its objections to the draft amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL on grounds of “public interest” in which 63,000 shareholders and other stakeholders’ interests were not considered at all.  

The matter also has legal ramification for all companies incorporated and conducting business in the country. The central government is attempting to render FTIL’s challenge to Section 396 nugatory by attempting to remove the existing Board of FTIL.

Was MCA’s petition an attempt to stop FTIL from filing its objections to the draft merger order as granted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on February 4? 

The main arguments used by MCA in its petition to CLB are wrong and should not be used to overturn the legally elected Board of Directors of FTIL.

The MCA says FTIL’s current Board opposes the amalgamation of National Spot Exchange (NSEL) with FTIL.

The reality:

For the current Board, its fiduciary responsibility toward the 63,000 shareholders and other stakeholders of the company, including employees, is of paramount importance. In any civilized country governed by the covenants of business law, this is the practice.

Also, the use of “essential public interest” as a ground by MCA to propose the amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL is sub-judice.

The MCA further says that the current Board of Directors facilitated the sale of MCX at a loss of Rs. 290 crore and should be overthrown.

The reality:  

.As for sale of FTIL’s stake in MCX, the divestment was conducted in an independent and transparent manner. J M Finance was appointed as the financial advisor for the stake sale in March 2014. Interested companies were invited to bid. Among the reputed companies that showed interest in the stake sale were Reliance Capital, Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), Tata Capital, Kotak, Warburg Pincus and London Metal Exchange.

There were numerous letters from MCX insisting that FTIL divest its shares in a short time. Those letters stated that the regulator, i.e., Forward Markets Commission (FMC) would not permit launch of any new contracts by MCX unless there is compliance with the divestment.

It was FMC, through its various directives, including the not “fit and proper” person to continue to hold 2% or more paid-up capital in MCX order that forced FTIL to exit MCX and the same was confirmed by MCA in its Petition.

The interests of the shareholders and other stakeholders of FTIL were of paramount importance for the Board of Directors, which acted in a transparent manner to derive the appropriate value for the divestment in the relevant market and regulatory conditions.  

It is unlawful and wrong of MCA to supersede the Board of Directors of FTIL. It is also unprecedented in the history of corporate India and will set a wrong example for future business entrepreneurs and lawmakers. 

Status Quo on Merger vacated – expected to imperil several stakes in one go

Who will reverse the irreversible after the damage is done? On 4 February, 2015, Bombay High Court vacated the status quo in the NSEL-FTIL merger order by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). The court had ordered status quo in the matter on 27 November, 2014. Now, it has vacated its order allowing the government to pass a final order, after hearing from all stakeholders and parties viz. NSEL, FTIL, shareholders, creditors and others affected and related in the case. The decision was held by the two judge bench consisting of Justice V M Kanade and Justice Revati Mohite Dere.

The government was ordered to proceed with the hearings within 4 weeks and issue the final order within 4 weeks from then on, reported by Business Standard on February 4, 2015. As per the news reported, the order will become effective in two weeks from this time.

"In case of adverse order, however, the petitioner (FTIL in this case) may come back to the court. The final order would be kept in abeyance till the hearing continues in this court. The government's final order will be subject to the court's approval," the court said.

The government was perhaps in a hurry for action, thus acted in a breakneck speed on FMC’s recommendation of merger, on 21 October, 2014; it was a view and voice of myriad from the business world besides the media vents. It was time and again decried against by many, in vain. It was also denounced saying though the merger order was as per section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, but it is usually done in the public interest, which was missing in this case.

On the occasion, incorporation of legal validity of the government’s order was urged for by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, NSEL’s senior counsel; he further questioned if it was in government’s jurisdiction to pass the merger order.

He argued saying, "Under Section 396 of the Companies Act, two public sector companies can be merged only in public interest provided the government is prima facie satisfied that the amalgamation will benefit shareholders and all concerned of the two companies which is absent in this case. While FTIL is a business oriented company with 63,000 shareholders with it, NSEL is a separate entity with no business and only liabilities. No rules in the world suggest merger of two legal entities with varied business interest." (As per the news report by Business Standard, February 4, 2015)

It was alleged by him that the government’s issued draft order, seemingly said to be the final order, was to protect the interest of 781 high net-worth investors (HNIs), whose total investments amount to 66% of the total defaulted sum of Rs. 5600 crore.

"The proposed merger order, if any, would be irreversible and hence would open a floodgate of litigations as a number of litigations of similar nature are pending before various courts."

Supplementing it, Janak Dwarkadas, another FTIL counsel said, “.. the government's draft order takes care of just 781 traders and completely neglects 63000 shareholders and 1500 employees of FTIL." (As per the news report by Business Standard, February 4, 2015)

Further, government’s counsel, Ranjit Kumar’s allegation that saving ‘Odin’ as FTIL’s core business and the sale of assets like Bourse Africa and Bahrain was in violation of the status quo order was rejected by the court.

On this, a Mumbai-based corporate lawyer reacted saying, "The proposed merger order, if any, would be irreversible and hence would open a floodgate of litigations as a number of litigations of similar nature are pending before various courts." (As per the news report by Business Standard, February 4, 2015)

(Source - http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bombay-hc-vacates-status-quo-order-on-ftil-nsel-merger-115020401320_1.html) 

Proceeds pushed for next – Bombay HC adjourns NSEL-FTIL merger hearing

FTIL’s quest for pivots to save numerous stakes has been a determined effort. The Bombay Court, on 27 November, 2014, adjourned the NSEL-FTIL merger issue till 22 December, 2014. The merger draft order came as a stinker from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on 22^nd October, 2014, which was swilled by many from the business community and several of the media mouth pieces and vents ever since, calling it unwarranted and uncalled for. The swarming views were - the pragmatic shortcomings from the amalgamation will wear away the fundamentals of limited liability; it may also affect the corporate business moorings adversely, apart from discouraging new and enthusiastic investors and traders. In entirety, it may be detrimental to the economy as a whole.  

Apparently, the adjournment, if construed specifically, means the hearing has been deferred till 22 December, 2014; momentarily, it can be seen as the idea is devoid of enough reasoning, as the basis of Article 396 and ‘public interest’ nomenclature can’t be held to be entirely realising. Thus no parity can be drawn in this case. Also, as per a former argument by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for FTIL, at Supreme Court, section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, has been exercised, with a thoroughgoing approach, maximum four times, on government companies – that too, with their consent. While in this case, the rummage for expedited merger implementation is on two private companies; needless to say, without their consent, which is unprecedented. Implicitly, the motive seems to be ‘hurried implementation’, which, as per several views and reviews, will emasculate the sanctity of limited liability, affecting the interests of stakeholders, viz. employees and shareholders of FTIL, largely. Therefore, it hasn’t been taken in good taste, for the most part.

It’s been a dour demeanour of FTIL; at first, challenging government’s order for merger of NSEL with FTIL. Then tenaciously striding ahead to protect the sanctity of ‘limited liability.’ Earlier, FTIL had moved Bombay HC against the government’s order. Vehemently put by FTIL, against several arguments – the matter is currently sub-judice before the Bombay HC; thus liability through piercing the corporate veil does not arise.

Myriad voices and arguments against the order were put forward by the business community as well as the media fraternity, to galvanise the matter to reach the authoritative and law dispensing ears. Their objective, seemingly, was to converge fortitudes of the stakeholders, future investors and entrepreneurs at large.

As per the excerpts, mentioned in quotes in the news edit of Economic Times, on 13^th Nov., 2014, reads – “The issue of lifting the corporate veil is, thus, already sub-judice before this court. The petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the papers and proceedings, including various interlocutory applications and orders passed by this Hon-'ble Court, in the said suits."

Now, FTIL is all the more determined to protect the interests of the corporate India, along with those of 60,000 shareholders and 1000 employees. On 21^st October, 2014, questions have been raised on the Ministry Corporate Affairs’ impugned order of enforced amalgamation of the crisis-hit NSEL with FTIL. FTIL solicited in the petition that the government’s order was “bad in law and needs to be quashed.”

FTIL spurs against government merger order in HC

Amidst the attempts to entrench an off beam precedent by calling for NSEL-FTIL merger; whilst myriad media vents calling it untenable, there’s barely a recourse to save the sanctity of limited liability. Also, the hoot and holler of the business community against the merger order has gone unheeded.

Fending off the unwarranted blitzkrieg is perhaps the panacea to subdue the tempest, thus FTIL moved the Bombay HC for reprieve.

Several actions were intrepid and radical, resonating impulse activism. Distraughtly, a recommendation of the NSEL-FTIL merger by Forward Markets Commission (FMC) led to a draft order by the government. Not limiting to that, the government also indicated replication of actions taken against Satyam on FTIL; in other words, a complete take-over of the management, revamping the board. Every debate, redact and views by the media outlets across-the-board stated that government seems to be raring to impose actions on FTIL. Every now and then, it was stated by most of them, including FTIL that it will ‘defeat and destroy’ the fundamental edifice of limited liability and independent corporate personality in company law, but in vain.

Therefore, FTIL opted for legal resort; thus moved the court, to challenge the order. A petition filed by FTIL in the Bombay High Court against FMC, the commodity futures market and the government, raises crucial issues. Some of them happen to be, as stated in The Economic Times news report on12th Nov. 2014 - “the merger will destroy and defeat the fundamental edifice of limited liability and independent corporate personality in company law.” Secondly, “it will open the floodgates for vested interests for seeking such forced mergers of subsidiaries with their parent companies or other entities whenever there is a problem at the subsidiary level. Finally, “The company has also prayed, among others, that the court prohibit the government and its servants, agents, officers and subordinates from superseding, substituting or otherwise howsoever changing the management of FTIL.”

FTIL is equipoised to pursue the matter, propounding the issues strongly against the government draft order, based on FMC’s recommendations of amalgamation of NSEL with FTIL, under Section 396 of Companies Act 1956. The section is a provision to empower central government for mergers or amalgamation of companies in public interest.

The petition has been filed to challenge the constitutional cogency of Section 396 of Companies Act. The bone of contention is while the edict is being construed, the High Court should interpret that the provisions of the said statute, in order to confirm the same, to be constitutionally legal and valid. Further the petition contends that enactment of Section 396 of the Act was to make available precisely little exception pared out for adherence to the provisions of Section 394 and 395 of the Act – as these put down extensive provisions pertaining to the revamp or merger of companies, along with the supplementary components.

Supreme Court today dismissed the SLP filed by the trading clients challenging the Bombay High Court's Order dated 22.8.2014 granting bail to Mr Jignesh Shah.

NSEL-FTIL merger proposal- Standards ruptured. How Satyam case is different from FTIL’s.

Appalling ideas wished-for, to further impose on FTIL! Earlier, it was the proposed idea of NSEL-FTIL merger by Forward Markets Commission, which was subsequently ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA); then taking possession of FTIL management has been on government’s anvil. Now, is it just getting arms over resources or getting the claws into the healthily operational organisation, for which the activism is being sped up?

“The government owes the nation an explanation as to why and on what grounds the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) has been making these proposals to breach FTIL’s limited liability……..”(Source – EconomicTimes, Oct. 28, 2014. Edit, PageNo.16).

Would there be a tenable reasoning to all that the nation is looking up for. Also, suggests the excerpts of the Economic Times’ edit page titled “Who’s Targeting FTILBreaching all Norms?”It reads as –“It is entirely unwarranted to do a Satyam on FTIL, on the pretext of speeding up the process of recovery from the defaulting traders of NSEL.

The government owes the nation an explanation as to why and on what grounds the Forward Markets Commission(FMC)has been making these proposals to breach FTIL’s limited liability when no wrongdoing or improper pecuniary gain has yet been established against its management and when there are clearly identified defaulters who carried out trades with non-existent underlying stocks and whose obligation to pay is beyond dispute? And why have the ministries of law and corporate affairs been indulging in these patently misconceived demands by the FMC?”

As it has been talked on countless forums that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has identified and frozen the assets of the defaulters and a panel has been set up by the Bombay High Court for recovery, what’s the panic to merge and take over all about? But what’s more stroppy is that the hounding actions taken on Satyam are being proposed for FTIL.

Straightforwardly, these are two diverse gears! There are contrasting events in both the cases, thus no parity can be drawn between the two. FTIL’s case cannot be labelled as a corporate scandal.

Here are some contrasting reasons as to how FTIL’s case is far different from Satyam’s, in detail:

Firstly, in the case of Satyam, the promoter had confessed in writing to the regulator of his wrong-doings, whereas there was vehement and consistent denial by the promoter of FTIL, of any wrong-doings whatsoever. The matter of his culpability is sub-judice. Also, the question whether NSEL itself is liable for the trading losses incurred by the 13,000 clients of the brokers who traded on the NSEL platform for higher returns (“Trading Clients”) is currently sub-judice before the Bombay High Court. Hence, the question of FTIL being held liable through piercing the corporate veil does not arise.

Secondly, Satyam’s promoter confessed siphoning-off the company’s funds to his realty firm Maytas infra. Whereas in the case of FTIL, even after 12 months of investigation byEOW, ED and CBI, not a single paisa of the Trading Clients’ money traced eitherto NSEL, Mr. Jignesh Shah or FTIL. On the contrary, the entire money of the Trading Clients (i.e. Rs. 5,500 Crores) has been traced to 22 Defaulters who used that for repaying loans, working capital requirements, real estate and luxury cars. In fact, 85% of the Trading Clients’ money is with just 7 Defaulters. Both the above aspects confirmed by the Bombay High Court’s Order of 22 August 2014 granting bail to Mr. Jignesh Shah.

Thirdly, Satyam’s promoter confessed fudging of books of account of Satyam. But in FTIL’s case, No major irregularities found in the ROC’s inspection of FTIL. FTIL audited by one of the Big-4 accounting firms which has not found any irregularities in FTIL’s accounts so far. Further, no loan defaults by FTIL till date have been found. FTIL was granted licenses to set up exchanges by Indian regulators (such as SEBI, CERC, FMC) and overseas regulators such as Singapore, Dubai, Mauritius, Bahrain etc. after thorough due-diligence and background check of the company and its promoters.

Thus, in the case of Satyam, there was a fraud in the company (i.e. Satyam) itself perpetrated by the promoters who were also in management. Hence, the remedy was to change the management- whereas in the case of FTIL, no fraud has been detected by the courts or investigating agencies. It is a case of payment and settlement defaults at FTIL’s subsidiary NSEL due to the 22 Defaulters failing to honor their pay-in obligations towards NSEL. Hence, the remedy lies in chasing these Defaulters and ensuring recovery of the Trading Clients’ monies from them.

In spite of all that, the actions are planned to be cuffed on FTIL. The sanctity of limited liability is expected to hobble with such actions, and it’s been time and again voiced out by numerous media houses. ‘Coming up good times’, as the colloquial more coined now and then - will it see the times when norms and laws are not violated, and also, the rights and ‘limited liability’ privileges of the investors across-the-board are protected, by even-handed outlook.

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDUCTS MR. BERJIS DESAI AND MR. ANIL SINGHVI ON ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Link- http://bit.ly/111SFVZ

Unprecedented Shocker - NSEL-FTIL merger

NSEL – FTIL amalgamation is supposed to be an unnerving move for all, juddering establishments and tenets of law - particularly, the Companies Act. Outnumbering excerpts of myriad media releases and stories have been of the view, and have articulately indicated that frequently. 

As one in the Business World editor’s note reads as - “As per the order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, NSEL will have to merge with FTIL and lose its existence. As a result, FTIL will have to bear the consequences of the Rs 5,574-crore fraud. The owners of the remaining 55 per cent will also bear the brunt. This goes against the fundamentals of limited liability. The reason so many companies register themselves as ‘limited’ is because shareholder’s liability is limited to the investment in the company.” Most in the business and media realm are crestfallen by the move. Beyond principles, the most startling side is how a limited company can be liable for another company’s liabilities.

Clearly, the shockwave is unprecedented for various reasons. First - the legal proceeds ascertained that there has been no trail of money leading to the promoters of the company. Second - It is also seen as a pre-judgement of Bombay High Court’s order, wherein the case is still being pursued, and the matter is sub-judice. Third - As the whole pursuit has been for recovery of trading clients’ monies, recently a historic order was passed by the Bombay High Court to form a 3-member committee that will determine the assets of the defaulters - this, obviously, came as a reprieve for the trading clients of NSEL. Thus the merger call by the MCA defeats the fundamental edifice of limited liability which is the basic principle of company law; as the law has been laid down to ensure limited liabilities are efficiently and impeccably managed.

“As per the order of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, NSEL will have to merge with FTIL and lose its existence. As a result, FTIL will have to bear the consequences of the Rs 5,574-crore fraud. The owners of the remaining 55 per cent will also bear the brunt.

This goes against the fundamentals of limited liability. The reason so many companies register themselves as ‘limited’ is because shareholder’s liability is limited to the investment in the company.” (Source –Editor’s Note, Business World)

Experts may be of the opinion that the move may inflate the potential of raising questions at the country’s highest court  - ‘if the law is being abided by’ or being bent based on bureaucrats’ decisions? If yes, then the merit of law perhaps is being subverted out of prejudices. Then, for sure, it can be said as ‘the off beam precedent’ will undermine the sanctity of the ‘limited liability.’ 

FTIL - NSEL Merger – A marring move

In the wake of government’s proposal to revamp FTIL board following its order to merge NSEL with FTIL last week, the business community at large cedes it to be starkly unsavoury. The move has been debated on various media mouthpieces calling it unwarranted or “a bad precedent.” It has been countered by FTIL maintaining all the while that all efforts pertaining to recovery are being diligently escalated. Also, FTIL is a healthily functional company with the strength of over 1000 employees and over 60,000 shareholders; therefore, persecuting FTIL will be prejudiced and uncalled-for, for expediting recovery from the defaulters.

The outcry has gone unheard, and the merger proposed by Forward Market Commission (FMC) is believed to culminate, making all those who haven’t invested for it bear the brunt of liability. The massively voiced standpoint ‘why to foist one’s liability on the other’ has gone unheeded. The merger will not only have a tumbling impact on the tradition of limited liability - mainly, on the corporate India, but it will also discourage investors from investing in various portfolios, impacting the economy adversely. It is also viewed as the nosedive of defaulters to the extent of duping trading clients is being ignored, besides disregarding FTIL’s diligent recovery efforts.  

What’s more thwarting is that there’s no charge against the company itself, with no trace of fund squandering even to the promoters, yet the move has been initiated. Needless to say, the sanctity of the bourse and markets is being imperilled, setting a wrong precedent. On various occasions during the proceeds of the case, Bombay HC’s observation on some portraying as traders, being sceptical about their legitimacy as traders has been emphasised time and again, which has also been utterly condoned.

More precisely, Limited Liability of a parent company determines the amount of money and resources the company has invested in its subsidiary company; this emerges as the straightforward norm of modern financial officialdom, which is seen as being “violated and forsaken” and, principally, believed to send wrong indication to present and future investors. Thus, it will have a surging effect on the economy, as the ‘limited liability’ model is an indispensable offshoot to propel entrepreneurship and investment.

It is commonly viewed that a small section of trading clients claiming their money may not constitute a vast majority of people, thus the parity of ‘public interest’ action is far from being apt to the Companies Act provision, especially, in this scenario. The protection of public interest mechanism is equally workable across-the-board; therefore, safeguarding interests of parent company’s shareholders, employees and stakeholders at large is as much essential, which is being overlooked. As a result, to protect a handful of brokers of the crisis-hit NSEL, staking a colossal cluster of 60,000 investors and over 1000 employees of FTIL, is simply based on a decision of the bureaucracy. How far it is wise to substitute FTIL’s stakeholders’ liabilities and interests for NSEL’s, needs a relook, and a popular perspective.