Sunday, October 19, 2014

[aaykarbhavan] Business standard update and legal digest



Any misrepresentation in prospectus is treated as fraud


SUDIPTO DEY

Even as the action moves to the Securities Appellate Tribunal in the case involving the capital market regulator putting a ban on DLF Ltd and several of its directors, it may be worth taking a look at what charges of misrepresentation in initial public offer prospectus means under the Companies Act 2013.

Several company law experts and law firms that Business Standard spoke to did not want to be quoted citing conflict in business interest.

To start with, there is no specific definition of misrepresentation in prospectus under the Companies Act, 2013. " The way it is described is any statement which is untrue or misleading in form or context in which it is included or where any inclusion or omission of any matter is likely to mislead," said a corporate lawyer, quoting the Act.

Misrepresentation is construed as " any statement which is made, which is false in any material particulars, knowing it to be false, or which omits any material fact, knowing it to be material," he added.

Civil and criminal liabilities follow if the promoters are found guilty of misrepresentation.

Section 34 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with criminal liability for misstatement — it has the same liability as that of fraud under Section 447 of the Act.

As per Section 447 a person guilty of fraud shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term ranging from six months to 10 years.

He is also liable to a fine, which can extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud. In cases where the fraud involves public interest, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than three years.

"Since, in this case, an IPO public interest is involved, any misstatement in the prospectus will lead to a minimum punishment of three years," said another lawyer.

Section 35 of the Companies Act provides for civil liability for misstatement in prospectus.

Under Section 36, those liable to pay compensation include the directors of the company at the time of the issue of the prospectus and the promoters, among others, to every person who has sustained loss or damage.

According to Section 37 of the Act, those seeking compensation have to file a law suit.

A corporate law expert said any claim made by an investor or a shareholder will have to be proved in a court of law. " The compensation will be decided by the court bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case," he added.

Though the Companies Act provides for affected shareholders or investors to file class action law suit against the company, however the provision will not get invoked as this section in the Act is yet to be notified, said Rajesh Narain Gupta, managing partner, SNG & Partners.

COMPANIES ACT, 2013

Family firms focus on business sustainability


Last week, business dailies reported two news items from the corporate world with prominence.

The first news item relates to Infosys Limited. The last of the founders has exited the company. Founders have asked to be considered as ordinary shareholders, and not promoters. Narayan Murthy has declined to continue as Chairman Emeritus.

He will adopt a hands- off approach and will not get involved in management of the company.

However, before relinquishing office, he appointed Vishal Sikka, a professional manager as CEO. The promoters' holding in the company is around 16 per cent. The next news item relates to Reliance Industries Limited ( RIL). Two young siblings, daughter (Isha) and son ( Akash) of Mukesh Ambani and Tina Ambani have joined the boards of two subsidiaries of RIL, Reliance Jio Infocomm and Reliance Retail Limited. Both are 22- year- olds.

Thus, the third generation of Ambanis has joined the family business. Which of the two news items is more important from investors' perspective? Founders of Infosys are technocrats and first generation entrepreneurs.

None of them belong to any business family. They controlled and managed the company as professionals. Therefore, their exit as promoters would not change the basic structure of corporate governance, except that it might be a bit easier for the board of directors to sack the CEO, if necessary, in a crisis situation, for example, if the company fails in the product market or capital market. It is good news only to the extent that Sikka will get a free hand in driving the company.

Appointment of Isha and Akash as directors of subsidiaries of RIL is to be viewed as a part of the grooming process. Globally, the trend in family business is to educate and groom the young generation to enable them to take higher responsibilities of managing group companies.

Mukesh Ambani was inducted in RIL at the age of 24. Induction of the third generation in a family business is very important news from investors' perspective. This ensures longevity of the business and continuance of the family culture.

The general perception is that the quality of corporate governance in a family business is not as good as it is in a non- family business.

This is a myth. In a Harvard Business Review article ( What you can learn from family business, HBR, November 2012) the authors reported that their research could collect evidence that family business is more resilient than companies that are not familycontrolled.

The findings are based on the study of 149 publicly traded, family- controlled businesses, with revenues of more than $ 1 billion located in United States, Canada, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Mexico. The way those companies are managed was compared with comparable companies, which are not controlled by families, in the same sectors and same countries. Research results revealed that during good economic times, familyrun companies don't earn as much money as companies with a more dispersed ownership structure.

But when the economy slumps, family firms far outshine their peers. Stewardship for future generations comes naturally in family businesses.

Strategy choices of family businesses are different from those of non- family businesses.

Family businesses focus on 'business sustainability' and they balance ' short- term' and 'long- term' better than nonfamily businesses.

Family businesses have their own challenges. The most important question that family businesses often face is whether the family should get predominance over business.

Researchers have reported that successful family businesses skillfully balance 'family governance' and ' company governance'.

However, it is not uncommon that family businesses go through crisis because of its linkage with family governance.

Similarly, family businesses often face crisis during transition from one generation to the next.

Succession planning, sibling rivalry and dispute among family members often put family businesses in difficult situations. The board of directors plays a totally different role in those situations than what is written in rule books. In those moments of crisis, the board guides the company to navigate through the critical phase. The responsibility of the board of directors is to help the company in enhancing firm value.

In a non- family business, the primary responsibilities of the board of directors are to appoint the right CEO and to ensure right strategy choices, balancing short- term and long- term.

In a family business, primary responsibility of the board of directors is to act as a sounding board, except in a crisis situation. In both types of companies, independent directors are expected to protect minority shareholders from management misfeasance.

Making too much noise about the ' monitoring role' of the board of directors in family businesses will do more harm than good to investors. One size does not fit all.

Professor and Head of the School of Corporate Governance and Public Policy, Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs; Advisor (Advanced Studies), Institute of Cost Accountants of India; Chairman, Riverside Management Academy Private Limited E- mail: asish. bhattacharyya@ gmail. com

Succession planning, sibling rivalry and dispute among family members can lead to difficult situations

Stewardship for future generations comes naturally in family businesses

ACCOUNTANCY

ASISH K BHATTACHARYYA

 

BRIEF CASEN [1] M J ANTONY 
A weekly selection of key court orders


More SC rules on bouncing cheques

While disposing of a batch of cheque bounce appeals with a 14- year history, the Supreme Court last week set forth six more guidelines to speed up trials in such cases. In the past few months, the court had issued some twenty other rules to be followed by the trial courts and high courts, since thousands of criminal cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act are clogging the judicial system. The new batch of cases was led by an appeal from Gujarat, titled Giriraj Proteins Ltd vs D M Finance. In one case, the trial court took about six years to acquit the person accused of issuing a cheque without adequate balance in the bank account. The appeal took more than that period in the high court, which only remitted the matter to the trial court due to technical faults. The third appeal reached the Supreme Court two years ago. Litigation took more than a decade because the high court ordered fresh trial after several years on procedural technicalities. The Supreme Court remarked: " To replay the whole laborious exercise after erasing the bulky records relating to earlier proceedings by bringing down all persons to the court once again would be sheer waste of time, energy and costs unless there is miscarriage of justice otherwise… Courts cannot overlook the realities and the serious impact on the pending cases in trial courts which are crammed with dockets, and how much that order would inflict hardship on many innocent persons.. The re- enactment of the whole labour might give the impression to the common man that law is more pedantic than pragmatic. Law is not an instrument to be used for inflicting sufferings on the people ."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reprieve for General Motors

The Supreme Court has stated that aconsumer court cannot impose penal compensation when the aggrieved person did not ask for it. In this case, General Motors vs Ashok Ramnik, the National Consumer Commission imposed compensation on the car manufacturer for selling its vehicles as SUV to 260 customers though the model did not qualify for that description. Ashok had a dream to drive in a sports model vehicle to the high hills. The brochure of General Motors promised exactly that. So he bought a Chevrolet Forester model for ₹ 14 lakh in 2004. But he was disappointed on several fronts and sued the firm for unfair trade practices like promising facilities which were not available. The district consumer forum asked the firm to return the money with costs of litigation and ₹ 5,000 for mental agony. The firm appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which found that it was not a SUV as was described in the brochures. So it asked the manufacturer to correct its claims in future ads. When the appeal was taken to the National Commission, it imposed ₹ 25 lakh compensation on the firm in the nature of punishment for unfair trade practice. ₹ 20 lakh would go to the consumer welfare fund of the government, the commission ordered. General Motors appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the National Commission had gone beyond its powers by imposing punitive damages, when the affected party did not ask for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> High courts not to hear trade disputes

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of M/ s IVT ( IB Valley Transport), coal carriers, against the Orissa High Court judgment which stated that it would not entertain commercial contract matters in a writ petition. A writ petition is meant mainly to remedy violations of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the view of the high court stating that in such disputes, the aggrieved party should file a suit or take other legal measures. In this case, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd floated tender and the coal carrier emerged as the lowest tenderer. After three years of executing the contract, disputes arose between the parties about the rate of minimum wages to be paid to the contract workers in the mines. The carrier insisted on the wage of ₹ 101 per day instead of ₹ 279 as suggested by the coal company. It filed a writ petition in the high court, which rejected it as not maintainable. The General Terms and Conditions provided for a mechanism for dispute resolution, according to which differences shall be resolved at the company level before resorting to legal remedies. Therefore, the carrier was asked to exhaust those remedies instead of rushing to the high court.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Caveat on ' equal pay for equal work'

The constitutional principle of ' equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied without verifying the nature of the work done by two classes of workers in an establishment, the Supreme Court has emphasised in the judgment, State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tilak Raj. The high court there had directed the government to pay higher scales to lab attendants as was given to lab assistants as they were purportedly doing similar work and there should be no discrimination.

On state's appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court judgment. It said that without looking into the qualification of the employees, their nature of the work, working conditions and other relevant factors, the high court should not have passed the order asking the government to pay equal wages for both classes of workers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Legal heat over ice cream name

The Delhi High Court last week dismissed the appeal of M/ s South India Beverages in a trade mark dispute over an ice cream brand. General Mills Marketing Inc, a US company, claimed the name Haagen- Dazs for its ice cream, dessert, sherbet, sorbet and frozen confections, stating that it had registered the mark in 1993, and the products were sold here since 2007. The name has no dictionary meaning. The Indian company used the mark DDaazs for its similar products. According to it, this name indicated the founder, who was Dwarka Das. The foreign company had moved the single judge of the high court last July to get an injunction against the Indian firm. It had been allowed. Now South Indian Beverages appealed to a division bench to vacate the injunction. The court rejected the prayer. The names were phonetically similar. So the consumer is likely to be confused. " A layman is not expected to have the same hair- splitting skills as an expert. A punctilious analysis is not necessary," the judgment said while giving 30 days to the Indian firm to exhaust the existing packaging materials.

 


--




A
​.Rengarajan​

Practicing  Company  Secretary
Chennai


Mobile 93810  11200

"
LET  US  SUPPORT  COMPANY  SECRETARY  BENEVOLENT  FUND  FOR  COMMON  CAUSE




__._,_.___

Posted by: CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment