Bar&Bench News Network
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has banned Pyramid Saimira Theater (PST) is from dealing in securities or accessing the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of 7 years for irregularities in the 2006 IPO.
PST's IPO in 2006 was oversubscribed 15.5 times in the retail category, 28.09 times in the high-net-worth category, and 17.18 times in the institutional segment. Surprisingly, only 0.015 percent of the shares allocated were subscribed to by its employees. SEBI found that PST had allotted 98.5 percent of shares reserved under the employee category to seven persons who were not on the rolls of the company.
Partner Somasekhar Sundaresan assisted by associate Ravichandra S. Hegde of J. Sagar Associates argued on behalf of PST that it had relaxed company policy permitting flexible working hours and enabled payment of salaries in cash respect of the seven persons. The member went on to conclude that PSTL had colluded with the seven persons and used fraudulent methods to corner the shares under the employee quota. SEBI was represented by its Legal officers Sudha Rani and Kshama Wagherkar.
Whole time member of the SEBI, M.S Sahoo, ordered the ban on PST. P.S. Saminathan, Managing Director, Pyramid Saimira Theatre, speaking to the media described the order as "ridiculous" and said the company would appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal and "every other forum available to us".
Pyramid has been at the centre of several stock market scams. In April this year SEBI had banned Nirmal Kotecha and P.S Saminathan from accessing the stock market. The SEBI order follows an investigation which revelaed a fake SEBI order in December 2008 and its impact on the share price of PST shares that benefited Kotecha, who sold the stock in December 2008. Senior Counsel Janak Dwarkadas argued the matter on behalf of Kotecha before the SEBI.
|
- 1. "It is time for SEBI to show that it has enough teeth.". Desai, Mumbai
- 2. "Kotecha has clearly engineered the order with the aid of a few "regulators" on his payroll. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest that Saminathan had colluded with Kotecha in the latter's nefarious acts, though SEBI has held on to circumstancial evidences to pass the fatwa on Sami". Makarand, Mumbai
Related Stories
- SEBI appoints committee to revamp Takeover Code; Achutan, Somasekhar Sundaresan and Kumar Desai represent the legal community
- Reliance Infratel files DRHP again, retains same legal team
- No Legal heavyweights for Satyam's Raju; SEBI seeks replies to show cause notice by October 31
- 20 years of Sachin 'Ton'dulkar - Legal tussles: Ferrari, CA, National Flag and Terrorists
- Jayalalithaa’s million-dollar appearance worth it? 50 member legal team arrive from Chennai
- MCX-SX and SEBI legal tussle: Bombay HC rules in favour of MCX-SX; JSA for MCX-SX and Naik for promoter
- MCX-SX and SEBI legal tussle: Bombay HC rules in favour of MCX-SX; JSA for the exchange and Naik for promoter
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










