Move to carry out sale of the entire Future Retail undertaking through a series of inter-connected transactions will set a dangerous precedent and could hurt public interest.
With the crisis continuing, Indian mutual funds halved their holdings of debt sold by shadow lenders in the two-year period to June after defaults by some major financiers.
Sebi has also relaxed time-gap required between two board meetings & companies have been given time till 15 May for filing quarterly governance reports.
Bank’s lending growth was substantially over the average credit growth of the banking industry, with experts saying the board should have been more proactive in flagging it.
Now that SEBI has started the clean-up, it must take its broom to the dark crevices. Even the conduct of bigger intermediaries needs closer supervision.
Under fire in the wake of whistleblower complaints on alleged accounting lapses at Infosys, Nandan Nilekani had said company processes were so strong that even God couldn't change the numbers.
Just like Phase 3, in this round too, the NDA stands to lose ground due to the sheer number of seats it had won the last time — 39 of the 49 seats, of which the BJP alone had won 32.
India’s defence sector is trying to penetrate the African market. But with China already extending significant influence, India must now play catch-up.
Discussion about outcome of Lok Sabha polls continues to boil in cauldron of expectations only from BJP. Now reverse this equation, what if we asked about the performance of the 'loser'?
Dude, you are either a sellout or you have no concept of Bigger Picture.
Answer this
What would investors prefer: Future Group Sale gets cancelled and the company goes bankrupt due to piling debt and the creditors are left unpaid
Or
It merges with Reliance and prospers towards a better future expanding sales, repaying all its debt and increasing profits.
Besides this, as evident from employee led movements against Big Tech (including Amazon) in western countries it is clear that employees also have an equally important stake as investors, so do the creditors. So what a company does should take into account that as well.
This smells like a paid article. The Print keeps on appealing for subscriptions. Perhaps they have started taking money to swing public opinion.
By far one of the stupidest articles I’ve come across, not surprising at al. The Print needs to start working towards a Better internship intake programme
I find no argument put up in the article above that talks about corporate governance violations.
Even I am not clear if the author wants to talk about foreign Investors sentiments.
May be the author wants to argue about the contractual obligations.
But sorry to say, author fails to put accross any of the three facets convensingly.
Amazon has no direct stake in furture retail. Their investment is in future coupon.
In the entire article i fail to find how F retail is in violation of corporate governance?
If the author of the article is taking of ethical aspect or the foreign investor sentiment, thats a different issue all together.
Further, Amazon did not have direct stage in future retail. They have their investment in future coupon. It is correct on their part to indirectly seek control of a company without making any investment.
How can Amazon demand full rights by pat by just 1400 crores for an entity which would have been worth atleast 50 times more.
Even now why Amazon doesn’t better Reliance offer? If it cannot match/come up with better offer then it will be deemed as it has abdicated its right if refusal.
Also, Amazon cannot invest or having controlling stake in multi brand retail. So it’s deal is null and void ( void ab initio)
Biyanis of future are have been fleecing everybody since they started their business.How many times they have unlocked value,sliced off divisions,sold shares and what not. They entered into agreement with Reliance and intended to cheat Amazon. But how Mukesh Ambani fellfor it.Theyshouldhave asked to see agreement with Amazon before giving single paise.
Lol…not sure what you mean by saying Amazon was aware of the deal and approached SIAC months later…so what ? Amazon had a right to first refusal and non-compete clause with the Future group and that’s the main point in this article which is already widely known but Indian corporates are well known for not adhering to contracts and trying to weasel their way out of contracts once signed.
Dude, you are either a sellout or you have no concept of Bigger Picture.
Answer this
What would investors prefer: Future Group Sale gets cancelled and the company goes bankrupt due to piling debt and the creditors are left unpaid
Or
It merges with Reliance and prospers towards a better future expanding sales, repaying all its debt and increasing profits.
Besides this, as evident from employee led movements against Big Tech (including Amazon) in western countries it is clear that employees also have an equally important stake as investors, so do the creditors. So what a company does should take into account that as well.
This smells like a paid article. The Print keeps on appealing for subscriptions. Perhaps they have started taking money to swing public opinion.
By far one of the stupidest articles I’ve come across, not surprising at al. The Print needs to start working towards a Better internship intake programme
I find no argument put up in the article above that talks about corporate governance violations.
Even I am not clear if the author wants to talk about foreign Investors sentiments.
May be the author wants to argue about the contractual obligations.
But sorry to say, author fails to put accross any of the three facets convensingly.
Amazon has no direct stake in furture retail. Their investment is in future coupon.
In the entire article i fail to find how F retail is in violation of corporate governance?
If the author of the article is taking of ethical aspect or the foreign investor sentiment, thats a different issue all together.
Further, Amazon did not have direct stage in future retail. They have their investment in future coupon. It is correct on their part to indirectly seek control of a company without making any investment.
Paid article !
How can Amazon demand full rights by pat by just 1400 crores for an entity which would have been worth atleast 50 times more.
Even now why Amazon doesn’t better Reliance offer? If it cannot match/come up with better offer then it will be deemed as it has abdicated its right if refusal.
Also, Amazon cannot invest or having controlling stake in multi brand retail. So it’s deal is null and void ( void ab initio)
Biyanis of future are have been fleecing everybody since they started their business.How many times they have unlocked value,sliced off divisions,sold shares and what not. They entered into agreement with Reliance and intended to cheat Amazon. But how Mukesh Ambani fellfor it.Theyshouldhave asked to see agreement with Amazon before giving single paise.
Lol…not sure what you mean by saying Amazon was aware of the deal and approached SIAC months later…so what ? Amazon had a right to first refusal and non-compete clause with the Future group and that’s the main point in this article which is already widely known but Indian corporates are well known for not adhering to contracts and trying to weasel their way out of contracts once signed.
A lot of things happening these last few years are a danger sign for the public good at large.
Your article is a decently biased one and bought propaganda is evident.
The time line you so conveniently mention is incorrect. Amazon was aware of reliance/ frl deal and approached SIAC months later.
Amazon’s conduct in deviously misleading SEBI is quite opaque in your article.
It’s ok. I Guess given the pandemic your newspaper has to raise funding from somewhere too 🙂