Zee approaches NCLAT to challenge NCLT order in Invesco case
A very interesting artcile on the Zee vs Invesco story,only 4 hours old.It talks about the arguments used by both sides in this case.It might interest you.
1 Like
One more news item like this…(now turned it into India vs China)
I am sharing just for FYI and it is interesting to see how company is trying every way to shut Invesco.
Thanks!
If anyone interested to read order from NCLT. It seems that bench is pretty clear on issue and just to give the time to senior advocate and fair chance to prepare.
NCLT
Filing number : 2709138048512021
Zeel case nclt 5th oct.pdf (1.9 MB)
NCLAT
Filing number : 9910138048212021
There are total 4 filing but you can see status using any one of them.
Later today, we should have NCLAT order.
Thanks!
In judgement
“It is pertinent to mention that Section 98 of the Companies Act,
does not prescribe any time limit or limitation on the Learned NCLT to
pass order within that time limit. Engrafting the provisions of Section
100(4) in Section 98 would be wholly misconceived and untenable.
Undisputedly, the reliefs sought in the Company Petition are specifically
under Section 98 of the Companies Act. Given that Section 98 does not
prescribe any time limit, the Learned NCLT ought to have granted
reasonable time to the Appellant to file a reply.”
zee NCLAT.pdf (463.7 KB)
In short, we need wait more to see any final result.
Thanks!
1 Like
Invesco has in Indian tribunal hearings said it’s not against the Zee-Sony plan, but its filing does criticize how the two entered into talks.
The Sony deal would allow Chandra’s family to raise their shareholding to up to 20%, from 4% now, Invesco said, adding that it was “plainly an attempt to distract the general public” and stall the convening of a shareholder meet.
Invesco writes open letter to Zee shareholders.
“We wish to clarify the issues on which we will not compromise in connection with any transaction, and where we will continue to make our voice, and our vote, heard. We will firmly oppose any strategic deal structure that unfairly rewards select shareholders, such as the promoter family, at the expense of ordinary shareholders. In all potential alignments, we expect appropriate disclosures regarding the future leadership and governance of the company”
1 Like
Its getting interesting. Goenka and Co. spinning up a new tale to pin down Invesco as the villain. Zee investors are in for a ride with all this Corporate Drama.
Discl: Exited before merger news. Tracking.
1 Like
The plot thickens
“We wish to make clear that the potential transaction proposed by Reliance (the ‘strategic group’ referenced but not disclosed in the October 12 communication by Zee) was negotiated by and between Reliance and Goenka and others associated with ZEE’s promoter family. The role of Invesco, as ZEE’s single largest shareholder, was to help facilitate that potential transaction and nothing more,” Invesco said in a statement.
Now…
3 Likes
“A single-judge Bench of Justice G S Patel said the EGM resolutions will be kept in abeyance for a week thus, giving time to approach the courts to contest the legality and validity of the EGM requisition made by Invesco. The court also proposed that a retired judge or a neutral person chair the EGM. The ZEEL board is currently chaired by R Gopalan.”
Does this direction of the court imply that the court has doubts about the independence of the current chairman?
Is there still some doubt about “independence” of the current chairman, looking at all the actions of the board regarding corporate governance?
2 Likes
1 Like
What exactly does the court verdict say and on what basis?
1 Like
Sometimes, it happens that a company must be saved from its own shareholders, however well-intentioned, the Bombay High Court held in the dispute between Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. and Invesco Developing Markets Fund.
If a shareholder resolution is bound to cause a corporate enterprise to run aground on the always treacherous shoals of statutory compliance, there is no conceivable or logical reason to allow such a resolution even to be considered, the high court said
Explaining its conclusion, the high court said a perfectly legal resolution, if carried, may well result in the diminution of the company’s profits or business. That is not a court’s concern. But the resolution must be legal, it said.
The court said it cannot see how Goenka can be removed at all, leaving a managerial void only to be possibly later filled. His removal causes an immediate vacancy and non-compliance.
Source: Zee Vs Invesco: Shareholders Have No Greater Immunity, Bombay High Court Says
2 Likes
Zee-Invesco row: A look at what happens next after Bombay HC bars Invesco from calling EGM
Any Updates on today’s Zee Entertainments Merge?
1 Like