Latest news with #CompaniesAct
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business
- Business Recorder
Adamjee Insurance to divest 6.5% stake in subsidiary
Adamjee Insurance Company Limited (AICL) has announced to divest 6.5% of its shareholding, amounting to 16.25 million shares, in its subsidiary, Adamjee Life Assurance Company Limited (ALIFE). The listed company disclosed the development in its notice to the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) on Friday. 'The board of directors of Adamjee Insurance Company Limited (AICL) in its emergent meeting held on June 20, 2025, has decided to offload 16,250,000 shares, i.e. 6.5% shareholding of its subsidiary Adamjee Life Assurance Company Limited (ALIFE) through off-market trades on PSX Portal to comply with the free-float requirements under Clause 5.4.1. of the PSX Regulations,' read the notice. The company shared that following this transaction, AICL's shareholding in ALIFE will reduce to 208,750,000 shares, i.e. 83.5% from 225,000,000 shares, i.e. 90% of the paid-up capital currently held. Incorporated in Pakistan on September 28, 1960, under the repealed Companies Act, 1913, now the Companies Act, 2017, Adamjee Insurance is engaged in the general insurance business.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Business
- The Hindu
HDFC Bank CEO moves Bombay High Court over FIR by Lilavati Trust
HDFC Bank's Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan has moved the Bombay High Court, seeking quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by Prashant Mehta, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which oversees Lilavati Hospital. The FIR accused him of accepting a sum of ₹2.05 crore as a bribe to help the Chetan Mehta Group allegedly retain illegal control of the charitable trust. In his petition, Mr. Jagdishan has denied all allegations, terming the complaint as 'false and motivated,' and arguing that the FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law intended to malign his reputation. When the petition came up for hearing on Wednesday (June 18, 2025) before a Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, both the judges recused themselves from hearing the case. Later in the day, the case was mentioned before another Division Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shyam Chandak, but Justice Kotwal recused from hearing the matter. The matter will now be reassigned to a new Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice and will be heard in due course of time. The FIR lodged earlier this month on June 6, with the Bandra Police Station under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), and 420 (cheating) under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Trust through its authorised representative Prashant Mehta. The FIR was filed pursuant to an order of a Magistrate court at Bandra, following the Trust's application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A June 9 statement by the Trust claimed that the purported payment was part of a wider plan to loot the Trust and that the banker and his family enjoyed free medical treatment at the hospital. The Trust has further alleged that it has placed deposits and investments worth ₹ 48 crore with HDFC Bank since the financial year 2022, suggesting a conflict of interest. It also accused Mr. Jagdishan of offering ₹ 1.5 crore under the pretext of corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds, allegedly, to destroy and forge evidence in an internal Trust dispute. The Trust has also alleged that despite judicial findings and multiple complaints, HDFC Bank failed to act, violating Section 166 of the Companies Act and SEBI governance mandates. Senior advocate Amit Desai, representing Mr. Jagdishan, denied all the allegations and called them 'outrageous' and 'preposterous'. 'One of the most absurd allegations was that he received money from trustees. The absurdity of the allegation is that he allegedly received ₹2 crore to harass HDFC Bank borrowers,' Mr. Desai submitted. The FIR is a retaliatory measure stemming from HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings against Splendour Gems Limited — a company owned by the Mehta family — which has defaulted on loans amounting to ₹ 65.22 crore in loans as of May 31, he said. 'These actions follow recovery proceedings initiated by the bank against a company owned by the father of one of the trustees. They now use the façade of Lilavati Trust to take action against us,' Mr. Desai said. The petition read that the FIR is liable to be quashed by the High Court as it is an abuse of the legal process, and the allegations made in the FIR are wholly motivated by mala fide intentions and do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. It also said that the petitioner has no relation whatsoever to the commission of the alleged offences, if any, and in fact the FIR is nothing but a malicious retaliation in relation to the ongoing recovery and enforcement proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank. 'The impugned order also ought to be quashed and set aside on the grounds that the impugned order is erroneous, bad in law as it has been passed in disregard to the mandatory requirements under Section 175 (3) of BNSS that should have been followed by the complainant.' The petition claimed that the present case against Mr. Jagdishan who has been recognised for his work by numerous awards and accolades, is nothing but a malicious attempt to scathe his name and reputation and of HDFC Bank that plays a significant role in the financial sphere of the country. 'Such criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the bank are the larger scheme of the debtors to scuttle away from paying the debt owned.'
The Citizen
a day ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Sharemax rescue vehicle on the brink as creditors circle
The moment Nova enters liquidation, its entire debenture debt becomes due and payable. Nova's previous head office in Pretoria, also the former head office of Sharemax. Picture: Moneyweb One of Nova Property Group's service providers has filed liquidation applications against the holding companies of six of its shopping centres – a move that could have serious consequences for former Sharemax investors. If Nova, the entity responsible for repaying these investors (who became debenture holders in terms of the Sharemax rescue scheme), is placed under provisional or final liquidation, all outstanding debentures would become immediately due and payable. Liquidation would also allow for a comprehensive investigation into the events that led to the group's financial collapse and the conduct of its directors and other key stakeholders. Bright Light Solar (BLS), a company that installed solar systems at several Nova shopping centres, filed the liquidation applications last week. BLS claims Nova owes it more than R4 million in unpaid electricity bills and R80 million in penalties for contractual breaches. It further alleges that Nova acted in bad faith and has abused legal processes to delay payment. 'Given the respondent's clear inability to pay its debts and its repeated attempts to delay enforcement, liquidation is the only appropriate remedy,' BLS CEO Kevin Shames claims in court papers. 'The respondent has repeatedly employed procedural tactics to evade its obligations, and the court should not permit further obstruction.' ALSO READ: Nova breaches the Companies Act for the eighth straight year Solar disputes and unpaid claims According to court papers, BLS installed solar solutions at Nova's Waterglen, Carletonville, Tarentaal, Witbank, Village and Florida shopping centres. In terms of the agreements, Nova would buy electricity from BLS at favourable tariffs for 25 years. However, Shames claims that soon after the commencement of the agreements, Nova started to default on payments despite collecting payment from the shopping centres' tenants. By May 2024 Nova was more than R4 million in arrears for all centres. Shames claims that Nova and BLS later concluded a repayment agreement stipulating that Nova would settle its arrears by October last year. Kevin Shames, CEO of Bright Light Solar. Image: Bright Light Solar website However, Nova failed to make the payments and subsequently issued summonses against BLS for R4.3 million, claiming that BLS did not comply with an oral agreement concluded in October 2021 requiring BLS to install batteries at the centres. Nova also amended the summonses on several occasions. Shames vehemently denies that such oral agreement was ever concluded and claims the summonses were only aimed at delaying repayment. 'This was a coordinated and premeditated litigation strategy aimed at manufacturing a fictitious dispute where none existed in an attempt to obstruct the liquidation applications which had by that stage become inevitable,' he states. BLS subsequently cancelled the electricity supply agreements and warned Nova that it may initiate liquidation proceedings. However, Nova rushed to the court and obtained an urgent ex parte order interdicting BLS from initiating winding up proceedings. The court later set aside the interdict with a punitive cost order, and the judge criticised Nova for failing to provide full disclosure. Shames labels these actions as abusive and in bad faith. 'The abusive ex parte application [and] the mala fide proposed amendments to summonses demonstrate a pattern of conduct that was not initiated to pursue any genuine disputes but were instead a deliberate and bad faith attempt to obstruct legitimate winding-up proceedings.' ALSO READ: Irba surprisingly withdraws SCA application to appeal former Sharemax auditors' judgment Nova to defend Nova chair Connie Myburgh claimed in response to Moneyweb questions that BLS's applications are 'vexatious, opportunistic and without merit'. 'The applications are an abuse of legal process, launched merely for the sake of embarrassing and extorting the Nova Group, under circumstances where Bright Lite Solar [sic] is owed nothing by the said subsidiaries, and there are serious factual disputes between the subsidiaries and Bright Light Solar, as set out in summonses issued by the subsidiaries against Bright Light Solar, late last year.' Myburgh also stated that the Nova companies claim more than R80 million in damages from BLS. 'Notwithstanding the above disputes and damages claims, Bright Lite Solar [sic] deemed it appropriate to issue liquidation proceedings in a totally inappropriate manner, and merely as an extortive defence mechanism.' He also stated that the liquidation applications do not render debentures payable. (Read Myburgh's complete response here). ALSO READ: Irba expert witness questioned at Sharemax disciplinary hearing Debenture repayment obligations If the Nova companies are indeed placed into provisional or final liquidation, the debentures will become immediately payable. This is specified in the Nova Debenture Trust deed, which forms part of the Schemes of Arrangements (SoA) that tasked Nova with repaying former Sharemax investors. The original SoA required Nova to repay investors by 20 January 2022, but the group was not in a financial position to do so. The board claimed it had complete discretion to delay repayments – a position disputed by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) and the group's auditors at the time. According to Nova's most recent set of annual financial statements (AFS) for the year to the end of February 2024, outstanding debentures amounted to R2.2 billion. ALSO READ: SA's most spectacular case of corporate capture Not the first liquidation application BLS is not the first company to initiate winding-up proceedings against Nova subsidiaries. In 2023, the Quatro Group – which provided security, cleaning, and related services to Nova shopping centres – applied to liquidate 12 Nova entities after the group failed to settle outstanding payments. Quatro later withdrew the applications following a settlement agreement with Nova. However, Nova has yet to honour the agreed repayment. The City of Mbombela cut the electricity supply to two shopping centres for non-payment of their municipal bills in 2023. The City of Mbombela cut the electricity supply to two of Nova's shopping centres in Nelspruit due to the non-payment of its municipal account. This photo shows a notice on the door of the Bazaruto restaurant in Courtside, which had to close its doors. Image: Lowvelder The most notable failure by Nova to pay its debts involves the bridging finance group Beneficio. This case also saw numerous legal challenges from Nova. The case dates back to the late 2010s when Nova borrowed money from Beneficio at an astronomical interest rate of 1% per week as commercial banks refused to lend money to Nova. Nova defaulted on repayments in 2020, prompting Beneficio to sue for about R60 million. However, as in the current BLS case, Nova counter-sued, claiming the interest rate was usurious. However, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal have dismissed all of Nova's applications. Nova has now approached the Constitutional Court, which means the legal process has been dragged out for more than five years. ALSO READ: Liduidators sue Highveld Syndication BRP and Nova chair for R110m Nova's financial position It is perhaps not surprising that Nova is facing liquidation applications. Its most recent AFS revealed a factually insolvent company. The liabilities exceeded its assets by R90 million, while the short-term liabilities amounted to R323 million, which included R188 million due to creditors, R74 million to repay loans, and outstanding tax of R62 million. The company ended the year with accessible cash of R600 000 in its bank account. Nova chair Connie Myburgh (left) and Nova CEO Dominique Haese. Image: Moneyweb Nova's financial position has deteriorated significantly since 2022, when the CIPC forbade the company from selling more fixed assets. That came after Nova sold 19 of the 28 investment properties it was entrusted with (mostly shopping centres). According to Moneyweb's calculations, the total proceeds from these sales amounted to R636 million, of which only R176 million was returned to debenture holders. Since 2018 alone, Nova has generated R350 million from asset disposals – but has paid only R96 million to settle debentures. Nova ostensibly used the balance of around R460 million to fund operational expenses. ALSO READ: The dark underbelly of the business rescue industry Millions more for directors if Nova continues to trade The only winners in the Nova saga seem to be the executive directors. Myburgh and CEO Dominique Haese have collectively earned R100 million from the scheme's inception in 2012 to February last year, roughly R50 million each. Nova has always contended that its remuneration is market-related. Trustee response Jean-Pierre Tromp, the trustee of the Nova Debenture Trust who acts on behalf of debenture holders, said: 'As this is the second set of liquidation applications in two years, it echoes the concerns I raised with the CIPC as to whether the Nova Group is still a going concern.' He is also concerned that Nova may offer some of the property assets in the group as security as part of a settlement agreement, which would be to the detriment of debenture holders. Tromp added that the application wasn't surprising as Nova's latest AFS shows that debt levels have increased to a 'very worrisome level'. 'I have serious doubts as to whether the executive directors are managing the group of companies to the benefit of the debenture holders. I also question the role the independent directors are supposed to fulfil in an oversight function as per King IV [corporate governance code].' ALSO READ: NPA asks Hawks to reopen Sharemax investigation CIPC investigation into Nova's solvency has ground to a halt Nova's financial distress and failure to repay debenture holders led the CIPC to intervene in 2021, issuing directives for the company to prove it wasn't trading insolvently and later barring further asset sales. Nova appealed to the Companies Tribunal, where the matter remains unresolved. The CIPC broadened the scope of its investigation into Nova to include the role regulators, such as the South African Reserve Bank, played in the collapse of Sharemax and other failed property syndication schemes. This 'inter-regulatory' process has since stalled, and has consequently delayed action against Nova as its financial position worsens. Moneyweb queried the CIPC about Nova's 2024 financials before learning of Bright Light Solar's liquidation application. In response, Ndileka Cola of the CIPC stated that the 'Commission continues to monitor the financial performance and conduct of Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Ltd'. 'Enforcement action against the board is being actively considered based on the company's financial position, cash flows, and governance conduct.' Moneyweb asked the CIPC last week whether it was aware of the liquidation application, at which point Cola terminated communication. 'Subsequent to the response sent to you last week, please be informed that the CIPC will not be communicating on this matter until it has been concluded,' she wrote in a statement. ALSO READ: Jacques Pauw calls AfriForum 'outright stupid' on Modise, calls for Sharemax prosecution Harrison and White Concerns about Myburgh's involvement in the timing of liquidation proceedings have previously surfaced in other cases. During the 2010s, Myburgh served as a legal advisor to Harrison and White (H&W), a company placed in liquidation in 2017. A Section 417 inquiry into the events preceding the liquidation found that Myburgh had 'colluded with the company's directors and management' to delay an inevitable liquidation application by more than three-and-a-half years, giving time for the company's assets to be stripped. The Master of the High Court subsequently referred the Section 417 report to the National Prosecuting Authority to investigate possible fraudulent conduct by several individuals, including Myburgh. At the time, Myburgh denied wrongdoing and accused Moneyweb of unlawfully publishing the Section 417 report. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Aavas Financiers climbs 2% as board approves raising ₹200 crore via NCDs
Aavas Financiers share price rose 2.3 per cent in trade on Thursday, June 19, 2025, logging an intraday high at ₹1867.8 per share on BSE. At 9:39 AM, Aavas Financiers shares were trading 1.06 per cent higher at ₹1,843.75 per share on the BSE. In comparison, the BSE Sensex was up 0.03 per cent at 81,469.02. The company's market capitalisation stood at ₹14,594.55 crore. Its 52-week high was at ₹2,238.35 per share and 52-week low was at ₹ 1,604.2 per share. What led to a rally in Aavas Financiers shares? The northward movement in Aavas Financiers shares came after the company informed investors, after market hours on Wednesday, that its board has approved the issuance of up to 20,000 Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) having face value of ₹1,00,000 each, of the aggregate nominal value of up to ₹200 crore. The tenure of the instrument is 60 months from the deemed date of allotment. The payment of interest is scheduled every quarter from the date of allotment. Meanwhile, the principal amount of the debentures will be repaid by the company to the holders in 20 equal quarterly installments of ₹5,000 per debenture starting from the allotment date. Track LIVE Stock Market Updates What are NCDs? Non-convertible debentures are a type of debt instrument issued by companies to raise funds from the public or institutional investors. They are fixed-income securities that offer a fixed interest rate and are typically issued for a specific tenure. Why do companies issue NCDs? The company issues NCDs to raise capital and to lower the cost of borrowing as for some companies, issuing NCDs may be a cheaper alternative to borrowing from banks. About Aavas Financiers The company was incorporated as a private limited company in Jaipur, Rajasthan, under the Companies Act, 1956 on February 23, 2011. The company formally started its operations in March 2012. The company is engaged in the business of providing housing loans, primarily, in the un-served and un-reached markets which include Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Odisha, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Currently, it is operating in 14 states with a total of 397 branches.
Irish Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Accounting watchdog examined 33 financial statements last year
The number compares to 43 the year before. The IAASA sets the standards that govern statutory audits and sustainability assurance in Ireland. It also supervises how prescribed accountancy bodies regulate and monitor their members. Under the EU Transparency Directive, the agency also acts as Ireland's corporate reporting supervisor. It also conducts investigations under the Companies Act into matters including whether prescribed accountancy bodies have complied with an approved investigation and disciplinary procedures. The IAASA issued a release yesterday comprising of just one brief slide to demonstrate its activity during 2023 and 2024. It said it raised 84 matters with issuers – typically companies – during 2024, compared to 82 in 2023. It published just one financial reporting decision last year, compared to six in 2023. The number of voluntary undertakings from issuers rose to 65 last year, compared to 56 in 2023. According to the slide issued by IAASA, the most frequently raised matters with issuers last year continued to be those under transparency legislation, with 13 such matters having been highlighted. That was down from 14 in 2023. Last week, the agency published decisions regarding accounting treatments applied by Irish stock market-listed insulation giant Kingspan in its 2023 financial statements. In November 2022, the European Commission opened an investigation to determine whether the Kingspan intentionally or negligently supplied incomplete, incorrect and/or misleading information during the EC's investigation of the issuer's proposed acquisition of Trimo, a Slovenian-based roofing and insulation materials manufacturer. Kingspan did not disclose in its annual financial reports for 2022 and 2023 that the EC had opened the probe. ADVERTISEMENT The company had a number of reasons for not disclosing the investigation as a contingent liability in its annual financial statements for 2022 and 2023, including that they believed the likelihood of a material fine being imposed was remote, and that disclosures were therefore not required. The IAASA determined there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that disclosure of the contingent liability was required by Kingspan. The company made a voluntary undertaking to include additional statements in future financial reports to reference the regulatory and reputational risks associated within its merger and acquisition strategy.
