sebi:WTM/GM/EFD/DRAIII/20/MAR/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Charges dropped; show cause notice dated July 18, 2014 disposed
Regulations
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 2(1)
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 44
- Reg. 8(2)
- Reg. 3(1)
- Reg. 32
- Reg. 16(4)
Parties
- Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Ltd.
- Clearwater Capital Partners Singapore Fund III Private Limited
Holding
The SCN dated July 18, 2014 alleging violation of regulation 12 of the Takeover Regulations, 1997 and regulation 16(4) of the Takeover Regulations, 2011 was disposed and the charges against the Noticees were dropped.
Full text
_____________________________________________________________________________ Order in the matter of Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. Page 2 of 11
_____________________________________________________________________________ Order in the matter of Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. Page 3 of 11 b. To disclose that SEBI may initiate appropriate penal action against the noticees for the above mentioned alleged violation in terms of the provisions of Takeover Regulations and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). c. To revise the offer price, which shall be higher of: i. The price calculated on account of trigger of regulation 12 pursuant to entering into inter-se agreement on August 13, 2010 plus interest @10% p.a. for delay thereon. The period of delay shall be from the date on which the public announcement ought to have been made for the trigger of regulation 12 and the current public announcement date. Or, ii. The price calculated for the present offer.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Order in the matter of Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. Page 4 of 11 restrict the rights of the Noticees. The agreement also mandated KHIL and its promoters to take prior approval of the Noticees for altering in any way the share capital of KHIL, creating any new subsidiaries, entering into any joint ventures, merger or demerger, disposing of or acquiring any material assets, lending or borrowing money beyond certain limits, winding up or dissolving the company, etc., and the Noticees also had right to nominate one director on the board of KHIL. In view of these provisions, it was alleged that the inter-se agreement dated August 13, 2010 contained clauses which indicated that the Noticees had a right to control the policy decisions of the target company and thus had acquired “control” over the target company as defined under regulation 2(1)(c) of the Takeover Regulations, 1997. As the Noticees had failed to make public announcement of open offer in terms of regulation 12 of the Takeover Regulations, 1997, it was alleged that they have violated the same. It was also alleged that the Noticees have failed to carry out the changes suggested by SEBI in the letter of offer in violation of regulation 16(4) of the Takeover Regulations, 2011. In view of these, the Noticees were called upon to show cause as to why suitable directions under sections 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act and regulation 44 of Takeover Regulati
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/GM/EFD/DRAIII/20/MAR/2017. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.