Sanjay Dewan

SAT-appeal

• Failure by the BRLM to exercise reasonable skill and care and conduct adequate due diligence for Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd.'s IPO, resulting in allegedly incorrect or inadequate disclosures concerning Gadeo-related transactions and ICD loans.
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 129, 187, 211 and 300 of 2014 heard on 11 April 2016 and decided by common order dated 13 May 2016; the supplied text does not include the final operative decision.
• Alleged failure by the BRLM/merchant banker and responsible officers to conduct reasonable due diligence and provide adequate, true and timely IPO disclosures, including failure to submit required due-diligence certificates.
  Five-year prohibition on the company, Compliance Officer and MD-cum-CEO from taking up new assignments or involvement in new capital issues, including IPOs and follow-on issues, was challenged. · Charges were held partly established; SAT upheld the WTM decision.
  Appeal: SAT common order dated 13 May 2016 disposed of Appeal Nos. 275, 276 and 301 of 2014 and Appeal No. 207 of 2015; charges partly upheld.
• Failure by the BRLM to exercise reasonable skill and care and conduct adequate due diligence for Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd.'s IPO, resulting in allegedly incorrect or inadequate disclosures concerning related-party transactions and ICD loans.
  Appeals Nos. 129, 187, 211 and 300 of 2014 were disposed of by a common order.
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 129, 187, 211 and 300 of 2014 heard on 11 April 2016 and decided on 13 May 2016; outcome text provided is incomplete.
• BRLM failed to exercise due skill and care in IPO of Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd., resulting in non-disclosure of Gadeo related-party transaction and ICD loans in RHP/Prospectus.
  Impugned SEBI order prohibited Almondz from taking any new assignment for six months from 3 Mar 2014 · SAT disposed bunch of four appeals by common order taking Appeal No. 129 of 2014 as lead case
• BRLM failed to exercise reasonable due diligence and ensure veracity and adequacy of disclosures in IPO offer documents of P.G. Electroplast Ltd.
  WTM 21 Mar 2014: 5-year bar from new capital issue assignments including IPO/follow-on · WTM 20 Mar 2015: no further direction as 5-year ban already covers misconduct
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 275, 276, 301 of 2014 and 207 of 2015 heard 29.02.2016, decided 13.05.2016 by common order
• Alleged failure by BRLM to carry out reasonable due diligence and ensure veracity and adequacy of disclosures in IPO of P.G. Electroplast Ltd.
  WTM order 21 March 2014: prohibition from new assignment/new capital issue including IPO for five years · WTM order 20 March 2015: no further direction as already prohibited; SAT upholds charges partly established with no additional penalty
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 275, 276, 301 of 2014 and 207 of 2015 heard 29.02.2016, decided 13.05.2016 by common order
• Almondz as BRLM lacked reasonable due diligence in IPO of P.G. Electroplast Ltd, violating ICDR disclosure and Merchant Banker Code of Conduct.
  Charges against Almondz held partly established for reasons in Appeal 275/2014 · Impugned WTM order dated 20 March 2015 upheld with no additional penalty
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 275, 276, 301 of 2014 and 207 of 2015 heard together on 29.02.2016, decided 13.05.2016; charges held partly established
• BRLM Almondz failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and due diligence in IPO of Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd., resulting in non-disclosure of Gadeo related-party transaction and ICD loans in RHP/Prospectus.
  Per impugned SEBI order 3 Mar 2014: Almondz prohibited from taking new assignment in securities market for 6 months from order date
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 129, 187, 211 and 300 of 2014 filed against SEBI order dated 3 March 2014; heard 11 April 2016, decided by common SAT order dated 13 May 2016