Sahara employees face salary delays on liquidity crunch

NEW DELHI, FEB 27:  

Sahara’s long-drawn dispute with regulator Sebi over investor repayments has begun to take its toll on salaries of the group’s employees, which are getting delayed amid a major liquidity crunch.

The salary delays are mainly being faced by the staff members in the corporate offices of the crisis-hit group, while there are also delays on certain statutory payments and operating obligations or expenses related to day-to-day business due to difficulty in fund flows.

When contacted, a Sahara spokesperson confirmed the delays in salary and other payments, while adding that the junior staff members are being given priority for the payments.

“We are working to diffuse this crisis, which has also created grave difficulties for our employees. Sahara India is one big Pariwar (family) and all the employees are its members, who are standing together in these difficult times.

“With our dedicated employees and the strong fundamentals of the group, we are hopeful that we will soon come out of this crisis,” the spokesperson told PTI.

The group has over 10 lakh full-time and part-time employees, including permanent staff at its various companies, permanent agents who get regular incentive payments besides a large number of part-time agents.

While the exact number of persons whose salaries and other payments have been delayed could not be ascertained, sources said their numbers could run into “tens of thousands”.

“The group is facing a liquidity crunch for past one year due to embargo and double payment (for investor refund), resulting into many problems like meeting the salary, statutory and other operating obligations/expenses in doing business,” the spokesperson said.

“We are however releasing the salaries time to time based on the fund flow on a continuous basis. The delayed salaries of junior staff were released just a few days back as extra care has been taken for our junior staff. Soon salaries of other brackets will be released,” he added.

“In some business divisions, salaries of our employees have got delayed by many months. However, situation is better at those divisions which have their own fund-flow like the Group’s luxury hotel Sahara Star in Mumbai, resort town Aamby Valley City and the 500-bed tertiary care Sahara Hospital in Lucknow.

Replying to queries on salary delays, the group spokesperson said that “for the past 14 months, Sahara India group’s all kinds of assets and bank accounts are under embargo of Supreme Court and there is an extra burden of demand of double payment against single liability in Sahara-Sebi case”.

Sahara is trying to raise necessary funds to secure release of its chief Subrata Roy, and two other officials, from Tihar Jail where they have been lodged for almost a year in connection with the investor repayment case.

The group was asked by the Supreme Court in August 2011 to deposit over Rs. 24,000 crore with Sebi for refund to investors. Sahara, which has deposited some instalments since then with Sebi, maintains that it has already refunded over 95 per cent of investors directly.

The spokesperson further said that “any fund raised by the group, which we are doing, through sales and mortgaging of properties, that money shall go to Sahara-Sebi account and nothing will come to the corporate“.

“The money deposited in Sahara-Sebi account is a double payment, which we are making.”

The spokesperson also said that “Sahara’s two Companies in question collected Rs. 25,780 crore through OFCD (Optionally Fully Convertible Debenture) schemes. Of this, Sahara repaid almost 95 per cent (around Rs. 23,000 crore) of OFCD liabilities of these two companies by 2012.

“In addition to this, Sahara till date has already deposited more than Rs. 11,000 crore (including interest) with Sebi and by the time our Chairman (Subrata Roy) comes out of custody, we shall be having aroundRs. 18,000 crore with Sebi.

“... as per the order of Supreme Court, the entire money with bank interest shall come back to Sahara after verification. But for the same, Sebi has to initiate verification of our investors and the repayments which we have made and return the money to us.”

The recent attempts by Sahara to raise funds through a US-based entity Mirach Capital failed, while the group has said it is now in talks with an European bank and a Dutch pension fund, among others, to explore garnering funds to ensure release of Roy and two others from jail.

The Supreme Court recently posted the matter for further hearing on March 13, while asking Sebi and other parties to respond to Roy’s plea for extension of facilities inside the prison by at least two working weeks to explore negotiations with these prospective parties.

Sebi makes fresh bid to find Sahara Investors

Sebi had received 4,900 refund claims during the August-September exercise from the bondholders of two Sahara companies --Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd (SIRECL) and

Sahara HousingInvestment Corp Ltd (SHICL), which had raised over Rs 24,000crore from about three crore investors.

While Sahara maintains it has already repaid more than 93per cent of the outstanding dues directly to the concerned bondholders and the remaining amount was just about Rs 2,500 crore, it deposited Rs 5,120 crore to Sebi in December 2012towards the investor refunds as per Supreme Court orders. Further money has been deposited by the group with Sebi subsequently and it is currently in the process of raisingmore funds to ensure release of its chief Subrata Roy from the jail.

Sebi began the refund process in May 2013, while asking eligible investors to submit their claims. However, the refunds made so far remain minuscule, although the regulator

has not so far made public the quantum of all such payments. Sahara has been maintaining that Sebi should verify the refunds made by it directly and claims to have submitted to

the regulator proof for nearly 75 per cent of refunds. It also says that the remaining 25 per cent refund proof is lying in its Mumbai godown to be given to Sebi.

Sahara also contends that bulk of its investors didn't have bank accounts and other formal financial papers, the details of which have been sought by Sebi. On the identification on Sahara's investors, Sebi has contested in the court that addresses of many investors given

by Saharas were incomplete as only village name, district and state is given without any house number or street/lane names.

On its part, Sahara has maintained that most investors are from rural India and had no house numbers or street names. In the new refund application form, Sebi had given a new

address format for rural investors, asking only village name, post office, district and state as against additional details like house number and street name for urban addresses.

In its latest annual report for the year ended March 31, 2014, Sebi had disclosed having received 3,612 refund applications involving 13,948 deposit accounts till that time in the Sahara matter.

Of those applications, Sebi made refunds in case of 445 applications involving an equal number of deposit accounts for an aggregate amount of about Rs 1.25 crore including interest

of about Rs 43.83 lakh. The other applications had deficiencies or fell under either 'mismatch' or 'multiple investment' category. "Out of the remaining 3,167 applications, in respect of

424 applications involving 1,683 deposit accounts, certain deficiencies were observed in the applications/supporting documents submitted by the applicants which were brought to

the notices of the applicants for their clarification/rectification, and replies are awaited from

them," Sebi said. Sebi also could not process 1,260 applications involving 7,159 deposit accounts as these were in multiple investment category, while 92 cases involving 92 accounts did not meet

the extant refund methodology adopted by the regulator. Besides, 1,776 applications involving 4,395 accounts could not be processed because of being 'mismatch category'.

SEBI versus Sahara: Rs. 22 crores versus Rs. 18000 crores

Today, Sebi has around Rs.11,500 crores of Sahara's money, including bank interest.

By the time our Chairman shall come out, that is, when full bail amount is paid, our money lying with SEBI will be Rs.18,000 crores cash.  Since no bank is ready to give Bank Guarantee to us without 100% cash margin, it is going to be Rs.18,000 crores of cash with Sebi.

While in the last 26 months,Sebi had to pay only around Rs.2 crores.

More importantly, Sebi came out with an All-India Media Advertisement, twice, inviting investors for repayments. But till now, they have received from all over India, a demand of Rs.20 crores only.

A question can now arise that whether the investors exist or do not exist; meaning, are these all fictitious accounts?

Only verification can clarify this point, as mandated in Hon'ble Court's order of 2012. Since then, in almost past 26 months, Sebi has not started verification; the reason best known to them. 

About fictitious account, we would like to mention here another issue pertaining to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which is as follows:

Between 2008 and 2012, on RBI's order, Sahara paid back Rs.18,000 crores under the command of RBI's two Statutory Auditors and 3 RBI nominated Directors.  The bank account of that amount was controlled by the RBI.  A strict rule was followed that when RBI auditors finally checked the identity of all investors (KYC), only then the next months' payments were allowed by the RBI and during the process, in 4 years, RBI did not find any fictitious account; not even one.

--

Regards,

Corporate Communications,

Sahara India Pariwar

New Revised Statement of Advocate Gautam Awasthi on 28th November 2014

The Sahara's had filed applications seeking permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for taking over of the loan of Bank of China relating to three foreign properties. The Saharas will also be raising a loan of US$650 million on the foreign properties for being utilized for the payment in SEBI-Sahara Refund Account in compliance of the order dated 26.3.2014.

The court, on the insistence of SEBI, has asked Saharas to show the ESCROW agreement with respect to the junior loan of US$650 million and once SEBI gives a no objection and the money is transferred in the ESCROW account, the Hon’ble Court will permit the taking over of the loan from Bank of China and raising of the junior loan.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also shown the agreements of sale with respect to domestic properties. The SEBI, however, has sought time to submit its response regarding the proposed sale of domestic properties at Chomma, Jodhpur, Vasai and Pune.

The Saharas have demonstrated that in addition to Rs 3,117 crore already deposited, the balance amount for compliance of the order dated 26.3.2014 have been arranged and once necessary permissions are granted by the court, the money will reach SEBI in a phased manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now listed the matter for Tuesday, 2^nd December 2014.

Gautam Awasthi

Advocate

RBI, SEBI and ROC come under CBI scanner in Saradha chit-fund scam

Kolkata: Investigation into the multi-crore Saradha chit-fund scam is likely to tighten the noose around senior officials of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and SEBI. Reports suggest that CBI will soon examine some RBI, SEBI and ROC officials in connection with the Saradha ponzi scam.
 
"The examination will be aimed at understanding the circumstances and seeking clarification about documents," an official said.
 
A report in The Indian Express says that the investigating agency has mentioned the role of senior officials of SEBI, ROC, and RBI in the scam.
 
It is pertinent to point out that CBI has already examined two executive directors and one ex-executive director of SEBI during its probe into the scam.
 
The agency has already filed a 25-page charge sheet along with annexures containing the names of three accused - Sudipta Sen, Debjani Mukherjee and Kunal Ghosh, the last being a suspended TMC Rajya Sabha MP who had worked with Sen, the Saradha founder.

SAHARA SEBI: IMAGINE !

Let’s Imagine! Imagine Charlie Chaplin not being the legendary comedian that he was. Or Arnold Swarzeneger not the action icon we all know him as. Imagine Sachin Tendulkar not being the celebrated cricketer but a regular 9 to 5 school teacher or if electricity was never invented. What would it be like if Newton had never discovered the Law of Gravity or Einstein had not made those elaborate inventions?  What if Elvis continued driving trucks or Satyajit Ray wasn’t an illustrious story teller? Difficult and rather unfamiliar and absurd hypothesis! Would these people be still famous, brilliant and celebrated if they were not in their chosen professions? What would have our lives been like in the absence of these people or their world changing contributions to humanity? The answer can only be left to one’s imagination and with no certainty can anyone claim that they be who they are today or what would our existence been like, if these men were not true to their calling.

Now for a moment, let’s imagine a bit further. Would Sahara India have avoided the existential crisis, they are in today, had they not chosen to provide a sound, secure & lawful financial structure to a stratum of the society who has always stood ignored amongst the tall claims of social and economic development? What would the lives and future of these millions of depositors would have been like if they didn’t have a secure medium to invest and save and flourish? What would the future of the children growing in these millions of households have hold? Would they be educated? Would there be employment for the unemployed or the less skilled or the poor? Would there have been economic empowerment for the have nots who do not have the means or the sanction to even hold a bank account or a legitimate Id? Would the chief of Sahara India, Subrata Roy, have saved himself the witch hunt by a National Regulator or avoided jail had he chosen to create a lush empire and focused on serving himself rather than serving the people? Such a swarm of hypotheticals starting with just one simple question, “Imagine?”

Sadly, there are no simple answers. Only simple questions. The answers are complex, unfathomable and lead down to a road of nefarious possible motives, juxtapositions & outcomes. SEBI’s motives juxtaposed with the Court’s senseless brickbat blows on the Sahara Chief only adds insult to the common man’s understanding of productive regulation and fair justice. Even more dangerously, the imagination of SEBI and the Courts have taken a turn for the worse and seem to be more heavily invested in feeding their own egos, their illogic and mindless banter rather than using that imagination to serve and secure.

Currently, SEBI has been claiming that investor accounts provided by Sahara are fictitious and the regulator’s independent verification has failed to make any headway. SEBI so far has been able to repay less than 1 crore rupees to OFCD investors even though  its been 18 months since Sahara deposited 5,120 crore rupees with the market watchdog. Interestingly, in 2008, Sahara had paid back around 4 crore depositors under strict supervision of Reserve Bank of India. The central bank, then, did not stumble upon any such fictitious account and the OFCD issue had almost same set of investors. So is SEBI imagining these investors as fictitious or is it disguising its incompetence. To further add to the comedy of errors, the Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure over SEBI’s tardy pace in verifying these investor accounts in Sahara’s OFCD issue. I can only imagine the embarrassment the courts must be facing at the hands of the regulator’s malfunction. And who is paying the price for all this mockery. The innocent, the lawful and the poor!

Let’s tax our imagination one more time and explore another set premise. What if Sahara is innocent? What if the Sahara supremo is being wrongfully accused and punished? Is SEBI acting in the best interest of the depositors or is it blinded by its punitive sense of dominion? What would it be like if SEBI realized and acknowledged that these investors in question are for real? What would it be like if there was no Sahara to begin with? Are these questions that have real and heavy implications or are they just plain rhetoric?

The answers can only be left to unfold as time and events pass by. The outcomes would be real and the consequences can either set unhealthy & dire precedents or can pave way to a truthful, mindful and fair premise. Just IMAGINE..!!!

VIEW & COUNTER-VIEW SAHARA-SEBI STANDOFF

The Supreme Court is set to hear Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s petition on Tuesday. Sahara has raised some points over its legal battle with stock market regulator Sebi

    Sahara says it has already paid 93% of the investors. Per investor average deposit is of 8,400. Hence, it can be repaid in cash as per law 
    In last 17 months, Sebi repaid only 1 cr and is holding 5619 cr (including interest), argues Sahara 
    No verification process has been started by Sebi in the last 17 months, disobeying court’s August 31, 2012 order, the company says 
    Sahara offered guarantee of the entire amount through bank trustee security; but when it was rejected, the company says it offered irrevocable bank guarantee. This has not been accepted 
    At the heart of the matter lies Sebi’s demand, under directions of the Supreme Court, of an additional 20,000 crore along with 15% interest to investors 
    The company says Sebi has alleged that Sahara’s investors are fictitious and untraceable 
    Sahara says that in 2008, it had repaid around 4 crore depositors under supervision of the Reserve Bank of India 
    The company says in response to Sebi’s assertion that many of the 20,000 letters to depositors didn’t elicit a response, Sahara had submitted affidavits and KYC documents confirming their existence 
    Sahara says it remains Sebi’s responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of its claim that it has repaid most of their money 
    If Sebi continues to insist that investors do not exist, then, by the same logic, the regulating body — born out of the specific mandate of protecting investors — also ceases to have any further stake or role to play in the case, the company said in a statement 
    Sahara says a proper verification process has not been implemented to ascertain the existence of its depositors — despite conclusive evidence forwarded to Sebi in the form of original documents, repayment vouchers and receipts 
    Sahara says as a market regulator, Sebi does not have the power to regulate unlisted entities. Sebi is looking to sell properties belonging to third parties which have been kept as security with Sebi, even when it has no authority to effect any such sale without the consent of the titleholders of the properties

Sahara blasts SEBI chief for ‘mischievous’ remarks

• SEBI has just one-point programme – to destroy Sahara
• Misleading, misinformation campaign
• We are being singled out for punishment’
•  Raises questions that why govt. depts. are not being punished

Delhi, July 22, 2013: Hitting back at SEBI and its Chairman, Sahara India Pariwar has said that the market regulator has just one-point agenda to “destroy” the image of the diversified conglomerate.

Countering the allegations made by SEBI Chairman on the OFCDs raised by it, Sahara said in a public notice that he has recently “mischievously misled” the people. “Right from the beginning SEBI’s one point programme has been to hit and destroy Sahara by mischievously misleading campaign of misinformation though trial by media,” Sahara said.

Sahara recalled that when it promoted OFCDs for the first time in 2001, it had obtained a written permission for its OFCD issue from the Registrar of Companies (RoC) Kolkata under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs way back in 2001 and submitted prospectus to the same Registrar (filing the return) with the details of around 1.87 crore investors with their names, addresses and amounts raised etc.

Sahara is being accused of violating the rules pubic issue rules on the pretext that the raising of funds from more than 50 investors does not remain a private placement. But the fact is that even after informing of 1.87 crore investors in 2007, neither RoC nor any of the government departments raised any objection. On the contrary, in 2008, Sahara got permission from two RoCs – Kanpur and Mumbai - for raising funds through OFCD again. Moreover, all through these 10 years, various RoCs regularly did inspections, investigation and regularly took Balance Sheets and returns and other documents as per Companies Act. RoCs permitted Sahara and to that extent they were the concerned regulators for the OFCD, Sahara argued.

Recalling the SEBI’s wavering stand, Sahara said the regulator had forwarded a complaint against the Sahara companies - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited - received in April 2010 to two different Regional Directors of Corporate Affairs Ministry, for appropriate action.

SEBI had even said in its letter to the two Regional Directors, who were concerned with the ROCs which permitted the OFCDs, that the issue did not fall under the market regulator’s purview since the companies were unlisted.  

Subsequently, Sahara pointed out, the Minister of State for Finance had informed the Lok Sabha in April 2010 itself on a question relating to CitiCorp’s OFCD issue that in the matters of unlisted companies issuing securities to several thousands of persons, SEBI does not exercise any jurisdiction. This statement was based on what the Executive Director, SEBI informed the Finance Ministry.

In November same year, however, SEBI took a complete U turn and submitted through an affidavit in Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court that SEBI is the regulator for Sahara OFCDs, Sahara said.

Sahara pointed out in its public statement that SEBI should be severely punished for lying in Parliament or in its affidavit in the High Court. Any other citizen would have been jailed for such an act, Sahara said.

Mr. Mohan Parasaranji, the then Additional Solicitor General of India (and now the Solicitor General) had also expressed his opinion on the query raised by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that Sahara was right and SEBI wrong.

Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, also submitted through Affidavit in the Court that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong.

Mr. Mohan Parasaranji, the then Additional Solicitor General of India (and now the Solicitor General) had also expressed his opinion on the query raised by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that Sahara was right and SEBI wrong. He mentioned in his letter, “SEBI has no jurisdiction over the unlisted companies like the Sahara Group of Companies which are not intending to get themselves listed.”

Dr. Ashok Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, also submitted through Affidavit in the Court that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong. He also added, “In issuance of OFCD the petitioner company after their registration with the Registrar of Companies has been permissible under the law. The Central Government remains the regulating authority for the company. It has got its own control system in place which has been under constant review with the developments taking place in the corporate world and it has already increased its controlling aspect of such companies and would further strengthen the same by making keener and deeper scrutiny of private placement of companies”.

In addition, as many as five other legal luminaries, including two former Chief Justices of India and one ex-Chairman of Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), expressed the opinion in favour of Sahara. The Law Ministry with the signature of the then Minister Mr Veerappa Moily, officially communicated to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) that Sahara was right and SEBI was wrong. MCA had, in fact, asked for the Law Ministry’s opinion, but they never produced it anywhere. But, somehow, Sahara got the copy and produced it in the court. SEBI has not yet reacted to it in the Court.

Contrary to its view on Sahara, SEBI took an altogether different stand in the Kalpana Bhandari Case before the Bombay High Court that it did not has jurisdiction over unlisted public companies that did not intend to list their shares.

Similarly, in another case ‘Society for Consumers and Investors Protection Vs. Union of India’ in Delhi High Court in, SEBI took a view that it did not command jurisdiction, under Section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956, over unlisted public companies which did not intend to get listed.

Further, in response to the Prayag Infotech Hi-Rise Ltd., letter dated 27^th January, 2009, SEBI took a similar stand that unlisted companies did not come under its regulatory purview.

Stating that the company is being singled out for imposing a severe punishment, that too with a retrospective affect, Sahara asked as to why all the government departments are not being penalized. Had they not given repeated permissions Sahara would not have faced such a huge problem and injustice, the statement said and asked: “Is Sahara alone supposed to be solely responsible for the sanctity of law and legal system of the country that everybody should be hell bent upon punishing it with retrospective effect?”

Sahara explained that almost 3 years back it had voluntarily declared through a reputed Charted Accountant Firm that the liability, along with interest, of these two companies was Rs. 24,000 crores.

Sahara, which apprehended public violence across the country, began to refund the deposits much before that Supreme Court judgment of August 31, 2012 and some payments dragged up to September 20, 2012. Thus, Sahara’s liability was reduced to just Rs. 2,610 crores. Sahara also declared the Rs. 2500 crores as buffer amount subject to final verification of amounts. These figures were also certified by the same CA firm that declared the original liability of Rs 24,000 crores.

Following the Supreme Court order, Sahara deposited Rs 5120 crores with SEBI but the regulator is yet to pay to the investors. Is this the SEBI way of protecting the interest of small investors?

Sahara pointed out that SEBI accepted the liability figure of Rs. 24,000 crore as suited them and was not ready to accept the updated figure of Rs 2610 crores. Both the figures have been provided by Sahara itself and they are not come out as a result of any investigation by SEBI or any other body. Moreover, SEBI is supposed to refund about Rs 2000 crore to Sahara after refunding Rs 2610 crore to investors.

“It is important to note that there has been not a single complaint against Sahara. Had the payments not been made, there would have been violence and complaints throughout the country,” Sahara said and pointed out that nothing of this sort has happened.

Sahara said that the future of over 11 lakh workers is at stake and all that the company wants is justice.

Please refer to the following links containing Annexures:

http://sahara.in/furtherprecedents/docs/1.pdf

http://sahara.in/furtherprecedents/docs/2.pdf

http://sahara.in/furtherprecedents/docs/8.pdf

http://sahara.in/furtherprecedents/docs/13.pdf

http://sahara.in/furtherprecedents/docs/14.pdf