Adani, the regulatory system, inquiry organisations, and the government must provide unambiguous answers to the numerous issues that have been raised in the aftermath of the study alleging stock manipulation and fraud through offshore firms.
Source: Onmanorama
It is important to consider the creation of the committee in light of the fact that these answers have yet to be provided even five weeks after the publication of the Hindenburg report and the loss of more than $140 billion in shareholder value in the Adani Group shares in less than a month.
The committee has been assigned a four-fold mandate by the court: One is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the situation, taking into account the factors that contributed to market volatility; two is to determine whether regulatory oversight of the alleged violations by Adani companies was inadequate; three is to propose ways to make the legal and regulatory system stronger; and four is to propose ways to raise investor awareness.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and other organisations were ordered by the court to work with the committee. It will be led by Justice A M Sapre (retired), along with five other members, including K V Kamath and Nandan Nilekani, two titans of the industry. It has been instructed to deliver its report to the court under seal.
Source: Dhruv Rathee
SEBI informed the court that it is already looking into claims that Adani broke laws and regulations and engaged in illegal conduct both before and after the Hindenburg report. That undoubtedly covers the story of the now-discontinued Adani FPO. The important thing to remember is that SEBI is looking into a scenario that may have been influenced at least in part by its own mistakes. This required a separate investigation.
As a result, the committee will look at both the pertinent problems and any potential SEBI involvement. Therefore, it is improper to submit the report in a sealed cover. It ought to be available to everyone. It is unexpected that the court, which has in the past disapproved of the sealed envelope practise, has supported it in this instance.
Share your views in the comment section below.
