Merchant banker due diligence in IPO disclosures requires active verification, not passive reliance on issuer statements.

A lead merchant banker must actively verify the truth, completeness and adequacy of disclosures in an IPO offer document and cannot rely passively on the issuer's silence. The due diligence framework under the SEBI disclosure regime requires independent verification and updated certificates at relevant stages of the issue process. Where material post-draft developments are not reflected in the prospectus, the omission constitutes a breach of due diligence obligations. The note also indicates that, when the disclosure lapse is serious and affects investor reliance, a monetary penalty may be treated as justified and proportionate under the statutory penalty framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the book running lead manager failed to exercise due diligence and ensure veracity and adequacy of disclosures in the offer document for the public issue. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for the violation was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the book running lead manager failed to exercise due diligence and ensure veracity and adequacy of disclosures in the offer document for the public issue.

Analysis: The due diligence obligations under Chapter V of the SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 and the corresponding disclosure framework under the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 required the lead merchant banker to satisfy itself about all aspects of the issue, including truthfulness and completeness of disclosures, and to issue fresh due diligence certificates at the relevant stages of the issue process. The record showed that inter-corporate deposits and purchase orders material to the issuer's financial position were taken during the period between the red herring prospectus and the final prospectus, yet the prospectus stated that no bridge loan facility had been entered into and did not reflect those developments. The merchant banker could not avoid responsibility by relying passively on the issuer's silence, because the governing obligations required active verification and independent steps to ascertain material facts.

Conclusion: The failure to update the offer document and verify material facts amounted to a breach of due diligence obligations, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for the violation was warranted.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority applied the statutory penalty framework by considering the nature of the default and the impact on investors, even though exact quantification of gain or loss was not available. The record supported the view that the lapse was serious because it affected the integrity of disclosures on which investors relied. In that setting, the monetary penalty was treated as justified and proportionate to the violation found.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant was found to have breached its merchant banker due diligence obligations in relation to the IPO disclosures, and the consequential penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A lead merchant banker must actively verify and ensure the truth, completeness, and adequacy of material disclosures in an offer document, and cannot discharge that obligation by passively relying on the issuer's representations.

---