https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390911 SAT held that alleged misutilisation of IPO proceeds for a subsidiary was not proved because the prospectus disclosed the subsidiary's broader business and allowed revision of fund deployment in the ordinary course. However, the statement that no bridge loan had been raised was false where short-term accommodation from a related entity had been taken and repaid after receipt of issue proceeds. The Tribunal also held that amounts received and later repaid as security deposits were material and should have been disclosed in the prospectus. Independent and non-executive directors were not liable, as there was no evidence of their participation in day-to-day management or the impugned transactions, and mere signing of the prospectus was insufficient. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:13:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390911 SAT held that alleged misutilisation of IPO proceeds for a subsidiary was not proved because the prospectus disclosed the subsidiary's broader business and allowed revision of fund deployment in the ordinary course. However, the statement that no bridge loan had been raised was false where short-term accommodation from a related entity had been taken and repaid after receipt of issue proceeds. The Tribunal also held that amounts received and later repaid as security deposits were material and should have been disclosed in the prospectus. Independent and non-executive directors were not liable, as there was no evidence of their participation in day-to-day management or the impugned transactions, and mere signing of the prospectus was insufficient. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390911