<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (5) TMI 1596 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306697</link>
    <description>A merchant banker&#039;s due diligence in IPO disclosures must be assessed by the materiality of the omitted information, the checks actually undertaken, and the proportionality of any sanction. The tribunal noted that the Gadeo transaction raised a disclosure concern because the issuer&#039;s materials did not make the family linkage obvious, although the lead manager had reviewed financial records, registers, forms and board minutes and sought clarifications. It also treated the failure to examine bank statements, which could have revealed ICD borrowings, as a lapse in diligence. However, the remaining restraint was found disproportionate in light of the issuer&#039;s own incomplete disclosures, and the residual punishment was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2023 02:49:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=705139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1596 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306697</link>
      <description>A merchant banker&#039;s due diligence in IPO disclosures must be assessed by the materiality of the omitted information, the checks actually undertaken, and the proportionality of any sanction. The tribunal noted that the Gadeo transaction raised a disclosure concern because the issuer&#039;s materials did not make the family linkage obvious, although the lead manager had reviewed financial records, registers, forms and board minutes and sought clarifications. It also treated the failure to examine bank statements, which could have revealed ICD borrowings, as a lapse in diligence. However, the remaining restraint was found disproportionate in light of the issuer&#039;s own incomplete disclosures, and the residual punishment was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>