Comments
Amazon has told market regulator SEBI to investigate a possible violation of insider trading norms by Future Retail. The American e-commerce giant has alleged that Future Retail may have shared price sensitive information with Reliance Industries related to an interim stay order given by the Singapore International Arbitration Court.
SIAC’s interim order was given on October 25 and soon after Reliance issued a statement to the stock exchanges that it had been informed about the order.
Amazon’s lawyers also informed the Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, that there is no document to prove that Future Coupons Pvt Ltd (FCPL) had consented to the deal between Reliance Retail and Future Retail (FRL). This is important because Amazon has a shareholder agreement with FCPL under which it has to take approval for any change in shareholding.
Related Stories
Emergency arbitration award by SIAC against FRL is a valid order: Amazon to HC
The Future Group and Amazon have been locked in a battle after the US-based company took FRL into an emergency arbitration over alleged breach of contract.“The Biyanis have claimed that the resolution that was passed on August 29 (regarding the deal agreement with Reliance Retail) was consented by FCPL. Even the Emergency Arbitrator records that there is nothing to show that there was consent for the August 29 Resolution. In actuality, there is no document to prove the same. Neither has Amazon seen such an agreement nor has it consented to the same,” senior counsel for Aamazon, Gopal Subramanium, said during the proceedings at the Delhi High Court on Wednesday.
‘Not an agreement’
During the virtual hearing, chaired by Justice Mukta Gupta, the lawyer further said the deal between Reliance Retail and Future Retail was a proposed scheme and not an agreement. “Primary recondition is that FRL must have an untainted lawful agreement with Reliance. But where is the agreement?,” he questioned.
Senior Counsel Harish Salve, who is appearing on behalf of Future Retail had on Tuesday, said the plaintiff wasn’t challenging the award of the stay on the deal because it wasn’t SIAC’s jurisdiction to pass an interim stay. However, FRL was just seeking an injunction against Amazon from interfering in the deal with Reliance.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.