Preface SEBI order covers 1. Misleading Promoter SHP 2. Undisclosed & Non - audited subsidiaries FS 3. DAUM Settlement 4. Misleading Disclosures 5. Statutory Auditor & Indep Director - inelligible 6. Accounting irregularities
This order is one of the best, give it a read
1. Misleading Promoter Shareholding - comparing promoter shareholding disclosed to the exchanges & available with RTA, Sebi found promoters inflated shareholding by 10% to 29% since 2016🧐😯 (see table below), we wrote this about in our previous thread
NSE also sought clarification from BCG on shareholding but there responses were unsatisfactory and incomplete (mainly related to pledge - which we also analyzed long back and found untenable)
SHP should have been sourced from the data maintained by RTA. However, even though the shareholding data of RTA was matching with data of Depositories, it appeared that Company had deliberately misrepresented its SHP. The co intentionally concealed the material info.
Sebi said this pledging and transfer of shares to lenders cast doubt over voting results
Sebi found BCG promoters guilty under SEBI SAST & PIT regulations as there actual shareholding is just 3.51%
There is strong connection between RTA & Statutory Auditor (covered later)
2. Non audited subsidiaries - SEBI LODR requires atleast 80% of assets, revenue, PAT should have been reviewed
In case of Brightcom, almost 80% of assets, revenue, PAT were unaudited - A major corporate governance issue raised by us long ago
2. Subsidiary FS & books of accounts were not maintained. Noted significant differences & discrepancies in subsidiaries accounting.
Hence consolidated FS of BCG are not giving true & fair picture
This issue was also highlighted by us long back
3. Lycos - Daum Settlement
The co (Ybrant) which acquired Lycos has fully written off its investment into Lycos post adverse court ruling and there will be no refund of amount already paid ($20Mn)
Shareholding of Lycos has been given to DAUM, currently Lycos is not a subs
Ybrant filed for bankruptcy in 2015 just to delay the settlement & payment to DAUM
MD said they still expect resolution by Oct-Nov 2022, which as of today is still pending
Beat The Street raised concerns on never ending Mgt guidance about settlement
4. Misleading disclosures
Company said they appointed EY as internal auditor. When report was sought by SEBI, it was found that report was not from EY or external party
BCG said they are not in need of external auditors, if that is the case then why they misleading disc earlier
Misleading Disclosures of FORENSIC AUDIT - disclosed after substantial delay of 165 days that too when exchanges gave disclosures after repetead follow - ups
Beat The Street alerted about this non disclosure long ago
Reasons of non disclosure
Initial - requested Sebi for withdrawal, expect positive outcome. Sebi denied withdrawal.
Then they said they have given all relevant documentation and disclosure of forensic audit shouldn't be insisted upon.
NSE & SEBI made multiple follow-ups
5. Independent Director - inelligible
ID can be appointed only after Board Resolution + Ordinary
Resolution(1st term) / Special Resolution (2nd term)
BCG appointed Raghunath as ID for 2nd term without
shareholder resolution. Sebi said his appointment is not as per
law.
Hence, audit committee is also not as per law
Also daughter of ID is also an employee making him inelligible
for being an ID
NON APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS ON
MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES
SEBI LODR requires appointment of atleast one independent
director on board of material subsidiaries
In case of BCG, no subsidiaries had independent directon
STATUTORY AUDITORS OF SAME NETWORK
both statutory auditors are related to each other as partners of
one firm are either former employee or article of another firm
RTA of the company is promoted by wife of partner of the
statutory audit firm
Statutory Auditor of the BCG acquired shares of the company
via preferential allotment- making his appointment inelligible
6. Accounting irregularities of INR 1280 crores
A. Intangible Assets under development added in current year
were capitalized next year even if these assets not met
recognition criteria
B. Impairment loss (INR 411 Crore) of FY19 have been disclosed
in Other Comprehensive Income instead of P&L leading to
inflated profits by 92%
In FY20, similar issue noted and if rightly accounted then
company would have been into loss
C. Capitalized research phase expenses which should have
been expensed out through P&L leading to unde-recognition of
expenses and over-recognition of assets
D. Delayed impairment of assets as required by GDPR rules
E. BCG furnished four different responses with respect to
initial recognition of the impaired assets in the books of
accounts of its subsidiaries and consolidated financial
statements
A big lapse
Even after giving time of more than 1 yr, BCG still not able to provide all documents to the satisfaction of regulator
Sebi also took note of non disclosure of promoter stake sale of approx 19%
One of the main reason which led to Sebi investigation
Sebi said
BCG painted rosy picture
Not hesitate to bend rules
On top of that, the Company, from the very start, resorted
to delaying tactics, so that the investigation process got stalled.
Finally Sebi directed
1. Promoters to not sell shares, file correct SHP 2. Disclose subsidiaries FS 3. Get Subsidiaries audited 4. Make relevant changes in FS
- End
It took us almost 8 hours to read, analyze and present 77 pager SEBI order against BRIGHTCOM to bring out all important facts pointed out by SEBI
If you find this valuable, please do follow us, like, retweet,comment
Thanks for being patient while reading
Brightcom response to SEBI order
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most of stakeholders get flown away with big order intake or order book size which is XX times of TTM revenue. This is ❌️ approach
Always see the timelines of revenue realization of order book which will give you clear picture of potential future annual revenue from order book
Here is one example
Data Patterns which is having order book of INR 880 crores will be realized & executed in next two years thereby generating revenue of INR 440 crores which is in-line with current TTM revenue of INR 449 crores.
The latest Q3 Results of EKI Energy has uncovered a dark truth : non-compliance with IndAS 115, Revenue Recognition.
Auditor Walker Chandiok (Grant Thornton) today issued a qualified report.
Is this just the tip of the iceberg?
Like & share for max reach!
Reported Figures for 9M-
Revenue - 1384 Cr
PBT - 347 Cr
PAT - 260 Cr
As per Auditor -
Revenue - 1194 Cr (-14%)
PBT - 237 Cr (-32%)
PAT - 177 Cr (-32%)
Generally company also have Concall post results,this time there is no mention of concall.
Dark clouds of doubt now loom over the previous auditor D.N. Jhamb, who issued unqualified report in Sep-22, and resigned on 8-Dec-22 citing reasons of pre-occupation.
Now the bigger question is whether revenue recognised in earlier years are as per IndAS requirements or not?
As per WSJ, 7 Mauritius companies collectively would have held 19.43% of the offering,
Let’s delve deeper into each of these entities and their connection
Here are 4 entities & their % of subscription to anchor book 1. Great International Tusker Fund (2.47%) 2. Ayushmat Ltd (2.32%) 3. Elm Park Fund (5.67%) 4. Aviator Global Investment Fund (1.25%)
The remainder of the response consisted of 330 pages of court records, along with 53 pages of high-level financials, general information, and details on irrelevant corporate initiatives, such as how it encourages female entrepreneurship and the production of safe vegetables.
Adani Failed To Specifically Answer 62 of Our 88 Questions
Of The Questions It Did Answer, The Group Largely Confirmed Or Attempted to Sidestep Our Findings
As per regulation 155 of SEBI ICDR Regulations company cannot bring the FPO if investigation by sebi is ongoing or show cause notice has been served and pending
Backstory,In July-21 Govt in parliament responded to questions raised by @MahuaMoitra and stated that SEBI is investigating Adani Group