UOB Kay Hian released a report yesterday (19 Feb) indicating that DBS Group would be having “more headaches from lawsuits in India”.

DBS’ troubles started when it went ahead to acquire the struggling Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) based in Chennai last November. In fact, it was a “forced merger” initiated by the central bank of India. Bloomberg has described the merger as a “rescue effort” by DBS.

Not long after LVB was merged with DBS India, Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) of India filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to make DBS India a respondent in its ongoing lawsuit with LVB, on the ground of the merger of the two banks (‘Firm petitions court to make DBS responsible for LVB’s embezzlement of S$130m of its FDs‘).

Prior to DBS’ acquisition of LVB, 2 employees of LVB were already arrested last year for their alleged involvement in the misappropriation of RFL’s fixed deposits from the bank. A total amount of some Rs 729 crore (S$132 million) belonging to RFL was alleged to have been embezzled by the 2 senior LVB staff. In fact, RFL reported the matter to the Indian police back in 2018. It was alleged that the staff colluded with external parties in siphoning off RFL’s fixed deposit money from the bank.

UOB Kay Hian said, “Subsequent investigation is said to have uncovered grave irregularities and severe violation of regulations at LVB.” It also noted that the claim amount by RFL has swelled to Rs 900 crore (S$164m) due to compounding of interest. The next hearing of the case is scheduled to be heard next Thursday (25 Feb).

LVB shareholders sue DBS India

Simultaneously, the Madras High Court has also directed DBS India to provide an undertaking of cash compensation to previous LVB shareholders and to create a reserve fund amounting to face value of LVB shares, estimated at Rs781 crore or S$143m. LVB shareholders filed lawsuits against DBS India after they were denied compensation from the resulting merger of the 2 banks.

“This is a negative surprise as previous LVB shareholders were supposed to be wiped out under the scheme of amalgamation. The amalgamation was alleged to be on a fast track and was completed within 10 days. Previous shareholders supposedly were not given sufficient notice,” commented UOB Kay Hian.

Furthermore, UOB Kay Hian also noted that LVB is alleged to have serious governance issues and lacked internal control.

“LVB’s loan book is said to have expanded five times from 2007 to 2019. Bad lending practices and aggressive expansion into corporate loans have led to NPL ratio spiking to 31%. LVB has suffered losses over the past three years. It had experienced continuous withdrawal of deposits prior to the amalgamation,” it said.

“It is unfortunate for DBS to be hit by two ongoing lawsuits since the completion of amalgamation of DBI and LVB. We believe DBS has not made provisions relating to potential damages that may arise from the two lawsuits in India.”

“We are concerned that the two ongoing lawsuits would create legal uncertainties for DBI,” UOB Kay Hian added.

 

 

 

Subscribe
Notify of
96 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

柔州务大臣登新马海域边界执勤船只

柔佛州务大臣奥斯曼沙比安,于昨日登上马国浮标船MV PEDOMAN慰问船员。 奥斯曼在脸书分享,他聆听船长解说新马争议性边界事项,也感谢船员的付出和牺牲,“捍卫海域”。 《联合早报》报导指柔大臣此举“具一定挑衅意味”,可能影响新马解决领海纠纷的努力。 不过,根据马国官媒马新社报导,马国海事局驳斥本周三一则网络报导,指马国船只目前位处新加坡海域。 马海事局企业通讯主任优斯南指出,由于需要重新补给,原本停泊在原有海域的北极星号(Polaris)航标船已开往位于柔佛丹绒巴勒斯的海事局港口。 马坚称Pedoman仍在柔港口界限内 北极星号的停泊岗位,则由航标船Pedoman 填补,但该国海事局仍坚称,船只的方位仍处在柔佛港口界限内。 优斯南称,Pedoman肩负监督柔佛港口界限内海上交通和安全的责任。 马国在去年10月25日颁佈修改柔佛新山港口海域界限宪报,我国则指柔佛港口海域界限侵犯大士一带领海范围,而马国船只也多次侵入大士水域,违反国际法,与此同时在12月6日宣布扩大大士一带港口海域界限。 而在本月8日,马国外交部长到访我国,与外长维文商讨,双方同意设立海事工作团队,研究和商讨海域问题的法律和运作事宜,并缓解局势,为进一步的谈判建立基础。有关海事团队的研究报告会在两个月内提呈给部长。…

Poor children have 10% chance of making it to the top?

~by: Leong Sze Hian~ I refer to the article “Mobility in S’pore…

对政府呈《防假消息法》感“失望和惊讶” 刘程强抨击为阻吓异议者

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》于今日在国会进行二读辩论。工人党前党魁暨阿裕尼集选区议员刘程强直言,对政府提呈有关草案感到“非常失望和惊讶”。 刘程强表态工人党反对上述《防假消息法》,“虽然我们认同有必要立法对付网络假消息,避免破坏现有政治体系和多元种族和谐,或影响选举结果。也应强制网络公司撤下可造成社会分裂的言论。” 但他指出,政府提呈该法案,不仅是为应付上述挑战,其背后动机,乃是为了对社交媒体的批评者起阻吓作用。“政府只要选择性处罚一些初犯者,就能达到杀鸡儆猴的作用,令人不寒而栗,造成言论自我审查。” 他不违言,这是为保护执政党,进行政治垄断的政策目标。 他也不认同律政部长尚穆根的解释,指出其他法令中赋予政府的权限,仅针对网站或公司,但是《防假消息法》枪口却针对个人在社交媒体发表的言论,令人担忧。 网络和社媒乃平民论政、问责之空间 他认为,网络假消息固然为社会管理带来新挑战,需要有新策略应对,然而不应忽略,市井小民讨论政治,已不局限于咖啡店,网络和社交媒体也是论政和问责政府的平台,这是科技进步为民主带来的正面发展。 他说,如今人民若对政府和政治人物质疑,不必躲在街头巷尾窃窃私语,已走出过去内安法令下,部长决定就可未审讯扣留的白色恐怖,这是我国迈向开放民主的一大步。 民众可以透过网络监督政府和反映对政策的意见,政府和人民可直接沟通和回应,知晓人民的需要,有助改善民生。”民意体现已不仅限于选举时,能善用网络平台的政府,更能推出体恤民情合民意的政策。 工人党表示,无法接受把人民论政和言论自由的权利,交给部长裁决。他列举工人党反对《防假消息法》的原因包括:第一,法案让部长拥有绝对的权力判断什么是假信息,并决定采取什么行动。这就像在一场球赛中,让部长同时扮演球员和裁判的角色。 “李显龙总理近日指出,科技和社交媒体的普及,让仇恨言论和假新闻非常容易散播,也让恶意人士更容易操纵观点,甚至影响选举。但我们怎么能肯定,执政党的部长就不会为了赢得选举,而操纵观点和散播假信息? 虽然法案规定在大选时部长必需委任一名政府官员来替代部长执行任务,在表面上看来是避免利益冲突。但又有谁能确保这位由部长所委任的政府官员不会为了自己和部长的利益而做出有损公众利益的事?”…

Singapore Conversations – Asking the wrong questions, looking the wrong places?

By Dan Lim – Can any real change come out from the…