In the matter of Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India and ors The Securities and Exchange Board of India requested a six-month extension from the Supreme Court in order to finish its investigation into the controversy surrounding the Hindenburg Research report on the Adani Group of Companies, as well as claims made against the Conglomerate and stock price manipulation. In his petition to the Supreme Court, attorney Manohar Lal Sharma requested that the SEBI and the Union Home Ministry launch an investigation and file a police report against Nathan Anderson, the founder of Hindenburg Research, and his collaborators in India. In the second petition on the subject, attorney Vishal Tiwari demanded that a commission chaired by a former judge of the Supreme Court conduct an investigation into the Hindenburg report. In four petitions, the company is accused of defrauding investors by artificially raising share prices, according to a recent report by short-seller Hindenburg Research.
Report submitted by the SEBI
- SEBI In its application, stated that the 12 suspicious transactions included in the Hindenburg report would require a thorough investigation lasting at least 15 months due to their complexity and the number of sub-transactions they contain. The investigation would also need to get bank statements from numerous local and foreign banks, which would take time and be difficult because the bank statements would also be for transactions that had been carried out more than ten years earlier. Obtaining bank statements from offshore banks would require cooperation from offshore regulators, which could be difficult and time-consuming. The investigation would take an additional six months to conclude.
- SEBI also humbly submits that for determining potential violations related to financial data misrepresentation, rule-breaking, and fraudulent transaction nature with regard to 12 suspicious transactions.
Interference by Court
The Supreme Court had given SEBI permission to carry out its investigation. The investigation had to be finished by May 2. This investigation was conducted in addition to the investigation that the Supreme Court’s expert committee, led by retired judge AM Sapre, ordered. The following three broad categories would apply to the transactions for which more time would be needed:
(i) Those in which there have been proven to be prima facie violations and a period of six months would be needed to reach a conclusive determination
(ii) When no violations have been found, at least prima facie, an additional six months must pass before the analysis can be revalidated and a conclusive conclusion reached.
(iii)A decisive conclusion is anticipated to be reached in 6 months in cases where additional study is required and the majority of the data needed for this purpose is anticipated to be fairly accessible.