BPL SUES AIG, ADB FOR BLOCKING DEALS
Rajeev Chandrasekhar controlled BPL Communications has sued
its foreign shareholders, including American Insurance Group
(AIG), Actis (formerly CDC) and ADB, for $400m for loss of business
opportunities. The suit also accuses the foreign investors of
having blocked key decisions of the company.
BPL Communications, the holding company for BPL's cellular
businesses, moved the Bangalore High Court a few weeks ago.
The court feud could worsen BPL Comm's relationship with foreign
private equity investors who are already waging a legal battle
with the Indian company in London courts.
Among the foreign investors, AIG owns 16.46% in the company,
followed by Actis, which has a 6.87% equity stake. The foreign
investors have put in around $214m in BPL Comm. BPL Comm,
AIG and Actis refused to comment since it is sub-judice in
nature.
This is an unusual instance of an Indian company suing its
foreign equity investors and their nominee directors for obstruction
and damages. BPL Comm is alleging that the private equity
investors had periodically opposed business proposals like
a merger, public issue and other plans to raise funds through
a private placement and rights issue. The company says all
this deprived it of the opportunity to bid for the fourth
operator licences. In '01, BPL was the first cellular company
to propose an initial public offer (IPO).
The present case is understood to have been filed in Bangalore
due to a jurisdiction issue. The foreign investors had earlier
dragged BPL Comm to court over the issue of BPL's merger with
the then Birla-AT&T-Tata combine, now called Idea Cellular.
They had alleged that their approval was not sought before
finalising the deal. Actis had also alleged that BPL Comm
had defaulted in dividend payments due on the preferential
shares for 24 months.
Actis had approached the Mumbai High Court seeking conversion
of its preference shares into voting shares under Section
87 of the Companies Act, 1956. BPL had opposed this on the
ground that it would take foreign equity in the company beyond
the sectoral cap of 49%. This argument was upheld by the court.