Viceroy rebuts former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s legal opinion on its Vedanta report

Mumbai: US -based short vendor Viceroy Research objected to the legal opinion of India’s former chief justice Dy Chandrachud about the farewell group of financial abuse and false declarations against the farewell group.

Viceroy argued that Chandrachud’s legal opinion did not answer questions about dividend payments and financial incorrect management allegations in mining and minerals’ conglomeration.

Justice Chandrachud’s opinion said, “In a report on Monday, July 21, on Monday, July 21, on Monday, July 21, he cannot refute, investigate, investigate a single financial claim in our reports, cannot investigate, and even participate,” he said.

Vedanta constantly rejected Viceroy’s claims, calling the accusations as unfounded.

Justice Chandrachud, according to the legal opinion of Vedanta opened to the public on Friday, Viceroy’s first report on July 9, the first report of the billionaire Anil Agarwal was lack of reliability and the researchers behind the report were “suspicious identity information”. Viceroy’s website has no knowledge of this issue, since the information shared by the Vedanta said he trusted to reach this opinion.

The former Chief Justice also emphasized the interest of Vedanta Resources as a result of short seller reports. He also said that the Vedanta Ltd on the Indian list was suspected of the timing of the report, as directed to a debit.

According to Fraser Perring, the founder of Viceroy Research, who did not announce the quantum of his company’s exposure in April, Fraraser Perring, the Vedanta Group’s non -London -based farewell group Bonds took a short position on bonds.

Viceroy said that Chandrachud’s legal view was completely based on “from questioning management representations”.

In his last report, the short seller said, “When faced with serious allegations supported by detailed financial evidence, the company responded not with transparency, but with a legal -dressed character assassination attempt,” he said.

Viceroy also claimed that Vedanta had to pay a legal opinion in order to defend the parent company’s parent company against the allegations of stealing money or abuse of participation funds. Vedanta Resources has a majority shares through various intermediaries in Vedanta Ltd on the Indian list. Hindustan Zinc Ltd is a subsidiary of Vedanta Ltd.

Justice Chandrachud refused to comment on this issue. He explained that his role is professional in nature and that the opinion given is protected with professional privilege.

“It is not appropriate to discuss anything about it in the public sphere,” he said.

Vedanta Group did not immediately respond to Mint’s queries sent by Viceroy’s E -mail in Rebuttal.

‘Legal opinion of important reliability’

According to his legal opinion, Justice Chandrachud said that the transactions described by Vedanta in financial statements and regulatory applications were transparency and harmony to the regulations. Such explanations should be assumed to be legitimate unless there is a clear evidence to prove otherwise.

Accordingly, Viceroy argued that only the statement did not confirm the legality of the transactions.

Justice Chandrachud also said that Viceroy Research’s report contained serious claims indicating the image and reputation of the farewell group. “The report contains serious imputations such as“ Ponzi scheme ”and“ parasites ”, which damages Querist’s (Vedanta Ltd) work and reputation.”

Former Court of Appeals Judge Rishabh Gandhi said Chandrachud’s report was just a reduction and misleading.

Gandhi, the founder of the law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates, said, “Gandhi, the founder of the law firm Rishabh Gandhi & Associates, said,“ A legal idea – an opinion given by a law -based law and the facts presented by a respected justice of India, and the law of the law. Gandhi, the founder of Assocates.

Gandhi explained that most legal views are based on a detailed examination of documents, legal interpretation and precedent to confirm the applicability of institutional actions such as legal compliance and dividend statements, inter -company transactions or decisions of the Board of Directors.

However, Gandhi said that although Chandrachud’s legal view confirms the legal permission of Vedanta’s transactions and dividends policies within the scope of Indian Corporate Law, he did not deal with financial precaution, relevant party dynamics or cash flow influence.

“If Vedanta wants to rely on Viceroy’s claims and refute the perception that the legal view is just a public relations exercise, it must be cautious to assign an independent financial or judicial audit,” he said.

Viceroy accused the Vedanta Group for alleged financial abuse and misleading, and made vacancies to raise stock prices, manipulate asset values, increase non -balancing loans and make corporate governance tours.

At the annual general meeting of Vedanta on July 10, the shareholders rejected their confidence in the company.

“Different investors have different concerns because they see jobs differently,” Proxy Ingovern General Manager, Proxy Consulting firm, said. “Viceroy is a short seller and has a thesis and a short position. Other investors and stakeholders can have a different thesis.”

If investors were really worried about Viceroy’s claims, Vedanta’s shares would have seen a sharp decline, which did not happen.

When Viceroy published his first report on Mining Konglomera on July 9, Vedanta LTD shares fell to 8% LaBefore compensating for some losses after a statement to place 420.65 companies La441.30 fell 3.29% in NSE.

Stocks have healed since then. Vedanta on Monday, La454.90 per share.