The founders of Infosys who participate in the offer to buy Rs 13,000 crore do not give false signals to shareholders, said the former CFO of Balakrishnan VAN.
Infosys said on Monday that some of the group’s promoters and sponsors have announced their intention to participate in the proposed purchase.
“Redemption is another form of dividend that depends on the tribute in the Indian context and, therefore, the founding fathers do not give the dividend – a bad signal for shareholders,” Balakrishnan told PTI.
It answered a question about whether the founders who participated in the takeover bid do not indicate that the promoters take a gloomy view of the company’s future.
“The redemption is a proportional right granted to all shareholders and, if exercised by all, ensures that the levels of economic interests of all shareholders remain at the same levels,” he added.
Infosys plans to buy 11.3 crore shares at Rs 1,150 per person. The founders and their families have about 12.75% (29.28 shares crore) of Infosys.
The interest of the promoters in participating in the purchase is a few days of upheaval in the board of Infosys, which saw CEO Vishal Sikka abandon the slander of the founders. In the coming days, Murthy-y Co has created its founder Nandan Nilekani as president.
Balakrishnan also said that it seemed unusual for the Infosys board to announce a takeover bid just before the CEO resigned. “In these circumstances, for foreigners like me, the board announced a redemption just before the resignation of the CEO (Sikka) is very unusual,” he said.
Balakrishnan noted that even when the founders ran the company, they never examined ownership control to exercise control over the company.
They depended on their performance and trajectory to stay on top of the company and firmly believe that as long as performance is good and shareholder value is improved, shareholders will support them, Balakrishnan said.
In addition, the founders have made it clear that their sole interest is to protect the core values of the company and is not interested in running the company, he said.
“They have never spoken of the CEO, the company’s performance or its strategies and have not been mistaken in the business of the company,” be interpreted as “interference in business,” he argued.
When asked if Panaya’s report would be published, Balakrishnan said: “I think the stigma clause is standard when a senior executive leaves the company.
Unless we see the current article, I will not be able to comment. That said, this clause does not limit the ability of the company to publish the research report or to request responsibility and take action if they find an error.