Companies & Sectors
InGovern questions sudden departure of Infosys' Chief Compliance Officer and his severance package
Proxy advisory and corporate governance advisory firm InGovern Research Services Pvt Ltd (InGovern) has said that the sudden departure of David Kennedy, the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Infosys Ltd, raises a serious questions about whether his departure was triggered by an event that may have material consequences on the company. 
 
On 1 January 2017, Infosys notified the stock exchanges that Mr Kennedy has left the company after a mutual separation agreement between him and the company. The proxy advisory firm points out that Mr Kennedy was in an important position as General Counsel and it is imperative for Infosys to inform whether he resigned voluntarily or his services were terminated.  
 
Mr Kennedy was appointed as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Infosys on 5 November 2014. He was based at Palo Alto in California. 
 
As a part of the separation as well as his employment agreements, Mr Kennedy will receive severance payments of $868,250 plus reimbursements for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) (insurance) continuation coverage over a period of 12 months. Other details of the separation agreement are not disclosed.
 
InGovern says, "If an employee voluntarily resigns from the company, there is no logic of paying a severance package by the company. Also, in such cases the employee has to serve a notice period before leaving the company. Mr Kennedy is being paid a severance pay and is also not serving any notice period in the company, which makes it clear that his service has been terminated by Infosys."
 
On 13 October 2016, he was included as one of the 'Key Managerial Personnel' (KMP) of the company by the Audit Committee of Infosys. Further, his remuneration was also revised to $1,030,000 per annum including a fixed salary of $557,500 and variable salary of $472,500.
 
"His departure, only within two months of being given a revision in pay, is surprising," InGovern says, adding, "No reasons of his departure have been provided by the company. Also, the basis of calculating the amount of severance pay has not been disclosed to the shareholders. Infosys, in its annual report has stated that apart from Vishal Sikka, its Managing Director, no other directors are eligible for any severance pay. However, no such disclosure has been made regarding KMPs and other senior employees of the company."
 
As a good governance practice, InGovern says it recommends that Infosys and other companies make it as a policy to disclose the employment agreements of its KMPs as well as its Managing or Executive Directors to shareholders. The employment agreements should also contain details of severance pays, if any. Companies should also provide the basis for calculation of severance packages. Since these severance pays are significant amounts, shareholders should be notified of such employment clauses at the time of appointment of directors and KMPs.
 
InGovern has asked shareholders of Infosys to raise concerns and ask the company to provide clarification on four points, which include...
 
1. Whether Mr Kennedy voluntarily resigned or the company terminated his services?
2. If it was a resignation by Mr Kennedy, why is he being paid a severance pay and not asked to serve a notice period?
3. If he was dismissed, why has the company not provided exact reasons for his dismissal to the shareholders?
4. The basis of calculating the severance pay amount to Mr Kennedy, given that he has served only 2.2 years in this capacity in Infosys?

 

User

COMMENTS

Mahesh S Bhatt

7 months ago

I donot know Western ways of pink slips were mood & illogic based which we have adopted and created hire & fire policy?? Values based HRD is converted into Human Resource Destruction departments Yes Men to CEO/MD/Chairman. Mahesh Bhatt

Mahesh S Bhatt

7 months ago

I donot know Western ways of pink slips were mood & illogic based which we have adopted and created hire & fire policy?? Values based HRD is converted into Human Resource Destruction departments Yes Men to CEO/MD/Chairman. Mahesh Bhatt

Sudhir Jatar

7 months ago

This appears to be a "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" as Sir Winston said!

K.R.Srivarahan -

7 months ago

The company should be transparent about this crucial development. Otherwise, market rumours will bleed the company's market capitalisation.

Dissatisfied customers can demand service charge not be levied: Government
Customers dissatisfied with service at any hotel or restaurant can opt to seek that service charge not be levied, as this is optional or discretionary as per the Consumer Protection Act, an official statement said on Monday.
 
The Department of Consumer Affairs, in a statement, also asked state governments to advise hotels and restaurants to disseminate information, such as through displays, that "the service charges are discretionary or voluntary".
 
The department said that it received complaints from consumers that many hotels and restaurants charged "service charge in the range of 5-20 per cent, in lieu of tips" and consumers were "forced to pay irrespective of the kind of service provided".
 
A clarification was sought from the Hotel Association of India, which replied that the "service charge is completely discretionary and should a customer be dissatisfied with the dining experience, they can have it waived off", as per the department.
 
The department have also asked the state governments to sensitise the companies, hotels and restaurants regarding provisions of the Act.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

COMMENTS

Prakash Pimparkar

7 months ago

This how the corruption starts by providing loopholes to cheat the common man ,who are govt officers protecting and why .Instead of protecting customer the Govt has given discretion to restaurant owners to charge illegally.
And I have experienced this myself at a PIZZA outlet at Inorbit Mall Hyderabad

Prakash Pimparkar

7 months ago

Why Govt has to be ambiguous in framing rules either it should be illegal or legal if and buts will always lead to might is right ( customer can be browbeaten to pay the SC ) by displaying the notice at a discrete place .But why allow to charge when it is not mandatory ?
Will consumer courts take sumo moto action ?

Simple Indian

7 months ago

Instead of putting the onus on the customers/patrons to refuse to pay the service charge at restaurants, why doesn't the govt bar such enterprises from levying it the first place ? Govt knows that most people who frequent posh restaurants which charge service charge are too decent to protest. If customers are indeed satisfied with the services of the restaurant they would willingly leave a generous tip. IMHO, a service charge is a devious means to extract more money from customers, that too without their consent.

REPLY

Prakash Pimparkar

In Reply to Simple Indian 5 months ago

Restaurant people do not refund they insist this is legal.Govt officres have made this loophole to get free dineers with family and hafta

Prakash Pimparkar

In Reply to Simple Indian 5 months ago

Restaurant people do not refund they insist this is legal.Govt officres have made this loophole to get free dineers with family and hafta

Santhanam Krishnan

7 months ago

This awareness should spread among the general public.

Re-promulgation of an ordinance a fraud on the constitution: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday said that re-promulgation of an ordinance was a fraud on the Constitution and the satisfaction of the President or the Governor to promulgate an ordinance was not immune from judicial review.
 
Noting that ordinance has the same force as law passed by the legislature, a seven judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T.S.Thakur, by a majority of 6-1 said that laying of an ordinance before the parliament or state legislature, as the case may be, is mandatory.
 
The majority judgment, delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, said that failure to place the ordinance before parliament or State legislature is a serious constitutional fraction. 
 
Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, and Justice L. Nageswara Rao supported this view, while Chief Justice Thakur gave a concurring judgment with separate reasoning. 
 
Holding that re-promulgation of an ordinance is a fraud on the constitution, the majority judgment said that the satisfaction of the President or that of the Governor was not immune from judicial review, if the satisfaction had an oblique motive.
 
The court also made it clear that no legal rights would get conferred on the beneficiaries of the ordinance after its expiry or its re-promulgation.
 
However, Justice Madan B. Lokur, in his dissenting judgment, said that there may be several exigencies for not placing the ordinance before the parliament or the state legislature and the same per se can't be said to be illegal.
 
Chief Justice Thakur said that the question on the tabling of the ordinance before the parliament or state legislatures was not before the court for adjudication and the left the same open for future adjudication.
 
The entire case is rooted in the appointment of teachers by the Bihar government by taking ordinance route. The said ordinance was re-promulgated about four times.
 
However, the successor government refused to re-promulgate the ordinance and thus the appointment of teachers made by way of an ordinance got ejected.
 
The questions examined by the top court constitution bench was on the ordinance making power of the government and was it mandatory to place the ordinance before the legislature within six weeks of its very next session.
 
Another question for adjudication was if any right was conferred on the people who were the beneficiaries of the ordinance.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

COMMENTS

Simple Indian

7 months ago

Having the provision of an ordinance without adequate safeguards for preventing its misuse is just one of the many serious flaws in our Constitution. In fact, it's these flaws in its provisions which have led to such a pathetic state of affairs of our parliaments (non)functioning. Ordinance is supposed to be used by the Govt of the day to legitimize a policy/action when the Parliament is not in session, and that too in emergencies, not for routine governance issues. However, with all parties using parliament sessions for scoring political points or actively preventing the govt from legislating, ordinance has become increasingly a de facto way of legislation in recent times. Sadly, the Constitution doesn't restrict usage of an ordinance to any time period, or the number of times it can be re-promulgated. This is a serious flaw and only a Constitutional review and revision can remove such flaws. Till then, it seems we have to get used to the govt and opposition parties wasting precious parliament sessions, and using ordinances in lieu of proper legislation in parliament / State legislatures after a thorough debate and discussion on proposed legislation. Mera Bharat Mahaan !

vswami

7 months ago

As personally viewed and reflected upon, instantly so, the reported majority view handed down by the apex court , - albeit on the power to re-promulgate,- brings to memory what the renowned constitutional law expert, ‘Nani’ , had to say, repeatedly, on the topic of ‘constitutional issues’ in general, and the power to promulgate an ordinance, in particular ; as distinct from / opposed to power to legislate, - only in exceptionally extreme circumstances.
For knowing intimately, anyone if so interested, may care to and mindfully read through his speeches and writings, full of unmistakable legal acumen / sublime wisdom; for example, what he said on the SC’s two of the landmark judgments- in the Kesavananda Bharati’s case (1973) and the Minerva Mills’ case (1976)
Also, for intricacies of the inherent aspects that entails, may look through:
https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=VgxrWMa_FK398weQ1o3gAw#q=ordinance+promulgated+by+president
and selectively, -
https://blog.ipleaders.in/ordinance-making-power-critical-outlook/

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)