Under the consent agreement signed by Rajaratnam, he would pay a total of $1.45 million, which includes $1.3 million in disgorgement and about $147,000 in prejudgment interest
New York: Jailed hedge-fund founder Raj Rajaratnam has agreed to pay $1.45 million to settle a civil lawsuit filed by US regulator SEC against him and India-born former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta for their roles in one of the largest insider-trading schemes in US history, reports PTI.
55-year-old Rajaratnam, Galleon Group’s Sri Lanka-born co-founder, has also agreed to waive his right to appeal this judgement, court papers showed.
US district judge Jed Rakoff approved the final judgement in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) case against Rajaratnam, who is serving 11 years in prison for insider trading, and 64-year-old Gupta.
Under the consent agreement signed by Rajaratnam earlier this month, he would pay a total of $1.45 million, which includes $1.3 million in disgorgement and about $147,000 in prejudgment interest.
Rajaratnam has been ordered to pay the amount within 90 days.
The final judgement in the SEC’s case orders Rajaratnam to disgorge his share of the profits gained and losses avoided as a result of the insider trading as well as the prejudgment interest on that amount.
The SEC’s claims against Gupta remain pending.
The US regulator had filed its complaint in October 2011, alleging that Gupta had passed on to Rajaratnam confidential information he had learned as Goldman board member about Berkshire Hathaway's $5 billion investment in the financial giant in September 2008, as well as about Goldman's financial results for the second and fourth quarter of 2008.
Rajaratnam used the information he learned from Gupta to trade profitably in certain Galleon hedge funds.
Chairman-designate Cyrus Mistry, who made a visit to Bombay House on Friday, will on Saturday take charge of the new assignment, sources in Tata Sons said
Ratan Tata, an iconic corporate leader, retired as chairman of the Tata Group after a 50-year run Friday but kept away from office on his last day at the helm of one of country’s oldest business empires, reports PTI.
Tata, who turned 75 on Friday, is in Pune for his birthday, sources at Bombay House, headquarters of the salt-to-software conglomerate, told PTI, adding there was no clarity on whether he would visit his office later in the day.
Chairman-designate Cyrus Mistry, who made a visit to Bombay House on Friday, will on Saturday take charge of the new assignment, sources in Tata Sons said.
Mistry was groomed for the assignment by Tata for a year.
The group had earlier announced that he has been appointed chairman with effect from Saturday.
Mistry chose the group company Tata Motors entry-level sedan Indigo Manza to travel to work on the important day, marking an end to an era.
The narrow lane leading to Bombay House, one of the oldest buildings in the heritage Fort area of south Mumbai, has heavy media presence since Friday morning in anticipation of Tata visiting Bombay House.
Ratan Tata, who helmed the group for 21 years after being chosen successor by his uncle, the iconic JRD Tata, in 1991, is credited with transforming the group through bold decisions including large global acquisitions, even as some of its peers struggled to stay relevant post economic liberalisation.
Mistry, who has been with the group since 2006 in various capacities, hails from the Shapoorji Pallonji family, the largest private share holder of the group's holding company Tata Sons.
Born on 4 July 1968, Cyrus Mistry completed his graduation in civil engineering from London's Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine and followed it up with masters in Management from the London Business School.
He was chosen by a five-member panel last year to succeed Ratan Tata.
During Ratan Tata’s tenure, the group’s revenues grew manifold, totalling $100.09 billion (around Rs475,721 crore) in 2011-12 from a turnover of a mere Rs10,000 crore in 1991.
Tata led the group into some notable acquisitions, starting from Tetley by Tata Tea for $450 million in 2000, to steelmaker Corus by Tata Steel in 2007 for 6.2 billion pounds and the landmark Jaguar LandRover in 2008 for $2.3 billion by Tata Motors.
Courtesy the acquisitions, over half of the salt-to-software group's revenues are derived from outside the country.
Not limiting himself to big-ticket acquisitions, Tata also displayed sensitivity to the needs of the burgeoning middle class with the launch of the Rs1 lakh Nano battling the odds in West Bengal.
The group was forced to shift the project from Singur, where he was invited by Marxist chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, to Sanand in Gujarat at the invitation of Narendra Modi.
Although the Nano could not live up to the expectations after its initial worldwide acclaim, the small car will still be remembered as Tata’s desire to provide a ‘safer’ option to many Indian lower-middle class families riding two-wheelers.
In a recent interview to PTI, Tata has said that Singur was a “great disappointment” because he went there “in a leap of faith” thinking that part of the country was being ignored industrially. Tatas will still go to West Bengal someday, he has said.
Under Tata, the group also made great strides when it capitalised on the sunrise industry of information technology in the 90s. With revenues of over $10 billion in 2011-12, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is today India’s largest IT company, ahead of giants in the field like Infosys and Wipro.
On his post-retirement plans, Tata, a bachelor, has said he will spend time on technology which is quite a passion with him. He will brush up on his piano, which he learnt as a school boy and pursue flying, apart from his focus on philanthropic activities.
Rajiv Gandhi Jeevandayee Arogya Yojana offered by the Maharashtra government provides health insurance cover up to Rs1.5 lakh for families earning less than Rs1 lakh per year. How much does the insurance company pay to the TPA? Why does the insurer deny TPA incentive data requested under RTI?
The Maharashtra government has launched Rajiv Gandhi Jeevandayee Arogya Yojana (RGJAY) in order to improve medical access facility for both Below Poverty Line (BPL - Yellow card holders) and Above Poverty Line (APL- Orange card holders) families). RGJAY is already being implemented in eight districts including Mumbai and would be implemented throughout the state in phased manner in a period of three years.
According to Dr Raju Jotkar, assistant director, RGJAY, “In the instance of non availability of a health card (in the eight districts where the scheme is implemented), the beneficiary family can still avail the services at network hospital by producing Yellow/Orange/Antyodaya/Annapurna ration card and photo identity.”
Find out more about the scheme - http://moneylife.in/article/rajiv-gandhi-jeevandayee-arogya-yojana-what-you-need-to-know/30348.html
The first level of authorisation for undergoing any procedure will be from the insurer or rather TPA (third party administrator). Is it possible that genuine patients may be denied approval for procedure based on TPA interested in keeping the claims payout down? Dr Jotkar, says, “In the two-layered preauthorization, RGJAY society physicians have an upper-hand as they have an opportunity to see the case, the verdict of TPA doctor and power to accept or reject the verdict (overrule TPA verdict).”
Find out about progress and hurdles faced by RGJAY - http://www.moneylife.in/article/united-india-insurance-doles-out-inives-to-tpas-to-reduce-claims-ratio/27379.html
The RGJAY society has paid National Insurance Company premium of Rs333 per family (service tax extra) for about 49.2 lakh beneficiaries, of which two quarterly premiums have been paid till date. It means the society has paid the insurance company premium of Rs82 crore for two quarters ending December 2012.
According to Dr Jotkar, “80% of the premium paid by Maharashtra state to NIC is for claim settlement of network hospitals, while 20% for administration cost of insurer as per memorandum-of-understanding (MOU). Out of the 20% administration cost some portion is passed on by NIC to the TPA for his services, which are not available in-house in NIC. It is learnt that TPA fees range 5% to 8% of the premium depending on scope. It would be prudent to pose this question to NIC for better precision.”
It means that TPAs have got minimum of Rs4.1 crore for six months of their services till December 2012. There could be additional doles given to TPA for reducing claims. Dr Jotkar, says, “No precise idea, but we hear that some bonus is given to TPA which is also substantial.”
This is exactly the information sought by social and legal activist Gaurang Damani from NIC, but his RTI (Right to Information) application has been denied even after the first appeal. NIC stated that the documents cannot be provided under Section 8(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. NIC asked for the TPA’s consent to sharing information on incentive for claims reduction. The TPA objected to it with following reasons—“They being private organization are not required to comply with RTI Act. The disclosure of this information will not serve any public interest. On the contrary it would harm and/or injury to their interests. It could cause irreparable damage to them as their competitors would take advantage of their commercial trade secrets.”
Clearly, NIC took refuge under the TPA consent to scuttle the information sought under RTI. Similar data was given by United India Insurance and New India Assurance in the RTI reply for regular mediclaim policies. The TPA contract states that if the incurred claims ratio is 70% to 90%, then there is an incentive of 10% of the amount by which incurred claim is reduced as against the previous financial year. If the incurred claims ratio is 50% to 70%, then there is an incentive of 20% of the amount by which incurred claim is reduced as against the previous financial year.
This is completely detrimental to the interest of the policyholder whose genuine claims can also be partially paid or rejected just so that the TPA is able to get incentives from the insurance company. By putting this incentive clause, the TPA will obviously do everything possible to limit the claims outgo.
According to Mr Damani, “This is a violation of Section 52(1) of the Insurance Act – Dividing Principle. A claim of one person cannot be used to offset the claim of another person. In short, the insurer/TPA cannot offset losses from one policy against another policy.” Interestingly, the Insurance Regulator and Development Authority (IRDA) has chosen to ignore or keep quiet on this important point in the PIL filed by Mr Damani.