According to SEBI, the present management of DSE, even after getting to know about the irregularities committed by the erstwhile management, failed to initiate any action
Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), after finding "serious irregularities" in the functioning withdrew its recognition granted to of Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE).
SEBI also observed that activities of DSE were "carried out in a manner contrary to the interest of the investors."
"...hereby withdraw the recognition granted to Delhi Stock Exchange," SEBI Whole Time Member Prashant Saran said in a 19-page order.
The regulator will take all necessary steps consequential to the derecognition.
"I note that serious irregularities have been found in the functioning of DSE at the time when DSE was taking steps for demutualisation," Saran said.
"It is seen that for completing the demutualisation process the erstwhile board of DSE had overlooked the due transfer of shares in the demat accounts and receipt of the funds by the 'appointed date'," he added.
Further, DSE acted in an irregular manner in case of "releasing the funds to the merchant banker, without receipt of the application money, allotment of shares to media company and in turn awarding them media contract, without any corresponding utilisation of media space."
Among others, SEBI rules pertaining to demutualisation requires every stock exchange to sell brokers' 51% equity to separate their trading and ownership rights.
Present governing board of DSE admitted that a false certificate of completion of demutualisation process has been submitted by the erstwhile management of the Exchange.
"It is seen that the present management, even after getting to know about the irregularities committed by the erstwhile management, has not initiated any action," the SEBI said.
"From the same, it can be concluded that DSE had failed to complete the demutualisation process before the 'appointed date," SEBI said
Therefore, the recognition granted to DSE was withdrawn, it added.
CBI had filed the closure report in the case in which it had earlier registered an FIR against JLD Yavatmal Energy, its directors Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda, Rajendra Darda, Manoj Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal and Abhishek Jayaswal and other unknown persons
A special court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to further investigate an alleged scam in coal blocks allocation, involving Rajya Sabha MP Vijay Darda and others, in which the agency had filed a closure report.
Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar has asked CBI to file a progress report of its probe on 19th December.
“Vide my separate detailed order, the matter has been sent for further investigation,” the judge said.
CBI had filed the closure report in the case in which it had earlier registered an FIR against JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd, its directors Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda, Rajendra Darda, Manoj Jayaswal, Anand Jayaswal and Abhishek Jayaswal and other unknown persons.
CBI had lodged an FIR in the case against six individuals, the firm and unknown persons under sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
The agency, however, had later on filed a closure report in the case, saying that no undue benefit was given to JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd by the Coal Ministry in the allocation of coal blocks to it.
In its closure report, the agency has said that nothing substantial has emerged to establish cheating and criminal conspiracy among officials of the Ministry of Coal and JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd’s directors.
CBI, which had earlier alleged in its FIR that JLD Yavatmal wrongfully concealed previous allocation of four coal blocks to its group companies in 1999-2005, has said in its closure report that even if it had revealed this, it would not have been disqualified for getting the coal blocks.
The report had said that investigation could not establish that JLD Yavatmal Energy Ltd has obtained any undue benefit from the Ministry of Coal with regard to its non-declaration of previous coal blocks.
Class-action settlement over supplement sold by Walmart, Walgreens and Supervalu provides little relief to consumers
If you have joint pain and are looking for ways to ease the symptoms, a host of companies in the U.S. will point you toward products with glucosamine that have enticing promises.
Store shelves are filled with bottles of the supplements that over the years have been advertised as not only easing joint pain, but protecting – even rebuilding – cartilage.
The problem is there are no scientific studies that sufficiently prove these claims, according to numerous class-action lawsuits filed around the country and some health experts, who have outright recommended against taking it.
Glucosamine, a component of the building blocks of cartilage, is one of the most commonly purchased non-vitamin dietary supplement in the U.S, with sales topping $750 million in 2012. With an aging population, and more than 50 million Americans suffering from arthritis who are looking to ease the symptoms, it’s no wonder sales are steep in the U.S.
Marketing vs. proof
But what consumers should be paying closer attention to is this: Studies have shown that glucosamine, with or without chondroitin (an acid found in cartilage), is no better than a placebo in reducing the symptoms or progression of osteoarthritis, nor has it been found to help rebuild cartilage.
Despite this, a plethora of companies have advertised that the products do just that. And now they are facing class-action lawsuits, some of which are being settled. TINA.org is objecting link to brief to one such settlement that effectively allows the companies to continue falsely advertising the products.
In this case, consumers in the U.S. who purchased a variety of glucosamine supplements manufactured by South Carolina-based Perrigo — and sold by Walmart, Supervalu, Walgreens, and stores owned by them — will have to agree to allow the companies to continue marketing the products in misleading ways if they want to get some money back on their purchases.
The settlement, pending in federal court in New York, allows the retailers to:
Use a variety of misleading terms on the labels of the products.
Return in two years to using the same exact language on the labels that prompted the class action in the first place.
Avoid having to take necessary measures to alert millions of consumers who bought the products about the settlement and their ability to object, opt out, or file for a small refund.
If the settlement is approved as proposed, the nationwide class of consumers who don’t opt out will forever be prohibited from suing these companies over their marketing of the supplements in the future.
So who wins? The retailers, Perrigo and the attorneys who will pocket about $1 million.
“It is outrageous that a class-action lawsuit can silence an entire nation of consumers who purchased these glucosamine supplements while the retailers are permitted to continue on with their deceptive labeling practices,” said TINA.org Executive Director Bonnie Patten.
Consumers affected by the settlement (which is anyone who has purchased the generic glucosamine products sold by Walmart, Supervalu, and Walgreens or their affiliated stores from Nov. 1, 2005 to Aug. 1, 2014) have until Nov. 24 to object, opt out, or file a claim.
Check back with TINA.org link to Glucosamine landing page for continued updates. More information on court actions regarding glucosamine can be found here.