Companies & Sectors
ShopClues founder Sandeep Aggarwal arrested on insider trading charges

The FBI arrested Sandeep Aggarwal, who received funding from Helion Venture Partners and Nexus Ventures for ShopClues.com, on charges of insider trading in his earlier role as a Wall Street analyst



The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has arrested Sandeep Aggarwal, founder and chief executive of ShopClues.com on insider trading charges. Private funds, Helion Venture Partners, Nexus Ventures funded Aggarwal in his latest e-commerce venture.

 

According to FBI, New York, Aggarwal, while working as a Wall Street analyst, allegedly provided tip about a partnership deal between Microsoft and Yahoo to SAC Capital's then portfolio manager Richard Lee.

 

Confirming the arrest, the FBI through Twitter said, "Sandeep Aggarwal arrested yesterday by FBI agents in San Jose, CA on insider trading charges. Aggarwal tipped Richard Lee, portfolio manager at #SAC Capital, about pending deal between @Microsoft & @Yahoo."

 

Recently Aggarwal's ShopClues.com, an e-commerce company, raised $10 million from Helion Venture Partners, Nexus Ventures and Netprice.com chief executive Teruhide Sato, reports Iamwire.

 

According to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Lee's illegal trading based on non-public information (tip given by Aggarwal) helped his hedge fund generate more than $1.5 million in profits. The trading took place before both Microsoft and Yahoo announced their deal and also the acquisition of 3Com Corp by Hewlett Packard (HP), the SEC said in a statement.

 

The statement says, "Lee thanked the analyst for the 'very specific information' and promptly purchased hundreds of thousands of shares of Yahoo stock in a portfolio that he managed on behalf of S.A.C. Capital.  Lee also purchased shares of Yahoo stock in his personal trading account."

 

As per the release from the US Attorney's office, on 9 July 2009, Aggarwal learned from a friend, who was an employee of Microsoft about the partnership discussions between Microsoft and Yahoo. Next day, Aggarwal provided this information to two different hedge fund, including Lee. Following this, Lee's hedge fund purchased several hundred thousand shares of Yahoo. Lee himself bought 25,000 shares in Yahoo, the release said.

 

Last week, Lee pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.

User

ICICI Bank Q1 net profit up 25% to Rs2,274 crore on robust NII
On a consolidated basis, ICICI Bank reported a 32% growth in net profit at Rs2,747 crore in the June 2013 quarter against a net profit of Rs2,077 crore in the first quarter of the 2012-13 fiscal
 
Private sector lender ICICI Bank on Wednesday reported a 25% growth in standalone net profit at Rs2,274.21 crore for the June quarter, driven by higher net interest income (NII), increased disbursement of mortgage and auto loans. 
 
The country’s largest private sector bank’s standalone net profit stood at Rs1,815.05 crore in the April-June quarter of 2012-13 fiscal.
 
While the NII of the bank rose 20% to Rs 3,820 crore during the June quarter, its total income increased by 13% to Rs 12,905 crore.
 
ICICI Bank has continued to see healthy growth in its retail disbursements, with mortgage and auto loan disbursements during the quarter increasing by about 36% and 17% respectively. As a result, the outstanding mortgages and auto loan portfolios for the Bank have grown by 20% and 21% respectively.
 
The net non-performing assets of the bank increased to 0.69% at the end of the first quarter compared to 0.64% in the same period a year ago.
 
Provisioning against bad loans during the quarter also rose to Rs593 crore, as against Rs466 crore in the year-ago period.
 
However, the net interest margin improved to 3.27% at the end of the first quarter, as compared to 3.01% in the year ago period.
 
Total advances increased by 12% to Rs3.01 lakh crore at the end of the June quarter.
 
The Bank’s current account-savings account (CASA) ratio improved to 43.2% at June 30, 2013 compared to 41.9% at March 31, 2013.
 
On a consolidated basis, ICICI Bank reported a 32% growth in net profit at Rs2,747 crore. It had a net profit of Rs2,077 crore in the first quarter of the 2012-13 fiscal.
 
Capital adequacy of the bank according to Basel III norms was 17.04% at the end of the June quarter.
 
ICICI Bank closed Wednesday closed 1.7% down at Rs909 on the BSE, while the benchmarke Sensex index remained flat at 19,345.
 

User

RTI Judgement Series: Public authorities must disclose and update information regularly suo moto

Disclosures in accordance with Section (4) of the RTI Act are crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in public authorities, which would reduce the load of RTI Applications being filed, the CIC said. This is the 145th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing a complaint, directed the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to publish and regularly update its 16 manuals on its website as mandated under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

While giving this judgement on 20 October 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “When public authorities do not fulfil their obligations under Section (4) of the RTI Act, citizens have no way but to seek information under Section (6), which in turn becomes a cost for the citizens as well as the government.”

 

Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh) resident CJ Karira, filed a complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act stating that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), which is a public authority as per the Act, has not published its manuals which should be published in pursuance of its obligations under Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act.

 

The RTI Act 2005, under Section 4 (1)(b) mandates that all public authorities shall suo moto disclose information by publishing the same under 16 manuals.

 

On perusal of the website of the Pharmacy Council of India, the Bench headed by Mr Gandhi, the then CIC, found that the public authority had failed to publish the said manuals.

 

This was in gross violation of the provisions of the Act which reads as under:

 

"4(1) (b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-

 

(i)  The particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii)  The powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii)  the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv)  the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v)  the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi)  a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii)  the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii)  a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of  such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix)  a directory of its officers and employees;
(x)  the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi)  the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii)  the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii)  particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
(xiv)  details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv)  the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi)  the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
(xvii)  such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year;"

 

Mr Gandhi said, "Public Authorities were not only under an obligation to publish these manuals within 120 days of the enactment of the Act but also to update   these manuals at regular intervals or at least once a year. It is pertinent to mention here that the Council had failed to fulfil either of its obligations under the Act even after five years of its coming into effect, thereby expressing its refusal to abide by the law so enacted. Obligations under section (4) were to be fulfilled by 12 October 2005. Such lackadaisical approach defeats the purpose of the legislation enacted for the welfare of the masses and to usher in transparency in the functioning of government institutions."

 

After receiving the complaint, the Bench contact the Council over telephone and was assured that the manuals would be published within 15 days’ time. The Bench, later perused the website of the Council and observed that the manuals have since been published. 

 

Mr Gandhi noted that the RTI Act envisions that all citizens shall receive information primarily by suo moto disclosures by various public authorities as prescribed by section (4) of the act. It further envisages that citizens would be required to specifically ask for information under section (6) only in a few cases.

 

"However, when public authorities do not fulfill their obligations under section (4), citizens have no way but to seek information under section (6), which in turn becomes a cost for the citizens as well as the government. Disclosures in accordance with Section (4) of the RTI Act are crucial to ensure transparency and accountability in public authorities. This would reduce the load of RTI Applications being filed with each public authority as information would be freely available to citizens and they would not have to apply for it," the CIC said.

 

While allowing the complaint, the Bench gave following directions to the Council...

 

1. The manuals published in pursuant of section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, shall be updated regularly and necessary Standing orders shall be issued in this regard to the concerned officers.

 

2. The manuals shall be available as hard copy in the office of the CPIO.

 

3. Manual (xi) should be itemized and the report must be for the previous 2 years and there should also be a report on current budget estimates as per manual

 

4. A sign board of appropriate dimension shall be installed, mentioning name(s), designation(s), contact details, including the office address/room number, availability hours and telephone numbers of the central Public Information Officer(s), Central Assistant Public Information Officer(s) and First Appellate Authority, as the case may be, who have been notified under the RTI act 2005 (in case of a change of PIO or Appellate Authority, the sign board will be updated within ten days of the said change.) Information regarding the requisite fees to be paid under various provisions of the RTI Act 2005, modes of payment and the office where such fee will be accepted. Information regarding information Handbook/manuals published under section 4 (1) (b) of the act; their location and time when they can be accessed should be also mentioned on the board. The exact link/URL to the page on the website of the college/ department where the information handbook can be viewed will also be mentioned. No acronym/abbreviation should be used.  This information shall be inscribed both in English and Hindi, and shall be installed at a location having maximum public view. This will be maintained by the head of the public authority/ head of institution as the case may be, or the officers so directed by him in writing, so long as the RTI act is in force.

 

5. The RTI link on the website should read as "Right to Information Act 2005".

 

The above directions shall be complied by the 30 November 2011, the CIC said.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/900911/15246

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2011_900911_15246_M_69045.pdf

Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/900911

 

Complainant                                      : CJ Karira

                                                                  Secunderabad,

                                                                 Andhra Pradesh- 500 026                                                      

 Respondent                                      : Registrar - cum- Secretary,

                                                                  Pharmacy Council of India.

                                                                 Combined Council's Building Road

                                                                Aiwan - E - Ghalib Marg,

                                                                 New Delhi - 110 002

User

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)