TVS-SUZUKI: GOVERNANCE
         ISSUES IN CORPORATE
PARTNERSHIPS AND SEPARATION

                            Group K

                           Vishal Jain
                       Amitesh Tyagi
                      Aniruddha Ray
                         Gaurav Goel
                   Dindi Keshava Rao
                       Niten Lalpuria
                   Pervinder Chawla
Dominant Ownership - Types
• Category I : 100% Subsidiaries
• Category II : Companies (Joint Venture)
  – Group II A : Exclusive Joint Venture
  – Group II B : Venture with Partners and Retail
    Investors
• Category III : Companies (Ventures without
  Identified Partners
Group II B : Venture with Partners and
Retail Investors
• FDI Company residual equity is held in varying
  proportion, partly by JV partner and partly by
  retail investors
• Popular in pre-liberalisation regime
• Board of Directors usually comprised an equal
  number of nominees and also few outside
  directors
• The directors, unwittingly or otherwise, might
  fail to represent and protect the interest of all
  shareholders
Retail Investors
• Dispersed lot, either due to indifference or
  ignorance, hardly participate in members
  meetings
• Might become vulnerable to possible
  discipline and excesses of dominant
  shareholders
• Huge Corporate Governance problem, when
  decisions taken are not in interest in such
  minority shareholders
Press Note 18 : Issues
• Measure of protecting Indian Industry
• Issued in 1998 Scrapped in 2005
• Compels all foreign companies and businesses to
  justify to the Indian Government acting through a
  committee of bureaucrats known as the FIPB that
  their newly intended foreign investment, whether by
  way of equity or other financial or technical
  collaboration, in even an allied field would not in any
  way jeopardize the interest of a previously existing
  Indian collaborator
• Need to procure NOC from existing JV partner
Press Note18 : Issue
• Failed to take a holistic approach towards the
  potentially affected parties
• Assumes identified domestic JV partner alone
  as the aggrieved party
• The regular absentee shareholders are likely
  to be impacted by such decision
• Led to number of corporate governance and
  shareholder protection problems
Responsibility of Company Directors
• Fiduciary responsibilities apply to all the
  shareholders in a company
• Act as moderators and protectors at the first
  interface level with the controlling owners
  and executive management
• Responsible for the reasonable and
  appropriate exercise of these powers in the
  overall interest of the company, more
  specifically its absentee shareholders
TVS – Suzuki Case : Issues
• Venu Srinivasan representing the partner,
  Sundaram Clayton Ltd, and acting as JV
  Executive – its MD
• For best interest of overall company, Separate
  MD for the JV reporting to his or her venture
TVS – Suzuki Case - Issues
• Distress Sale by Suzuki – 26% holding to TVS
• Price - Rs 15 per share (Market price Rs 70)
There should have been a premium for
controlling stakes – But sold on Discount ???
No explanation was given to Japanese
Shareholder of Suzuki
Legal but not Appropriate from Absentee
Shareholder
Options Available – Option 1
Surrender Suzuki shares to the company for
extinguishing
  – Use company fund to buyback the share and
    cancel
  – The share capital would have come down
  – TVS holding would have gone up from 32 % to
    43.85%
Option 2
Sale offer by Suzuki of its shares to residual
shareholders
• All shareholders have right not obligation to
  buy
• Share Holding of TVS goes up to 43.85%
Why TVS did not opt these option?
Garner some additional market price based
paper gain (~ Rs 400 to Rs 450 million)
Role of Independent Directors
• 5 out of 9 Independent Directors (Officially)
• Failed on Counseling Dimension: How they counsel
  the two partners to avoid the deteriorating
  partnership
• Failed on Controlling Dimension: Did not ensured the
  appropriate wealth is passed to Absentee
  Shareholders
• Failed on Communication Role : Did not communicate
  about the disengagement
• Failed on Fiduciary Duty: Failed to protect the interest
  of non-management shareholders
QUESTIONS?

TVS Suzuki JV Split - Analysis on Corp Governance

  • 1.
    TVS-SUZUKI: GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN CORPORATE PARTNERSHIPS AND SEPARATION Group K Vishal Jain Amitesh Tyagi Aniruddha Ray Gaurav Goel Dindi Keshava Rao Niten Lalpuria Pervinder Chawla
  • 2.
    Dominant Ownership -Types • Category I : 100% Subsidiaries • Category II : Companies (Joint Venture) – Group II A : Exclusive Joint Venture – Group II B : Venture with Partners and Retail Investors • Category III : Companies (Ventures without Identified Partners
  • 3.
    Group II B: Venture with Partners and Retail Investors • FDI Company residual equity is held in varying proportion, partly by JV partner and partly by retail investors • Popular in pre-liberalisation regime • Board of Directors usually comprised an equal number of nominees and also few outside directors • The directors, unwittingly or otherwise, might fail to represent and protect the interest of all shareholders
  • 4.
    Retail Investors • Dispersedlot, either due to indifference or ignorance, hardly participate in members meetings • Might become vulnerable to possible discipline and excesses of dominant shareholders • Huge Corporate Governance problem, when decisions taken are not in interest in such minority shareholders
  • 5.
    Press Note 18: Issues • Measure of protecting Indian Industry • Issued in 1998 Scrapped in 2005 • Compels all foreign companies and businesses to justify to the Indian Government acting through a committee of bureaucrats known as the FIPB that their newly intended foreign investment, whether by way of equity or other financial or technical collaboration, in even an allied field would not in any way jeopardize the interest of a previously existing Indian collaborator • Need to procure NOC from existing JV partner
  • 6.
    Press Note18 :Issue • Failed to take a holistic approach towards the potentially affected parties • Assumes identified domestic JV partner alone as the aggrieved party • The regular absentee shareholders are likely to be impacted by such decision • Led to number of corporate governance and shareholder protection problems
  • 7.
    Responsibility of CompanyDirectors • Fiduciary responsibilities apply to all the shareholders in a company • Act as moderators and protectors at the first interface level with the controlling owners and executive management • Responsible for the reasonable and appropriate exercise of these powers in the overall interest of the company, more specifically its absentee shareholders
  • 8.
    TVS – SuzukiCase : Issues • Venu Srinivasan representing the partner, Sundaram Clayton Ltd, and acting as JV Executive – its MD • For best interest of overall company, Separate MD for the JV reporting to his or her venture
  • 9.
    TVS – SuzukiCase - Issues • Distress Sale by Suzuki – 26% holding to TVS • Price - Rs 15 per share (Market price Rs 70) There should have been a premium for controlling stakes – But sold on Discount ??? No explanation was given to Japanese Shareholder of Suzuki Legal but not Appropriate from Absentee Shareholder
  • 10.
    Options Available –Option 1 Surrender Suzuki shares to the company for extinguishing – Use company fund to buyback the share and cancel – The share capital would have come down – TVS holding would have gone up from 32 % to 43.85%
  • 11.
    Option 2 Sale offerby Suzuki of its shares to residual shareholders • All shareholders have right not obligation to buy • Share Holding of TVS goes up to 43.85% Why TVS did not opt these option? Garner some additional market price based paper gain (~ Rs 400 to Rs 450 million)
  • 12.
    Role of IndependentDirectors • 5 out of 9 Independent Directors (Officially) • Failed on Counseling Dimension: How they counsel the two partners to avoid the deteriorating partnership • Failed on Controlling Dimension: Did not ensured the appropriate wealth is passed to Absentee Shareholders • Failed on Communication Role : Did not communicate about the disengagement • Failed on Fiduciary Duty: Failed to protect the interest of non-management shareholders
  • 13.