[Sawyer]

This is so funny!
http://www.firstpost.com/business/ra...g-3100838.html

[desdemona]

This is not a sport, nor is either camp taking it as such. Let alone a 'spectator' one.

There are very real dangers felt by Ratan Tata and Tata Sons of a de-facto takeover of Tata Group companies as-a-whole by Mistry and whoever has been enlisted, such as 'independent directors' and/or 'large financial institutions' to support his and his family's control to go with their 20% shareholding.

Don't foget: it's Mr. Tata who chose Mr.Mistry. The evidence so far in the public domain ALL points in that direction.

Of course, you or me as investors or shareholders, say, may side with and believe-in the Mr.Mistry camp as 'trustees' of our share performance, say, or our employment/careers in Tata Group firms perhaps but Tata Sons/Tata trusts are THE promoter group, one cannot expect them to see such a de facto takeover of most Tata group firms as a matter of a bet-on-who-delivers-better-debt-levels-and-share-prices.

THAT is the difference between a promoter and a mere passive investor or a manager-agent, EVEN adjusting for all manner of legal and regulatory entailments.

[volkman10]

Independent directors of Tata Motors back Cyrus Mistry.

In a vaguely worded release late on Monday, the independent directors of Tata Motors - owner of luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover - backed Mistry's and company management's strategy saying that all decisions taken by the board of Tata Motors on strategy and operations had been "unanimous" and executed by the chairman and the management.

Source

[Sawyer]

The independent Director views are only symbolic outcomes; the real battle will be in the shareholder meetings, the EGMs that have been called.

A balance article on that subject, on how things may pan out there:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...cle9340986.ece

[desdemona]

THAT is not true. They did no such thing: they maintained a explicit 'neutral' stance, which implicitly means the opposite of what the article on firstpost.com (owned by....?;-)) suggests. A legally and regulatoraliy 'safe' way of backing Mr. Ratan Tata by several of the 'independent directors'. Obviously, Mr. Mistry et al had not coopted the entire set of 'independent' directors at tata motors, unlike say at Indian Hotels.

I find in Mr. Ratan Tata's needing to meet and 'plead' the Tata Sons/Trusts case to the FM, Mr. Jaitley, which he did today, a giveaway about the potential, or so one strongly suspects, 'political alignments' between Mr. Mistry and family's now-obvious plan to de facto takeover Tata Group (ex-TCS) and certain large psu (and private?) domestic financial institutional investors and banks. The voting patterns at the egm-s will reveal things, i guess, as they were, or as they may've changed as the respective cases have been 'pleaded'.

[Sawyer]

This gets more nasty at every turn:
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporat...-lateststories

[volkman10]

Tata Global Beverages removes Cyrus Mistry as chairman.

Tata Global Beverages informed stock exchanges on Tuesday that the company's board has replaced Cyrus Mistry as chairman by a majority vote, making it the second listed group firm after TCS to do so. Soon after the statement was made public, Mistry lashed out, dubbing it an "inaccurate and illegal" decision.

Tata Global, the owner of Tetley tea brand, said seven of the 10 members present at its board meeting had voted for Mistry's removal as chairman and that the board had appointed Harish Bhat, an old Tata hand and the company's non-executive director, as its chairman.

Link

[WAM-4]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Even assuming all of Ratan Tata's (and the board's) 'grievances' against Mistry are true (though there's plenty to suggest otherwise), it only makes him/them look worse by adding a huge question mark against his/their judgment in picking Mistry in the first place.

Precisely the point I had in mind! Why hire him in the first place for the post of Chairman? I ask this because Mistry was not an outsider. He was already working in the TATA group in various capacities and the Board of Directors & Ratan Tata would have had the chance to look his working style from close quarters.

And if they did hire him after observing his working style and work ethos, then they should have atleast made it amply clear to him that making profit alone does not drive the TATA brand but also nurture relationships for long-term even if it comes at the cost of some profit!

Mistry may feel hard done-by as he doesn't seem to have been given a free hand in running the show and for working like a typical CEO of a big brand [By this I mean achieving profits relentlessly even at the cost of some goodwill from people and by selling non performing assets / companies by discarding the emotional value behind the companies!].

[rdhawan15]

Mistry and Ratan Tata need to step aside and settle their differences inside a room. Throwing muck at each other is not helping the cause, and investors' would feel lost on account of the bitterness between these 2 individual entities. Come on guys, move out of the companies and let them be handled professionally. You can fight a legal battle and leave the business and investors alone.

For sure, Ratan Tata's conduct over the past few weeks has damaged his reputation quite a bit. His inability to handle the affair in a mature way is there for all to see.

And the more these gentlemen bicker in EGMs, the worse it becomes for the shareholders and the company employees. May better sense prevail.

[desdemona]

I dis Mr. Mistry and family and 'allies' are the ones to've conducted themselves with more than a little 'dirty political' puerility, not fighting fair and square at all in their PublicRelations-management scorching of the earth, thereby leading to imo correct suspicions of mala fide intentions to takeover the the Tata Group (they already own 20% or so of Tata Sons) ex-tcs. I fear that the psu institutional investors and even the government in one way or another will take sides, if they have not already: at the egm-s, etc. Meanwhile everlasting, unending court cases are flying am sure.

[Sawyer]

The question is, in terms of reputation, who had more to lose? That side ought to be been a lot smarter in every thing that is being done now.
Never fight a pig. Both will get dirty, but the pig loves getting dirty.
No aspersions on Mistry in saying that, it just a common saying that is relevant to the situation, that Tata should have kept in mind.

[rrsteer]

One thing good from this saga,in my opinion, is that the veil of imagined purity has been lifted over Tata and Tata companies. For too long, a lot of people harbored a soft corner for Tatas. The reasons no longer exist or if they exist in cases they are also applicable to whole lot of others too, who are not seen in the same light just because they don't have a 'history'.

On the other hand, these events also reflect the sorry state of corporate governance in India. There is nothing more that I worry about while investing in companies than the way they are governed.

[volkman10]

Cyrus Mistry, Ratan Tata face off unlikely today at the board of directors of Tata Sons meet at Bombay House, the Tata Group’s headquarters.



Link

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

One thing good from this saga,in my opinion, is that the veil of imagined purity has been lifted over Tata and Tata companies. For too long, a lot of people harbored a soft corner for Tatas.
On the other hand, these events also reflect the sorry state of corporate governance in India. There is nothing more that I worry about while investing in companies than the way they are governed.

I agree; actually for people like me that have spent more than a decade in the group at senior enough levels, it is no secret. The real thing about bribes was not don't do it, but don't get caught and help RNT pretend he doesn't know by not telling him the gory detail. In the most part, agents were appointed for fancy amounts, and they did the bribing and we pretended we did not know what they did to get the required outcomes. At that time, the only Indian corporate famous for integrity was Wipro Computers, because of Azim Premji's insistence: honest business or no business. Wipro Computers were never on the DGS&D approved vendor lists.

And JRD Tata must be spinning in his grave. He famously snubbed the Nehru/Gandhis because he would not compromise on his principles. At those times, that is where the Birla group caught up with and went ahead of Tata. Now, his appointed successor, Ratan Tata is going hat in hand to the Finance Minister, to obtain support from LIC and the rest in the forthcoming EGMs. What a come down.

As to corporate governance generally, it is a joke. Invest at your own risk. Derisk by using mutual funds, even at the cost of inefficiency driven lower returns.

[rkg]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Wipro Computers were never on the DGS&D approved vendor lists..

Sorry, Wipro was in DGS&D rate contracxt, our office bought computers from Wipro under DGS&D rate contract.