Vedanta rejects Viceroy Research's ₹2,500 crore loan routing claim, says ‘executed in full compliance…'
Vedanta 'strongly rejects the baseless allegations made in the report regarding Vedanta Semiconductors Pvt Ltd (VSPL),' the report citied a statement by company's spokesperson.
'All business activities of VSPL have been transparently disclosed and are in line with statutory norms,' the company said.
The company spokesperson added that Vedanta Ltd. and VSPL have 'consistently reported' the accurate transaction terms, rates, and collateral as per the mandated norms.
'Loans between VSPL and Vedanta Ltd were executed in full compliance with applicable laws, corporate governance standards, and both Vedanta Ltd and VSPL have consistently reported accurate loan terms, interest rates, and collateral in line with statutory norms,' a Vedanta spokesperson told the news agency.
The company also reportedly asked the stakeholders to rely on verified disclosures and audited financial statements.
Viceroy Research openly disclosed its short position against the debt of Vedanta Resources, the parent company of the Indian mining giant, on 9 July 2025, when they claimed that the company is 'systematically draining' its Indian subsidiary.
In the latest development on the allegations saga, the US-based short seller, Viceroy Research, alleged that under the pressure to pay the brand fees, Vedanta Ltd routed ₹ 2,500 crore
'Under pressure to pay brand fees, VEDL routed a ₹ 2,500 crore loan through a company doing ₹ 416 crore in sham operations, hoping regulators didn't look,' said the short seller in its latest report. Viceroy Research released its latest report titled 'Vedanta – Vedanta Semiconductor: ₹ 2,500 Crore Dhoke Ka Sammraajy' on Friday, 18 July 2025.
The report further alleged that VSPL is a 'sham commodities trading operation' which has been designed to avoid the classification of coming under a non-banking financial company (NBFC).
'We believe that Vedanta Limited (VEDL) subsidiary, Vedanta Semiconductors Private Limited (VSPL), is a sham commodities trading operation designed to improperly avoid classification as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC),' they said in the report.
They also claimed that the alleged loan routing was devised to facilitate Vedanta's remittance of brand fees to its parent company when it faced a severe liquidity crunch.
'This scheme was devised to facilitate VEDL's remittance of brand fees to Vedanta Resources' (VRL) in April 2025, when it faced a severe liquidity crisis,' said Viceroy.
According to the report released on Friday, the short seller claims that Vedanta Semiconductors Private Limited needs an 'operational illusion' of 24 months or 2 years to fulfil its dues to its offshore lenders and hide the 'near-catastrophe' of April 2024.
They also said that even though the credit rating analysts are 'snoozing through the alarm bells,' the Indian regulators are 'famously light sleepers.'
'VSPL's operational illusion needs 24 months of regulatory silence to fulfil its purpose, repaying its offshore lenders and hiding the near-catastrophe of April 2024. While credit analysts are snoozing through the alarm bells, India's regulators are famously light sleepers,' claimed the short seller in its latest report.
In April 2024, the company faced a severe liquidity crisis. The loans granted were allegedly used to fund the May dividend issue and not to pay the brand fees.
'The loan was intended to be used to send up the brand fees but, by the time JPM had sold the debt in the market, they had already been paid so the loan was used to fund the May dividend,' claimed the sort seller in the research report. 'In response, VEDL reactivated VSPL, not as a semiconductor venture, but as a zero-margin trading entity whose operations appear to consist entirely of paper-based commodity trading.'
Vedanta share price closed 0.33% higher at ₹ 445.70 after Friday's stock market session, compared to ₹ 444.25 at the previous market close, according to BSE data.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud said that Viceroy Research's report on Vedanta 'lacks credibility' and that the company would be well-positioned to seek legal help in the case.
This comes after Vedanta asked for an independent legal opinion on the matter. Chandrachud also highlighted that the US-based firm has a track record of taking short positions in listed companies then publishing 'misleading' reports to unlawfully profit from the stock market impact.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SEBI allows Jane Street to resume trading in Indian market
Eighteen days after barring Jane Street from India's capital markets over alleged manipulative trading in Nifty futures, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has permitted the New York-based proprietary trading firm to resume operations, according to market sources. However, the US firm will stay away from trading in both the options and cash markets until it resolves several issues with the regulator, according to a Reuters report citing sources. The development follows Jane Street's request to SEBI to lift certain restrictions imposed in its interim order dated July 3. In response, the firm deposited Rs 4,843.57 crore — the amount SEBI alleged it had unlawfully gained — into an escrow account with a lien in favour of the regulator. After reviewing the matter in line with its earlier directions, SEBI allowed the firm to re-enter the market, though legal proceedings are ongoing. Jane Street clarified that the deposit was made without prejudice to its legal rights and remedies, which it intends to pursue. In the July 3 order, SEBI accused Jane Street of manipulating Nifty futures and ordered it to cease all trading in Indian securities markets until the alleged profits were recovered. The interim action had an immediate impact — on July 11, the first weekly expiry after the ban, NSE's equity derivatives turnover dropped nearly 21% compared to the July 3 session. Legal experts say SEBI was within its rights to ease restrictions once Jane Street complied with the monetary directive. 'The July 3 order was interim. Now that Jane Street has deposited the amount, SEBI can consider modifications,' one expert noted. Jane Street, a major player in India's derivatives space, had strongly rejected SEBI's allegations. In internal communications, the firm called the regulator's claims 'extremely inflammatory' and said it was deeply disappointed. The firm denied orchestrating any 'intentional, well-planned and sinister scheme,' and insisted that its trading on January 17, 2024 — a key date in SEBI's probe — was standard arbitrage activity, a common and legitimate strategy. Jane Street also disputed SEBI's use of certain metrics to assess market manipulation and said it did not ignore the National Stock Exchange's (NSE) concerns. On the contrary, it claimed to have voluntarily paused trading to address feedback and later revised its strategies accordingly. 'We believed we had reached a shared understanding with NSE and reflected that in our trading adjustments,' the firm stated in an internal memo. 'Since February, we've made repeated efforts to engage with SEBI but have been consistently turned away.'
Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
Indian equities are still more expensive than equities of developed and emerging markets: Report
New Delhi [India], July 21 (ANI): India continues to be one of the most expensive equity markets in the world, according to a latest report by Nuvama Institutional equities. Nuvama research highlighted that the country's 12-month forward price-to-earnings (PE) ratio stands at 23.3, which is the highest among major global and emerging markets. It is 1.6 standard deviations above its 10-year average, indicating elevated valuations compared to historical levels. The report also shared that India's 12-month forward price-to-book (PB) ratio is also high at 3.4, which is 1.3 standard deviations above its 10-year average. This makes Indian equities significantly more expensive on both earnings and book value metrics. In comparison, the United States follows closely with a 12-month forward PE of 22.4 and PB of 4.7. While the U.S. PE ratio is at the same deviation from its 10-year average (1.6) as India, its PB is at a higher deviation of 1.9. Other emerging markets like Taiwan (PE 16.1, PB 2.7), Philippines (PE 10.6, PB 1.6), and Indonesia (PE 11.2, PB 1.0) are trading at much lower valuations. The broader emerging markets (EM) index has a forward PE of 12.8 and PB of 1.7, making India relatively more expensive. India's return on equity (ROE) remains healthy, projected at 15.6 per cent for FY2025 and 14.5 per cent for FY2026. This is slightly lower than the USA's ROE of 17.1 per cent for FY2025 and 18.8 per cent for FY2026. Emerging markets on average are expected to deliver ROE of 11.7 per cent in FY2025 and 14.4 per cent in FY2026. Also, in terms of dividend yield (DY), India's yield is among the lowest across key equity markets at a modest 1.2 per cent for FY2025 and 1.4 per cent for FY2026. Despite the premium valuation, strong fundamentals such as high ROE and growth potential continue to support investor interest in Indian equities. These high valuation concerns have made the investors cautious for the Indian markets and the indices are in pressure from last 10 months with last high was made in September 2024. The Indian markets have corrected significantly but still the valuations as per report are high. The elevated valuations may limit upside potential and increase vulnerability to global market corrections or domestic policy shifts. (ANI)
Hans India
19 minutes ago
- Hans India
11/7 acquittal: HC slams prosecution's failure to establish type of bombs used to hit Mumbai trains
Mumbai: The prosecution failed to even establish the type of bombs used in the crime, the Bombay High Court said on Monday castigating the shoddy probe that resulted in the acquittal of 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. "The prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused on each count, it is unsafe to reach the satisfaction that the Appellants/Accused have committed the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced," said a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Justice S. Chandak. On July 11, 2006, seven bomb serial blasts in packed Mumbai local trains brought the maximum city on its knees within 11 minutes. The terror attack left 189 dead and 800 injured. Out of the 12 people convicted by the trial court, five were handed death sentences and others were given life imprisonment. The High Court's acquittal order is a major blow to the investigation agencies which, according to Justices Kilor and Chandak, failed to even present evidence on the type of bombs used in the serial blasts. "The circuit boards recovered from Mohd. Faisal Shaikh and Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari are of no help to the prosecution to establish the present offence as the prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record and to establish the type of bombs used in the present crime," the High Court said. Justices Kilor and Chandak said, "Though the prosecution brought on record the technical report of the expert about the circuit board, it failed to establish the type of bombs used in the present crime. Thus, the said recovery is not relevant." On Monday, the 12 accused -- incarcerated for 19 years -- also succeeded to establish in the High Court the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements. As a result, the High Court held the statements inadmissible saying, "On all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed." The prosecution case against the accused was weakened further when it failed to share with the defence the Call Detail Record -- which were relied upon heavily to file charges. In 2015, a special court had convicted 12 accused in the case -- sentenced five of them to death and seven others to life imprisonment. Faisal Shaikh, Asif Khan, Kamal Ansari, Ehtesham Siddiqui, and Naveed Khan were sentenced to death. They had challenged this sentence in the High Court. The prosecution had argued that the attack was planned by Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, and carried out by operatives of Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba with help from the Students' Islamic Movement of India, a banned Indian group.
