logo
Vedanta's parent refunded part of brand fee amid ED scrutiny, says short-seller Viceroy

Vedanta's parent refunded part of brand fee amid ED scrutiny, says short-seller Viceroy

Mint30-07-2025
Mumbai: Vedanta Resources, the London-based parent of Vedanta Ltd, refunded a part of the brand fee paid by its India-listed subsidiary in FY24 amid scrutiny from the Directorate of Enforcement, which at the time was investigating the company's brand fee payments, US-based short-seller Viceroy Research alleged on Wednesday.
Vedanta Resources refunded ₹ 1,030 crore ($123 million) to Vedanta Ltd in 2023 without intimating its auditors, the short-seller alleged. The transaction can be seen in the FY24 annual report of the company.
The short-seller did not clarify which legal provisions, if any, were violated by Vedanta. However, the ED investigation into the company was still ongoing, the short-seller said, citing unnamed former employees, advisors and counter-parties of the Vedanta Group. 'Stakeholders should not mistake the absence of public updates for resolution; the risk is unresolved, ongoing, and material.'
In an emailed response, a Vedanta spokesperson said, 'The said short sellers have repeatedly circulated mala fide and misleading 'reports' replete with inaccuracies. The brand fee paid by Vedanta to Vedanta Resources Limited (VRL) for each financial year is determined based on the approved business plan, with a true-up mechanism implemented in the subsequent cycle to align with actual performance.'
For FY24, due to macroeconomic headwinds, the actual turnover did not meet the business plan. In line with prudent financial practices, Vedanta proactively requested VRL to refund the excess brand fee amount in advance, rather than the routine adjustment cycle. Additionally, any notional opportunity cost of capital was equitably addressed through a discount extended by VRL on the subsequent brand fee,' the spokesperson said.
Regarding the ED notice during Q1 FY24, the spokesperson said, 'It was a routine request. The matter did not warrant disclosure under applicable regulations, and all required information has been duly furnished. There are no outstanding queries in this regard.'
This is the latest in Viceroy's series of allegations against Vedanta Group. The short-seller has accused the London-based parent of draining cash from Vedanta Ltd. through high dividends and brand fee payments, among other things. Vedanta Group has denied all allegations.
Earlier, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had provided a legal opinion to Vedanta on the Viceroy reports in a professional capacity. He said that the first and the most expansive Viceroy report on Vedanta lacked credibility, and the researchers behind the report had 'dubious credentials'. He highlighted Viceroy's interest in profiteering from a possible rout in Vedanta Resources' commercial papers as a result of the short-seller's reports. He also said he suspected the timing of the report, coming just as India-listed Vedanta Ltd is headed for a demerger.
Viceroy subsequently disputed the former chief justice's legal opinion, saying that it did not answer any question raised by it with regards to dividend payments and alleged financial mismanagement at the mining and minerals conglomerate.
The Vedanta Ltd stock is down 4.7% since its close on 8 July, a day before Viceroy published its first report on the Vedanta Group.
Vedanta Ltd and its subsidiaries pay between 0.75% and 3% of their revenues as brand and strategic services fee to Vedanta Resources, as per a Vedanta Resources presentation. The fee is paid at the beginning of a financial year by estimating the revenue during the year. At the end of the year, any excess fee paid is returned.
The short-seller has called this arrangement a rolling credit facility from Vedanta Ltd to Vedanta Resources with 'zero interest, zero collateral, and zero transparency'.
While the structure is unique compared to most multinational companies and conglomerates, where brand fees are paid at the end of the year, Viceroy alleged anomalies. Whenever Vedanta Resources faced a liquidity crunch, it triggered ad hoc remittances from Vedanta Ltd as brand fees, the short-seller said. These ad hoc payments were what originally drew the attention of the ED, the short-seller said.
In FY25, group companies paid a consolidated brand fee of $361 million to Vedanta Resources, as per Viceroy's calculation. The number was $339 million the previous year. In all, the group companies paid $1.2 billion in brand fees between FY22 and FY25, which was equivalent to 12% of Vedanta Ltd's aggregate net profit during this period.
For FY26, Vedanta Ltd has already remitted $400 million in brand fees to Vedanta Resources in April, as per Viceroy. The company is yet to disclose this figure in its financial statements. India-listed Vedanta Ltd will disclose its April-June quarter earnings on Thursday.
The brand fees are a core income stream for Vedanta Resources, which has no operating businesses and relies on income from its subsidiaries. The fees help the London-based company service its $4.9 billion net debt, which includes $835 million a year in interest payments.
The brand fee structure has been a concern for Vedanta Resources' offshore lenders, Viceroy said. 'It was clear to them that there was no legal or commercial justification for the brand fees and that they were very vulnerable to regulatory intervention.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US doubles tariff on India to 50% over Russian crude oil purchases
US doubles tariff on India to 50% over Russian crude oil purchases

Business Standard

time26 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

US doubles tariff on India to 50% over Russian crude oil purchases

In a significant escalation of trade tensions, the Donald Trump administration on Wednesday imposed a further 25 per cent tariff on Indian exports to the United States (US), blaming New Delhi's continued purchases of Russian crude oil. The move brings the total tariff burden to 50 per cent, leaving India at a marked disadvantage compared to global competitors, including China, on virtually all merchandise exports to the US. The US had already announced a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports, set to come into force from August 7. The additional 25 per cent duty will apply to shipments arriving after a 21-day window, from August 28 onwards. These tariffs are being levied on top of existing World Trade Organization-compatible duties. 'I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,' Trump said in an executive order issued by the White House. The order states that India's continued oil trade with Russia undermines US national security and foreign policy interests, particularly in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. India has condemned the tariff hike, calling the US decision 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable' and emphasising how the US in recent days 'targeted' India's oil imports from Russia. 'We have already made clear our position on these issues, including the fact that our imports are based on market factors and done with the overall objective of ensuring the energy security of 1.4 billion people of India,' the Ministry of External Affairs said. 'It is therefore extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest,' the MEA further said. The ministry added that India would take 'all actions necessary' to safeguard its national interests. Russia now supplies about one-third of India's total crude oil imports, making it New Delhi's largest energy partner. India is the world's second-largest buyer of Russian crude, after China. According to the New Delhi-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), while India could consider curbing Russian oil imports if economically feasible, it should not give in to US pressure without due consideration. 'India should remain calm, avoid retaliation for at least six months, and recognise that meaningful trade negotiations with the US cannot proceed under threats or mistrust,' GTRI said, warning that the US may find new pretexts to penalise India again. Trump in his executive order stated that should 'a foreign country' retaliate against the United States in response to this action, he may further raise the tariffs. However, he indicated that the order could be modified should India or Russia take what he described as 'significant steps' towards aligning with the US on security, foreign policy, or economic matters. Earlier this month, Trump had warned of secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries continuing trade relations with Russia, unless Moscow agreed to a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO) called the move a major setback for exporters, with nearly 55 per cent of India's shipments to the US directly affected. 'The 50 per cent reciprocal tariff effectively imposes a cost burden, placing our exporters at a 30–35 per cent competitive disadvantage compared to peers from countries with lesser reciprocal tariff,' said FIEO President S C Ralhan. He added that micro, small & medium enterprises-led sectors, in particular, may not be able to withstand the sudden cost surge. 'Margins are already thin, and this additional blow could force exporters to lose long-standing clients.' The latest measures come amid criticism from within the US political establishment. Republican leader Nikki Haley had earlier said: 'India should not be buying oil from Russia. But China, an adversary and the number one buyer of Russian and Iranian oil, got a 90-day tariff pause. Don't give China a pass and burn a relationship with a strong ally like India.' In May, the US government granted a 90-day pause on additional tariffs on China, a reprieve that is due to expire on August 12. GTRI pointed to the disparity, noting that Beijing continues to avoid penalties due to its control over critical materials such as gallium, germanium, rare earths, and graphite -- resources deemed vital to US defence and technology sectors. 'In 2024, China bought $62.6 billion of Russian oil, more than India's $52.7 billion, yet faces no such penalties,' it said.

Swiss Firms Rethink Global Strategy After Tariff Surge
Swiss Firms Rethink Global Strategy After Tariff Surge

Mint

timean hour ago

  • Mint

Swiss Firms Rethink Global Strategy After Tariff Surge

Simon Michel couldn't take the risk of waiting any longer. As Switzerland was assessing the shock announcement that the US would impose a 39% tariff, the chief executive officer of Ypsomed Holding AG realized that he needed to act. Ypsomed plans to move some production of medical devices to the German city of Schwerin, where the tariff is less than half the Swiss level. The executive also wants to ramp up production in the US, he told Bloomberg News. The Burgdorf-based company isn't alone. Across the country, executives and owners at businesses — from large multinationals such as food giant Nestle SA to small domestic champions — are trying to figure out how to deal with the new reality. The scale of the levy exceeded all expectations and caught the Swiss business elite off guard. In a call with executives on Monday, one of Switzerland's chief negotiators said that they were still working on getting the overall tariff rate down. Their response to her was blunt: there's no substitute for the US market. Plans to move, such as Michel's, could still change if Switzerland gets Donald Trump to lower the tariff. But with so much at stake, some businesses are taking matters into their own hands. Machine-tool maker Netstal Maschinen AG is looking to reduce the share of Swiss components in its supply chain for products aimed at the US market, which accounts for approximately 15% of revenue. Orders from the US have already fallen 20% in the first half of 2025, CEO Renzo Davatz said. And it's likely to get worse if the Swiss don't get a better deal. A one-hour drive away in Weggis, Adrian Steiner, the CEO of Thermoplan AG, which builds coffee machines for Starbucks among other things, is sketching out plans to expand production capacities in the EU and the US, he said. However, he wants to wait for a final decision until the US tariffs kick in. One high-profile consumer product caught up in the Swiss tariffs is Nespresso. Though Nestle SA sells the coffee capsules all over the world, it only produces them in Switzerland. Most of its other product lines are made locally for their respective markets. The same holds true for many of Switzerland's international listed companies, including consumer brands such as Lindt & Spruengli AG and Logitech International AG, as well as industrial players like ABB Ltd and Holcim AG. After Trump's so-called Liberation Day announcements on tariffs, some firms without fully diversified production front-loaded shippings to the US. Shipping company Kuehne and Nagel International AG saw a slight increase in industry-wide shipments from Switzerland to US in the period. Switzerland is only a small part of their business. But for companies that waited, believing the government's optimistic messaging about a US deal, there was a shock last week. Now, there's no time. 'There is some movement to expedite loadings, but generally the timeline is too tight to load unplanned shipments into containers and to then gate in and get on a ship,' a spokesperson for Kuehne and Nagel said. 'Many hinterland manufacturers simply did not have time.' The risks to the Swiss economy are sizable. A 39% tariff rate might knock off 1% of Switzerland's gross domestic product over the medium term. While large multinational companies have some chance of reorienting supply chains and production to cope, it's much harder for smaller family-owned businesses. There's also the personal cost. Lobby group Swissmem says the tariffs put tens of thousands of Swiss jobs at risk. Among Switzerland's top companies, Roche Holding AG and Novartis AG are in the clear for now as pharmaceuticals are exempt. But that might soon change, with Trump warning he could announce tariffs on the sector in the next week. Some companies have tried to get ahead of the tariffs by frontloading early in the year. 'We transferred a lot of stock already in the first six months of this year when the story about the tariffs started,' watchmaker Swatch said in a statement. 'In such a situation, inventory is key and a competitive advantage.' With assistance from Naomi Kresge, Jennifer Creery, Noele Illien and Sonja Wind.

JSW Cement raises ₹1,080 crore from anchor investors ahead of IPO
JSW Cement raises ₹1,080 crore from anchor investors ahead of IPO

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

JSW Cement raises ₹1,080 crore from anchor investors ahead of IPO

JSW Cement, part of the diversified JSW Group, on Wednesday mobilised ₹1,080 crore from anchor investors, a day before its initial share-sale opening for public subscription. This anchor portion witnessed participation from domestic and foreign institutional investors including Nomura, Government of Singapore, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Morgan Stanley Investment Fund, Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte and Kuwait Investment Authority, according to a circular uploaded on BSE's website. Also, SBI Mutual Fund (MF), Nippon India MF, Tata MF, Aditya Birla Sun Life MF, Motilal Oswal MF and SBI Life Insurance Company are among investors. As per the circular, JSW Cement has allotted 7,34,69,386 equity shares to 52 funds at ₹147 apiece. This aggregates the transaction size to ₹1,080 crore. The company has set a price band of ₹139-147 per share, valuing the 17-year-old company at ₹20,000 crore at the upper end of the price band. The IPO, which includes a fresh issue of ₹1,600 crore of shares and ₹2,000 crore of shares to be sold by current shareholders through Offer for Sale, will be open between August 7-11. As part of the OFS, private equity giant Apollo Management, through its affiliate AP Asia Opportunistic Holdings Pte Ltd, as well as Synergy Metals Investments Holding Ltd and State Bank of India (SBI) will offload shares. Synergy Metals Investments Holding is an arm of Synergy Metals and Mining Fund, a private equity fund set up by a former executive of steelmaker ArcelorMittal Sudhir Maheshwari in 2015. According to the draft papers, the company will utilise proceeds worth ₹800 crore to part-finance a new integrated cement unit at Nagaur, Rajasthan, and ₹ 520 crore for payment of debt and the remaining funds for general corporate purposes. As of March 31, 2025, JSW Cement's total borrowings stood at ₹6,166.6 crore. The Mumbai-based company had earlier planned to raise ₹4,000 crore. At the time of filing papers, JSW Cement said it intended to raise ₹2,000 crore from a fresh issue of equity shares and an OFS of ₹2,000 crore by investor shareholders. However, the size of the fresh capital-raising has been cut by ₹400 crore from the fresh issue. When asked about the reasons for scaling down the IPO size from ₹ 4,000 crore to ₹ 3,600 crore, Parth Jindal, the managing director of JSW Cement, had stated it is led by business requirements in current times and also to make future dilutions possible. At the time of announcing the IPO, the cement industry's condition was not as good, necessitating a higher sum of money, he had added. On the financial front, the company's revenue from operations for FY25 stood at ₹5,813.1 crore against ₹6,028.10 crore in FY24, and ₹5,836.72 crore in FY23. The company reported a loss of ₹163.77 crore in FY25. Its profit was ₹62 crore in FY24 and ₹104 crore in FY23. As of March 31, 2025, JSW Cement had an installed grinding capacity of 20.60 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA).

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store