Latest news with #UPSI
The Sun
4 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Student disputes RM18 economy rice charge in Malaysia
A pricing dispute has emerged between a university student and an economy rice vendor in Tanjung Malim, highlighting ongoing concerns about rising food costs at local eateries. The controversy reported by China Press, involves a student identified as Hu from Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI), who expressed dissatisfaction with being charged RM18 for his meal at a local economy rice outlet. Speaking to the Mandarin daily, Hu explained that he had previously patronised the establishment on multiple occasions, acknowledging that while prices were typically elevated, they had remained within acceptable limits. 'On my initial visit, I selected one meat dish and one vegetable, paying RM8. During my second trip, I chose three vegetable options for RM11,' Hu explained. The student's frustration peaked during his third visit on Friday, May 30, when he was charged RM18 for one meat dish and two vegetables. Hu decided to publicise the incident to highlight what he perceives as unfair pricing practices and to encourage greater transparency in the food service industry. 'Vendors should implement clear and fair pricing structures that are visible to customers, detailing how portions and dishes are priced so patrons understand their charges,' he stated. The student revealed that a friend experienced similar pricing and has filed a complaint with the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (KPDN), with Hu planning to follow suit. However, when approached for comment, a spokesperson for the economy rice stall strongly contested Hu's version of events. The representative emphasised that the customer never inquired about pricing before proceeding to payment, and stressed that they don't impose charges on unwilling customers. 'The patron selected an oversized portion suitable for two people, including pork belly that costs approximately RM40 per kilogram wholesale,' the spokesperson explained. 'Operating in a smaller town, our pricing reflects portion sizes. We haven't received previous complaints about our rates. Customers who find our prices unreasonable are free to seek alternatives elsewhere,' they added. Do you agree that prices for economy rice are far higher these days ?
The Sun
4 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
University student disputes RM18 economy rice charge, vendor defends pricing
A pricing dispute has emerged between a university student and an economy rice vendor in Tanjung Malim, highlighting ongoing concerns about rising food costs at local eateries. The controversy reported by China Press, involves a student identified as Hu from Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI), who expressed dissatisfaction with being charged RM18 for his meal at a local economy rice outlet. Speaking to the Mandarin daily, Hu explained that he had previously patronised the establishment on multiple occasions, acknowledging that while prices were typically elevated, they had remained within acceptable limits. 'On my initial visit, I selected one meat dish and one vegetable, paying RM8. During my second trip, I chose three vegetable options for RM11,' Hu explained. The student's frustration peaked during his third visit on Friday, May 30, when he was charged RM18 for one meat dish and two vegetables. Hu decided to publicise the incident to highlight what he perceives as unfair pricing practices and to encourage greater transparency in the food service industry. 'Vendors should implement clear and fair pricing structures that are visible to customers, detailing how portions and dishes are priced so patrons understand their charges,' he stated. The student revealed that a friend experienced similar pricing and has filed a complaint with the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (KPDN), with Hu planning to follow suit. However, when approached for comment, a spokesperson for the economy rice stall strongly contested Hu's version of events. The representative emphasised that the customer never inquired about pricing before proceeding to payment, and stressed that they don't impose charges on unwilling customers. 'The patron selected an oversized portion suitable for two people, including pork belly that costs approximately RM40 per kilogram wholesale,' the spokesperson explained. 'Operating in a smaller town, our pricing reflects portion sizes. We haven't received previous complaints about our rates. Customers who find our prices unreasonable are free to seek alternatives elsewhere,' they added. Do you agree that prices for economy rice are far higher these days ?
Business Standard
6 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
IndusInd Bank: SEBI bans former CEO and four executives over insider trading
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued an ex-parte interim order against five senior officials of IndusInd Bank, including former CEO Sumanth Kathpalia, in connection with an insider trading case. The regulator found that these individuals sold shares while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI), thereby avoiding losses estimated at approximately Rs 19.78 crore. The case pertains to discrepancies in IndusInd Banks derivative portfolio that came to light internally in late 2023, following a revised RBI directive on derivative accounting. According to SEBI, internal communications indicated that by December 2023, the bank had estimated a potential adverse financial impact of Rs 1,572 crore, or 2.35% of its net worth. However, this information was not disclosed to the stock exchanges until 10 March 2025. Following the delayed disclosure, IndusInd Bank's share price crashed 27% on 11 March 2025, to its lowest level since November 2020. SEBIs preliminary findings revealed that Kathpalia and Deputy CEO Arun Khurana, along with three other senior executives, sold substantial quantities of shares just prior to the public announcement. Kathpalia sold 1.25 lakh shares, while Khurana sold over 3.48 lakh shares. None of these trades were reported as part of a pre-approved trading plan. SEBI has frozen the bank and demat accounts of the individuals to the extent of the gains made and has prohibited them from trading in securities until further notice. The accused have also been instructed to submit detailed financial and asset disclosures within 15 days. The investigation is ongoing, with SEBI continuing to examine potential disclosure violations and the involvement of additional individuals. The regulator emphasized that these interim measures are aimed at preserving market integrity and investor confidence. IndusInd Bank reported a standalone net loss of Rs 2,235.99 crore in Q4 FY25 as against a net profit of Rs 2,346.84 crore posted in Q4 FY24. Total income declined 22.83% year on year to Rs 11,342.65 crore in Q4 March 2025. Shares of IndusInd Bank rose 2.41% to settle at Rs 824.15 on the BSE.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Sebi probing delayed disclosures on accounting lapses at IndusInd Bank
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) could issue another order in the matter of IndusInd Bank for potential violations of listing obligations and disclosure requirements (LODR) regulations, hints the 32-page interim order issued by the regulator. Email trails analysed by Sebi—excerpts of which are presented in the 28 May order—reveal that senior management, including the chief financial officer (CFO), were aware of these discrepancies as early as November 2023. Despite this, the bank failed to disclose the same promptly, categorising the information pertaining to derivatives losses as 'unpublished price-sensitive information' (UPSI) only on 4 March. The bank made a stock exchange disclosure on 10 March, following which IndusInd's stock declined 27 per cent. Notably, the bank conducted an external validation by consultant KPMG in February 2024, which identified a financial impact of over ₹2,000 crore due to discrepancies in its derivatives portfolio. However, the bank only disclosed this information in March 2025—approximately 15 months later. In December 2023, the CFO proposed submitting details of the discrepancies to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The CFO also shared calculations of the projected capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR) due to the negative impact of the discrepancies with the then managing director and chief executive officer (MD & CEO). Sebi's order notes that Sumant Kathpalia, the former MD & CEO, acknowledged the seriousness of the lapses and requested revalidation of the calculations. Legal experts say the regulator's focus is on the materiality of disclosures and the classification of important information as UPSI, as non-disclosure puts investors at risk. 'Sebi has been increasingly emphasising the 'materiality + timeliness' test in its disclosure regime. So certain fact checks, like the bank's internal governance protocols and how quickly senior management or the board was informed, form key parts of Sebi's assessment,' said Hardeep Sachdeva, Senior Partner at AZB & Partners. Sachdeva added that while the level and attribution of knowledge of discrepancies will have to be ascertained, if the discrepancies were known in 2023, the bank was obligated to disclose material developments promptly—typically within 24 hours of the occurrence or recognition of a material event. The LODR Regulations specify timelines to be followed for disclosing material information by listed companies. If the event or information originates within the listed entity, it must be disclosed within 12 hours of occurrence. If it originates externally, it must be disclosed within 24 hours of receipt of the information, according to legal experts. 'Any delay must be accompanied by a justification. Regulation 51 further mandates that information having a bearing on the performance or operations of the listed entity must be disclosed within 24 hours,' said Prithiviraj Senthil Nathan, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys. Legal experts state that Sebi has the authority to impose monetary penalties on IndusInd Bank for its failure to comply with disclosure requirements. 'As per Section 15A of the SEBI Act, 1992, any person who is required to furnish any document or disclose any information under the Sebi Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder within the specified timelines, and fails to do so, shall be liable to a penalty not less than ₹1 lakh, which may extend to ₹1 lakh for each day of continued failure, subject to a maximum of ₹1 crore,' added Nathan. In an ex-parte interim order, Sebi barred Kathpalia, Sanjay Khurana, and three other senior executives from trading in securities for alleged insider trading. The regulator has also directed them to disgorge a total of ₹19.78 crore.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
How Sebi fixed ₹20 cr disgorgement in IndusInd Bank insider trading case
The market regulator on Wednesday asked five senior IndusInd Bank officials, including former deputy CEO Arun Khurana and former CEO Sumant Kathpalia, to disgorge around ₹20 crore for alleged insider trading. Khurana has to disgorge ₹14.4 crore, Kathpalia ₹5.21 crore, and others amounts ranging from ₹4 lakh to ₹7 lakh. Here's how the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) arrived at these figures: IndusInd Bank on March 10 disclosed losses in its derivative portfolio, estimating an adverse impact of 2.35 per cent of its net worth of around ₹1,530 crore (as of December 2024). The bank's stock fell 27.2 per cent the next day: from ₹901 to ₹656. Sebi investigation Following the disclosure and stock crash, Sebi initiated a suo motu investigation to identify trades made with unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) related to the derivative losses. The regulator examined records from NSE, BSE, depositories, KPMG, and IndusInd Bank, focusing on the period from September 12, 2023 to March 10, 2025. Why September 2023? Sebi's probe revealed that following the Reserve Bank of India's Master Direction (Classification, Valuation and Operation of Investment Portfolio of Commercial Banks) on September 12, 2023, IndusInd formed an inter-departmental team by September 26 to address derivative accounting issues. At the team's first meeting on September 26, discrepancies in the accounting of derivative contracts were identified, prompting the bank to calculate unreported losses. Who traded before the crash? Also Read Sebi identified individuals who were aware of the derivative loss discussions and traded IndusInd shares during the UPSI period. On December 4, 2023, Khurana sold 348,500 shares to net ₹53 crore. Kathpalia sold 125,000 shares, earning ₹19.2 crore. The three other individuals sold smaller quantities around the same time. Sebi noted that none of these individuals had submitted a trading plan for FY24 or FY25, which would have indicated pre-planned sales unrelated to UPSI. Sebi, in a 32-page interim order, concluded that these individuals traded while aware of the UPSI, thereby avoiding significant losses. 'It would be naive to assume the noticees traded routinely while discussions on discrepancies with a substantial financial impact were ongoing,' said the order. Calculating disgorgement amount Sebi calculated the disgorgement based on losses avoided due to the 27.2 per cent stock price drop post-disclosure. Had the individuals sold their shares after the UPSI became public, their proceeds would have been 27.165 per cent lower, the regulator has held. Thus, Sebi multiplied the number of shares sold by each individual by this percentage to determine the loss avoided, which formed the disgorgement amount. Kathpalia's 125,000 shares sold for ₹19.2 crore and 27.165 per cent of it comes to ₹5.21 crore.
