Sources said SBI Funds Management will distribute the proceeds to unitholders following liquidation of some securities held under the scheme.
Any speculation suggesting otherwise, or any rumours around sale of our business in India are incorrect and simply that -- rumours, says head of the US-based asset manager.
Allaying investors' fears, Franklin Templeton AMC has said Sebi's order prohibiting the company from launching new debt funds will have no bearing on existing schemes managed by it. Sebi on Monday barred Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) from launching any new debt scheme for two years and imposed a penalty of Rs 5 crore for violating regulatory norms in the case of winding up of six debt schemes in 2020. Also, it has been asked to refund investment management and advisory fees of over Rs 512 crore (including interest) collected with respect to the six debt schemes. This amount will be used to repay unitholders, as per Sebi order.
The ED case follows the police complaint for alleged criminal conspiracy and defrauding investors.
Sebi on Monday imposed a penalty totalling Rs 15 crore on senior officials of Franklin Templeton AMC and its trustee for violating regulatory norms in the case of winding up of six debt schemes in 2020. However, a spokesperson of Franklin Templeton said they disagree with the findings in Sebi's order and intend to file an appeal with the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). A fine of Rs 3 crore has been levied on Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Pvt Ltd and Rs 2 crore each on Franklin Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd President Sanjay Sapre and its chief investment officer Santosh Kamat, according to the Sebi order. In addition, the regulator imposed a penalty of Rs 1.5 crore each on fund managers -- Kunal Agarwal, Pallab Roy, Sachin Padwal Desai and Umesh Sharma -- as well as former fund manager Sumit Gupta.
'We know that returning money to unitholders at the earliest is the first and most important step towards resurrecting our brand and regaining investor trust.'
Stars share their throwback pictures and takes us in flashback with them.
Here is the chronology of Supreme Court hearings in the right to privacy case.
Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry took a stand opposite to the Central government which had said that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right.
Attorney General K K Venugopal resumed his arguments before a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, stressing that it was not a fundamental right.
The verdict could impact a range of life choices of Indians, including food habits and sexual orientation.
'The nine judges with all their convictions, wisdom, intellectual girth and enlightened debate have not just stood up to the government but disempowered the State in favour of the people,' says Maheshwar Peri.
AG Venugopal asserted that right to privacy could not be bundled as a single right in a developing country like India where a few persons, claiming right to privacy, override the fundamental rights of 60-70 million people, who did not have access to basic amenities like food and shelter.
The top court gave the examples of personal information like thumb impression people voluntarily gave for using mobile phones.
The state may have some power to put reasonable restriction, says the apex court.
The top court rejected the Centre's vehement contention that there was no general or fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution.
Unless the judges factor in the ungovernability of technologies and their beneficial owners, present and future Presidents, prime ministers, judges, legislators and officials handling sensitive assignments may become redundant with reference to their age-old roles for securing 'national resources and assets', warns Dr Gopal Krishna.
Former editor of Femina magazine, Sathya Saran looks back at the Miss India pageant that changed the lives of two young women.