Skip to content

CS Professional · Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) - Principles and Practice · Conceptual Framework of Corporate Governance

Vindhya Cements Ltd is 70% owned by its promoter group, which also controls the CEO appointment. A fund manager argues that the usual agency problem of managers versus dispersed owners is weak here, but a different risk is high. Which is the most accurate analysis of the risk and an appropriate safeguard under the Indian framework?

The main risk is that the controlling promoters expropriate minority shareholders, for instance through related-party transactions. Indian safeguards include audit committee scrutiny and independent directors' oversight, plus minority shareholder voting on such transactions. Managerial shirking is a secondary concern when ownership is concentrated.

  1. ARisk is managerial shirking; the safeguard is removing all independent directors
  2. BRisk is expropriation of minority shareholders through related-party dealings; a safeguard is audit committee scrutiny and independent directors' oversight of related-party transactionsCorrect
  3. CRisk is hostile takeover by dispersed shareholders; the safeguard is a poison pill
  4. DRisk is absence of any agency conflict; no safeguard is needed

Explanation

With concentrated ownership, the controlling shareholder can extract private benefits through related-party transactions, harming minorities. Indian law addresses this through independent directors, audit committee approval of related-party transactions and minority shareholder voting. Option A is wrong since independent directors are a safeguard, not a risk. Option C is unlikely when ownership is 70% concentrated.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Conceptual Framework of Corporate Governance shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Conceptual Framework of Corporate Governance questions