Maytas hasn’t bared meet details

At a time when the promoters of beleaguered Satyam Computer Services are being hauled up for compliance issues on multiple counts, a bird from the same nest, Maytas Infrastructure, also has chosen to look the other way when it came to regulatory compliance.

Even after the deal with Satyam was aborted, Maytas Infra has not disclosed the details of the meeting the infrastructure company officials had with the board of directors of Satyam.

Initially, the proposal by Satyam to acquire promoters’ stake in Maytas was shown as a private affair, which was nothing to do with the management of Maytas Infra.

However, it is a fact that the Maytas executives were officially representing the company, trying to convince the board of Satyam on the advantages of Satyam taking over Maytas.

According to the minutes of the controversial board meeting of Satyam on December 16, 2008, a copy of which is available with DNA, Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju’s son and vice-chairman of Maytas Infra, Teja Raju, along with Mohan Gurunath, head of strategic business and CFO VVR Raju represented the infrastructure company at the board meeting and made detailed presentations on the prospects of Maytas accelerating in the infrastructure market.

“This is a major non-compliance issue even on part of Maytas. The attendance of senior executives of Maytas at the Satyam board meeting to talk about a possible merger is a price-sensitive information. Even after Satyam making it public, Maytas has not disclosed the desperate attempts its officials made to convince the IT company’s board,” an analyst said.

In fact, it was Maytas CFO VVR Raju who informed the board of Satyam about the financials of Maytas.

According to him, the debt equity ratio of Maytas is at 1:1.6. When Satyam board members raised questions about the challenges in integrating both the companies, Mohan Gurunath told the members of the board that “there are many similarities in “SatyamWay” and “MaytasWay” and hence integration culturally or otherwise will not pos any challenge.”

DNA had contacted VVR Raju after the deal was aborted on December 17, 2008, to seek the comment of Maytas on the issue.

But Raju had said that the issue was completely private in nature and it was the promoters of Maytas who were dealing with Satyam and not the company.

However, the presence of the Maytas officials at the board meeting and the very fact that they were privy to one such major deal with Satyam would amount to suppression of price-sensitive information.

“Many officials of Maytas too hold shares in the company. So they are all interested parties in the matter. They might have made use of the information about Satyam proposal to transact in the market,” a source in the corporate affairs ministry opined.
The Maytas CFO is now inaccessible for media.