£3.7m a couple of weeks ago from VHPL to Venkateshwara London Ltd as per the link in my previous post. Otherwise nothing.

Interestingly the date for the ED to reply to the court petition made on 23/09/24 was by 21/10/24. On the 14/10/24 Venkateshwara Hatcheries PVT Ltd, which is the company under investigation in India and Venkys main holding company that provides investment and remittances to its subsidiaries injected a further £3.7m via share capital into Venkateshwara London Limited, which is the company they set up to purchase and now owns the training complex. Link below: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13452736/filing-history To me it would seem more than a coincidence that they have issued £3.7m of funding via share capital three weeks after making that submission to the court. The last issue of share capital was 12 months ago but was funded by a secured loan from Crossbaron - as you can see the charge is registered just before the issue of the share capital. However this time, no new charge or amendment to the existing charge has been filed. Now it is possible that the original charge allowed for further cash advances in the future, but I think that given the notice filed to the court on 23/09/24 followed by the injection of share capital some 3 weeks later may mean that something in India has changed.

No not really, other than any potential dividend paid by the PLC to VHPL could technically be re-invested in VLL

The 51% is just their holding in Venkys India PLC Rev, it’s held by VHPL and I believe that figure to be accurate.

Sorry it’s taken a while, BH weekend etc. Not much more to divulge really. My colleagues have come back and stick by their original legal interpretation of the court hearing on 31/10/23 in that VHPL are not restricted on sending future funds to VLL as long as they comply with the criteria set out by the court at that hearing. This aligns with the latest club statement but they do concur that the entry in the last set of club accounts seems to contradict this. Sorry this doesn’t really make things much clearer.

Thats Venkys India, which is a PLC listed on the Indian Stock Exchange and is nothing to do with Rovers. The only thing in common is that VHPL is the holding company for the 51% share holding in Venkys India (maintaining a majority holding whilst the remaining 49% are traded on the stock exchange) and is also for the holding company for VLL and in turn BRFC. VHPL also owns / has holdings in numerous other entities across the world.

The judge that was supposed to hear the VHPL Petition is required to sit on a larger bench for another case and therefore is unable to hear the VHPL case.

As I stated previously the above are not my views. My background is corporate finance and the views above are that of two of my colleagues who work in our legal team, both who are qualified solicitors specialising in corporate financial law. What I have posted is their interpretation of the court order from a legal point of view. I’ll pass your comments on to them and see what they say, might not be a quick response as I’m running out of ‘favours’ with them. The issue with this is most of it is pure speculation based upon extremely limited factual information and people are putting two and two together and coming up with 150 in some scenarios. Hence why I’ve refrained from posting.

I have received further information regarding the bond / guarantee. Summary is below: The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states an unconditional bank guarantee is to be made in favour of the ED for the same amount being remitted. A bank guarantee in this situation usually means that the bank guarantee to pay the amount set out in the terms in the event that the petitioner defaults / refuses to pay any amount due up to this value. This would only be called upon if VHPL is found to be in breach of FEMA and a subsequent financial penalty / fine relating to this is not paid. It is worth noting that for the bank to agree to any such guarantee the standing of VHPL with the bank must be A+++ and they would have very large amounts invested / deposited with said bank. I’m not going to get into commenting on the case or the financial position of VHPL, other than publicly available ratings agency documents state that the VHPL Group has huge cash reserves. On a side note, looking at the case history I would make an assumption that the purpose of the hearing is not urgent in the short term. As can be seen in 2023, documents show that when the situation was perilous the hearings were being scheduled and re-scheduled only days apart.

Let me ask the question - I’ll post back as soon as hear from them

The ED is the Enforcement Directorate - this is who is pursuing the case against VHPL

I’ve not posted much in relation to this. My background is corporate finance which means I have some legal understanding of these kind of cases but I’m by no means and expert and certainly not in Indian case law. I asked a couple of colleagues who are legally qualified to look at the order that was made on 31.10.2023 and give their view on it. Again, their first response was they’re not experienced with Indian Law but they have given their view based on their expertise in general and I’ve summarised this below: The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC. The subsequent court hearings have been petitioned by VHPL and the respondent is the ED. In layman’s terms this means it is VHPL who are taking the ED to court in this instance not the other way around as some people on here seem to think. The view is that the purpose of this would be to get some kind of amendment made to the order, possibly removing the need for the bank guarantee or one of the other pre-requisites. This would suggest that VHPL believe that some element of the investigation has changed and any such change is in their favour as they would need to submit evidence to substantiate any such change request. That’s pretty much it as it stands and is only a view from their perspective based upon the information available. In terms of the ED’s ongoing investigation into VHPL they aren’t able to comment as none of the details relating to this are in the public domain.

Thats the whole point, you can’t put out a statement of fact unless it is fact. If someone told you it was highly likely that something was going to go in your favour and would you then go and state publicly that it has gone in your favour? As much as I hate these clowns and what they’ve done to our club in this instance there is nothing else the statement could have said.

There’s absolutely no way anyone with an ounce of business acumen would categorically guarantee anything that is reliant on a third party. Hence the use of the word should which is entirely appropriate in this situation. The big factor we need to consider here is that the court case now only revolves around technical and procedural issues which would strongly hint that it is due to be resolved without severe repercussions or impact on their business. This is also backed up by the fact that court have listed this for a final hearing in August. it’s not the news that most of us wanted but it looks like we are stuck with them for the foreseeable.

This company, Venkys Overseas Ltd is a company registered in Jersey and this is just the date the company was added to CH here for compliance. The company was actually incorporated in May 2011.