NO MEETING GROUND HERE

Key points of contention between the Tatas and Mistry

MISTRY’S CHARGE

Amendments to the articles of association of Tata Trusts, a majority shareholder in Tata Sons, acted as a constraint on Cyrus Mistry and limited his ability to turn around the company. The board’s agenda for Tata Sons and group companies needed prior approval of the nominee directors of Tata Trusts

The Shapoorji Pallonji Group needs representation proportionate to its 18.4 per cent shareholding in Tata Sons

Making Tata Sons a private firm detrimental to the interests of the Mistry family since it prevented them from selling their shareholding without approval of the company board

Tata Group may face $18 billion (Rs 1.23 lakh crore) in write-downs because of five unprofitable businesses that Mistry inherited, including Tata Steel and its European arm, Indian Hotels, Tata Capital and Tata Motors’ Nano project

TATAS’ REBUTTAL

Mistry violated his promise of keeping the shareholding of his family-owned real estate group at an arm’s length and tried to gradually control Tata group companies by diluting the representation of Tata Sons

Continuation of SP Group as a Tata Group shareholder unworkable as the relationship between Tata Trusts and SP Group was irreparably broken

The reinstatement of Tata Sons as a private company was considered by the board to be in the best interests of the company

Mistry had long been a director on the Tata Sons board and knew the facts. Also, as deputy chairman for a year and chairman for four years, he was aware of the “problem companies” and should have rectified the situation