Indian-US couple make $2 bn on sale of firm started with $2000
Syntel co-founders, Bharat Desai and his wife Neerja Sethi, have seen their rankings dive on the Forbes Richie Rich lists in the past few years. Desai, who was ranked the richest Indian-American in the World Billionaires list in 2014, came in at No. 1999 in the 2018 rankings. Similarly, Sethi ranked 21st on the magazine's list of America's 60 self-made richest women, down from rank 14 in 2015.
But with the couple recently selling Syntel to French technology services major Atos SE for $3.4 billion, their fortunes are going to see a sharp turnaround. According to The Times of India, they jointly held a 57 per cent stake in the company, which means that they will walk away with nearly $2 billion from the all-cash deal expected to close by the end of this year. That's a pretty impressive way to end a journey that Desai and Sethi embarked on 38 years ago, when they started Syntel from their apartment in Troy, Michigan.
Kenya-born Desai, who grew up in India and graduated from IIT-Bombay, reportedly moved to the US in 1976 as a programmer for Tata Consulting Services. After working there briefly, he went on to pick up an MBA degree from the University of Michigan. It was here that he met Sethi and the duo decided to start an IT company while they were still studying.
At an entrepreneur event in 2013 in Delhi, Desai reportedly said that "I always wanted to run a business of my own. I was a horrible employee and could not live by anybody else's rule. So, the best way was to start my own company. My wife is the toughest board member." He had further stated he knew the IT services industry would grow significantly and with the right moves, "we could outpace overall growth."
The report adds that Syntel, modelled along the lines of TCS in some ways, was set up with an initial investment of just $2,000 in 1980. It went on to post revenues of $30,000 in its first year and got a massive boost when it signed on General Motors as a client. Though it started out as an IT staffing company, it soon evolved into a firm providing IT applications services. In 1992, it opened the first of its multiple India Global Development Centers, and five years on the company not only went public but also managed to grow its turnover to the $100 million milestone. It is currently nine times bigger - Syntel raked in nearly $924 million in 2017.
In April, after releasing its first quarter results, the 23,000-employee company had said that it expects revenue of $920-960 million in 2018, based on an exchange rate assumption of Rs 65 to the dollar. But if the dollar continues to remain as strong as it is currently, the figures will likely move up.
Yet, despite all this, Syntel failed to soar to heights of tech giants. Consider Infosys for instance. Though it started just a year after Syntel, today it is India's second largest IT services firm with over $10 billion in revenue, 10 times that of Syntel.
Desai and Sethi had a dream run in the years leading up to the dotcom bust - including bagging the 2nd spot in Forbes' "200 Best Small Companies in America" rankings - but then Syntel's share price plunged in 2000-2001.
The company recovered and its share price rallied an impressive 1766 per cent on the NASDAQ between 2001 and 2015, before running into rough weather again. In 2016, the stock plunged from $46 to about $19 per share in just over two months after the company declared a special cash dividend of $15 per share in September 2016.
"The special cash dividend will be funded through dividends to the Company by U.S. subsidiaries, the one-time repatriation of approximately $1.24 billion of cash held by the Company's foreign subsidiaries and a portion of borrowings under a new senior credit facility," the company had said at the time, adding, "In connection with the one-time repatriation, the Company expects to recognize a one-time tax expense of about $264 million (net of foreign tax credits) in the third quarter of 2016."
In the bargain, the company also had to downgrade its earnings per share outlook to a loss, which prompted a massive selloff of the stock, from which it is yet to fully recover. Nonetheless, the share prices have jumped nearly 110 per cent in the past year, which partly explains the price now paid by Atos.
courtesy : businesstoday.in
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
