Well before the Franklin debt saga broke out and thereafter, we have been analyzing and covering events that were unfolding and the next steps for you through various articles since November 2019.
- Cut exposure ahead of the Vodafone issue, in November 2019
- The Actual Vodafone Impact in January 2020
- The announcement of winding up and what it means
- Similar risks in debt funds from other AMCs
- Status on winding up and next steps
- Will demat of your FT units help
Now, with Franklin India AMC facing multiple lawsuits on the manner of winding up its six debt funds – the saga has taken a new turn.
- Lawsuits by unitholders against Franklin bring to light the fact that the rights of unitholders under SEBI regulations are ambiguous. It cannot simply be assumed that unitholders rights are limited to simply voting for liquidating a fund’s assets.
- In communicating with unitholders, Franklin’s line of argument also comes across as somewhat high-handed.
We would like to detail the above points but before that, we would like to state that we aren’t legal experts and that the Courts will be the best judge of the way forward. Nor would we like to judge the rights or wrongs of the case at this juncture. We would simply like to offer perspective to an ordinary investor on what she can read from the current situation.
What really are your rights?
We believe there are two reasons why Franklin investors need to take fresh stock of the situation now. One, until the lawsuit in Gujarat High Court, the general understanding of SEBI’s regulations was that an AMC’s trustees could make the decision to wind up a scheme and only needed the vote of unit holders to dispose off the assets thereafter. Franklin too took this view while making the winding up decision. But the petitions filed in Court suggest that the SEBI Regulations relating to winding up of schemes aren’t that straightforward. Two, Franklin itself has taken a rather high-handed approach to its obligations in its arguments at the Court and the communication to investors.
So, here’s why the exact rules for winding up are a bone of contention. This is what SEBI’s MF regulations say about winding up of a scheme:
Under Regulation 18 of SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996:
(15) The trustees shall obtain the consent of the unitholders—
(a) whenever required to do so by the Board in the interest of the unitholders; or
(b) whenever required to do so on requisition made by three-fourths of the unit- holders of any scheme; or
(c) when the majority of the trustees decide to wind up or prematurely redeem units.
Now, the above is not the only section that deals with winding up.
Under Regulation 39:
(2) A scheme of a mutual fund may be wound up, after repaying the amount due to the unit holders,—
(a) on the happening of any event which, in the opinion of the trustees, requires the scheme to be wound up; or
(b) if seventy-five per cent of the unit holders of a scheme pass a resolution that the scheme be wound up; or
(c) if the Board so directs in the interest of the unitholders.(3) Where a scheme is to be wound up under 115[***] sub-regulation (2), the trustees shall give notice disclosing the circumstances leading to the winding up of the scheme:—
(a) to the Board; and
(b) in two daily newspapers having circulation all over India, a vernacular newspaper circulating at the place where the mutual fund is formed.
So, does this mean that a scheme can be wound up only after repaying amounts due to unit holders? Not really! There’s another section 41 – that the notice that you got from Franklin comes under.
Under Regulation 41:
41. (1) The trustee shall call a meeting of the unitholders to approve by simple majority of the unitholders present and voting at the meeting resolution for authorising the trustees or any other person to take steps for winding up of the scheme:
Let us take Section 18. As a lay reader, it seems to me, that under sub-section (c) of 18, when a majority of trustees decide to wind up, they need the consent of the unit holders.
However, in the intimation received by investors on voting, Franklin has stated that “Please note that voting ‘No’ to the Authorization will not change the winding-up status of the Scheme.” In other words, the winding up decision will not change even if your vote is a NO. So, this does not seem to be the applicable section on which the AMC acted.
Also, you will recall the first notice you would have received dated April 23, 2020 from Franklin spoke of winding up of the 6 schemes under regulation 39(2)(a). So that means that the trustees have called for the winding up. This regulation has been used earlier too by AMCs to wind up schemes (check here)
But if Regulation 39 applies, then what is the intent of Regulation 41? To simply give consent to sell the assets? If unit holders don’t give their consent, what is the outcome? The regulation seems silent on this aspect.
Investor protection?
If not for the lawsuits and the interpretations coming out of them, most of us would not have known the regulations governing this event.
The point here is simple. Even financial experts and advisors do not know how to interpret the law. And we are therefore left with little choice but to go with what the AMC and its trustees say. While the regulator SEBI is known to step up every time there is an issue relating to investor protection, its own regulations do not provide investors with much clarity on how MFs can be wound up. Nor has SEBI come up with any awareness material or any special notification to investors of Franklin on what their rights are in this extraordinary situation. To us, this does seem like a let-down of the small investor by a regulator which has always proactively championed the investor cause.
In such a situation, true investor protection can come only from the Courts – where such contradictions can be resolved in a fair and just manner with protections afforded to the aggrieved.
It could be the case that the regulator is forced to remain silent, taking cognizance of the fact that the regulations have been loosely drafted. In such a situation, true investor protection can come only from the Courts – where such contradictions can be resolved in a fair and just manner with protections afforded to the aggrieved.
High handedness
If, as an investor, I am at a loss on what my rights are, the AMC’s approach to my plight has been somewhat lukewarm. Let us not doubt the AMC’s intention is to return the invested amounts as soon as possible. No doubt it wants to put this unpleasant scenario behind and move on. But the recent communication on voting, leaves much to be desired.
Repeatedly telling us that we had a choice on the voting, but a ‘no’ would mean only delay in receipt of proceeds and that nothing would change as far as the decision to wind up goes – leaves us with no real choice!
Doesn’t that simply amount to saying – sign this if you want your money back? From an AMC that is highly regarded, this approach has a not-so-subtle coerciveness to it.
Next, in the litigation in the Gujarat High Court, Franklin’s lawyers have argued that investors have entered the schemes after going through the risks mentioned in the memorandum of the schemes and thus have to be bound by the terms of the contract.
No investor enters into an open-ended fund thinking that this is part of the ‘market’ risks he or she has been warned about. Nor does the scheme information document mention that this can happen.
Unfortunately, this argument belies the fact that Franklin itself has breached a contractual promise of running an open-ended fund by suddenly stopping redemptions. No investor enters into an open-ended fund thinking that this is part of the ‘market’ risks he or she has been warned about. Nor does the scheme information document mention that this can happen. Yes, in the past, schemes have been closed when they fall below the threshold AUM stated by SEBI or sometimes merged. But you don’t expect flagship funds with several thousand crores of AUM to shut shop suddenly because of their inability to manage flows!
Why all this matters to you
All of this may seem of little relevance to you when your only priority is to get some money back into your bank account. With the Court cases, many of you believe there could be more delay. But here’s why understanding what’s transpiring now becomes important:
- As a small investor neither the regulator nor media nor advisors nor analysts like us could tell you what exactly your rights were as the AMC suddenly decided to wind up its schemes. The regulations have not made this easy. You have been let down.
- While the AMC and its trustees can, hopefully, be trusted to return your money, the direction of their argument and their stance do not provide comfort, especially on the part of respecting unitholder rights.
At this juncture, there will be little choice but to look up to the Courts to provide the right legal interpretation and help investors realise the fair value of their investments. Some of the aggrieved but larger investors who have gone to Court have not done it just prove their point. They have done it to realise a fair price too. And if that happens all investors will stand to benefit. Four out of six Franklin schemes have seen a 1.5-3.5% fall in the NAV thus far. The risk is even more in this current environment where defaults on the papers held by Franklin could cause further erosion.
In this situation, one can only look up to the Courts for justice. And we hope it is delivered for all the pain and trauma endured by thousands of investors in these tough times. Also, we hope that any precedent that emerges from this ruling will prevent other AMCs from launching into such misadventures in the future.
At PrimeInvestor, we are of course seriously re-examining our stance on the other schemes of this AMC. If you are a subscriber, you will soon hear from us on our views on this front. If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe to stay tuned. You will know, going by our coverage since November 2019, we stand by you, to the extent our knowledge on this matter permits us to help you.
22 thoughts on “Franklin Investors – Neither the regulator nor regulated entity to your rescue. It’s the Court!”
a very good article Vidya. Thanks for sharing such valuable insights. Hopefully MF investors get their rightful due in this matter.
Thank you sir. Hopefully… thanks, Vidya
example given of BNP paribas by you is one of 39(2)(c) and not 39(2)(a). where a direction is given by SEBI, 18(15) would in any case wont apply. Here the power is being exercised by the trustees and hence would trigger 18(15).
HEllo Sir, Yes we are aware and have mentioned the different sections clearly. The point we tried to make is that Regulation 39 is being used in the industry and not Regulation 18 given that there weren’t such circumstances. thanks, Vidya
While everyone is baying for FT’s blood, wat about the actions of other big bully AMCs to effect inter scheme transfers of low debt papers from high risk funds to low risk funds? Why is the media silent on those actions?
Hello Sir, Strong words 🙂 Media being silent – hae to ask the media 🙂 We are NOT media. And inter scheme transfers are not wrong unless there is something wrong with the pricing or the instrument being unsuitable in the scheme into which it was switched it. Please do not go by all the ‘self-proclaimed’ expert views on social media on such transfers – without any proof of any malifide transfer. As for large AMCs, we have not shied away from calling out bad practices by any large AMC, based on facts. thanks, Vidya
Notice of 23rd April states Trustees decided to wind up.Regulation 18(15)(c) says trustees are required to obtain consent of unit holders before taking decision to wind up.Dumb trustees shot into mouth.winding up notice will be quashed & move will boomerang on FranklinTempleton which will be required to pay NAV of 23rd Ap plus intt plus compensation
Very good article
“At PrimeInvestor, we are of course seriously re-examining our stance on the other schemes of this AMC”
Mam, I think, you should start considering sentiments, along with data, to analyze schemes of all AMCs 🙂
This means, Data + Sentiments = List of Primefunds
What do you say?
Hello Hari, there is no room for ‘sentiments’ in research. It is information and more information that helps in decision making. We now know that the legal side was not as simple as it seemed. Nobody knew and I have openly said as much in the article. We had to dig through the rest of the SEBI Regulations to find the hidden clauses only after the court case! We will stand by facts and of course our assessment of risks. Sentiment is a dangerous thing in investing and we have no plan to succumb to it. thanks, Vidya
Thanks Mam.
Might be I used a wrong phrase. Hope it would have been good if I had mentioned ‘Intuition’ instead of sentiments .
Anyway, appreciate your efforts in helping investors like me.
Thanks a lot.
Hari
Hope this wont happen as lot of small investors have put faith in Prime funds 🙂
Sir, we can’t possible last in this industry if we were sentimental 🙂 We will help to the best of our ability. thanks, Vidya
Hi Vidya
Vodafone Idea made interest payments to Franklin AMC yesterday which were segregated ( For 8.25% Coupon) . Will Franklin return this money to investors or will it keep this money to itself saying it has wound up schemes ???
Source for article:https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/mfs-receive-interest-payout-from-vodafone-ahead-of-sc-hearing-over-agr-dues-120061301272_1.html
Yes it will. https://www.franklintempletonindia.com/downloadsServlet/pdf/payment-under-segregated-portfolio-june-13-2020-kbdcc2q7 thanks, Vidya
Thanks for the update
Ft ut short term super institutional plan s vodafone papers are 100% maturing in july..
If FT pays some or full amount will it be given to only this fund or shared among all other funds of FT
Hello Sir, Each scheme would have different exposures. To the extent of exposure, they will receive the amount.
Vidya
Hi Vidya
Thanks for the update . Most of the small investors like me have lost faith on Franklin AMC and heard through forums and articles in ET Prime etc that how FRANKLIN didn’t honor the redemption requests for small investors raised 4 days before the funds were closed and was only honoring requests made by big institutional investors which was presented to FRANKLIN AMC . Even Economic times tried to get the response on above issue of redemption’s but received no response from them. Found a mention on role of SEBI in your article regarding helping investors ,it worries to say that SEBI did nothing to help Karvy broking account holders whose shares were misused by karvy to fund its realty ventures by using power of attorney. Whatever SEBI does will be challenged in higher courts and lot of punishments awarded by SEBI will be quashed by courts . SEBI has the power to absolutely frame the laws only thing it is either scared or not acting proactively in interest of investors until the incident happens. My request to prime investor team is to review all Franklin AMC funds and remove them from your recommendations by suggesting an alternate funds .
Hello Sir, thanks. Your points are valid. Yes, we will be re-visiting the other FT funds. thanks, Vidya
Very good write up. Clearly, the ambiguous law, which is very common in our system, needs interpretation at this stage and that can come up only through judicial intervention which will eventually benefit all players in the MF industry. But only minus point is likely delay in all subsequent actions by the fund house to return the money to investors since ultimately the issue will get decided by SC.
Hello Sir, Thanks. Yes, your observations are very valid. Vidya
Comments are closed.