Last week, SDTT submitted a plan to merge two Tata group entities with Tata Sons so that the holdco can retain its privately held status.
“The position that Tata Sons should remain an unlisted company has been the settled position of the Trusts, and of Tata Sons itself, for years….”They added that in March 2024, under the guidance of then Tata Trusts chairman Ratan Tata, the board of Tata Sons had decided that Tata Sons should remain unlisted.
They were referring to statements made by Singh and Srinivasan earlierthis year in favour of listing Tata Sons.
Tata Sons shareholders have contrasting views on the listing of Tata Sons.
Noel, a nominee director at Tata Sons, had recently tabled a ₹25,000 crore proposal for Tata Sons to partly buy SP group’s stake.
This was part of their reply to the vice-chairmen of Tata Trusts, industrialist Venu Srinivasan, and former bureaucrat Vijay Singh, who had said on September 30 that they were not consulted before the plan to prevent the listing of Tata Sons was
submitted recently on behalf of SDTT.
Signed by Tata Trusts Chairman and SDTT trustee Noel Tata, along with other trustees Neville Tata, Bhaskar Bhat, and Darius Khambata, Monday’s letter, reviewed by Business Standard, highlighted that the recent proposal was to “give effect to the settled position of the Trusts”. Last week, SDTT submitted a plan to merge two Tata group entities with Tata Sons so that the holdco can retain its privately held status.
Dismissing the vice-chairmen’s concern over the lack of consultation, the SDTT trustees argued that the proposal submitted to Tata Sons was not a new position. “The position that Tata Sons should remain an unlisted company has been the settled position of the Trusts, and of Tata Sons itself, for years….”
They added that in March 2024, under the guidance of then Tata Trusts chairman Ratan Tata, the board of Tata Sons had decided that Tata Sons should remain unlisted.
Noel and three other SDTT trustees wrote that the RBI communication declined Tata Sons’ application to surrender its registration as a core investment company (CIC) and that it did not mention listing, prescribe any particular step or state that Tata Sons was in breach of anything.
“What it does is make it urgent to find a lawful course, other than listing, by which the settled objective of the Trusts and of Tata Sons can be achieved.”
The proposal submitted to Tata Sons was such a course, the trustees wrote. “If implemented, it would take Tata Sons outside the regulatory category on which the RBI’s communication is founded,” the trustees wrote.
“Nor was the RBI’s communication a reason for either of you to depart from those decisions: the public statements made by each of you individually and
sequentially in support of listing were made in April, months before it, while Tata Sons’ application was still pending,” the four trustees pointed out.
They were referring to statements made by Singh and Srinivasan earlier
this year in favour of listing Tata Sons.
Tata Sons shareholders have contrasting views on the listing of Tata Sons. While Tata Trusts, the largest shareholder in Tata Sons with a 66 per cent stake, is opposed to listing, Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) group, the second-largest shareholder with more than an 18 per cent stake, is backing the listing of the holdco.
SP group, which is carrying a heavy debt burden, is looking for part dilution of its equity once Tata Sons is listed. Noel, a nominee director at Tata Sons, had recently tabled a ₹25,000 crore proposal for Tata Sons to partly buy SP group’s stake.
