| |
Parke-Davis employee shareholders withdraw plea on Marol unit sale
Our Infrastructure Bureau
MUMBAI, January 22: Parke-Davis employee shareholders have withdrawn their suit against the company over the proposed disposal of the Marol facility after a successful voluntary-retirement scheme (VRS) offer. The Marol unit, located in the western suburbs of Mumbai, engaged about 300 employees.A management official told The Financial Expressq all except one employee had opted for VRS. The last employee was expected to follow suit soon. The Parke-Davis VRS package offered employees an option of a lumpsum payment or part-lumpsum and part-pension payment. The offer's basic terms were 107 months' salary or Rs 5 lakh, whichever was lower. Though the sale/transfer or assignment of the Marol unit was yet to take place, the official said the proceeds would be reinvested in the company. The proceeds are expected to be used for modernisation of its Hyderabad facility and brand acquisitions, though analysts also expect shareholders to be rewarded. No official confirmation on analysts' expectations were,
however, available. Areas of interest for brand acquisitions include the cardiovascular and gynaecological segments. Unconfirmed reports had suggested Parke-Davis was eyeing Themis' Metacin brand, though the seller had strongly denied any intent to sell. The withdrawal of the suit and the successful completion of the VRS has brought down the curtains on several months of controversy over the Marol unit's proposed sale. Employee shareholders had moved court against the resolution proposing the sale, transfer or assignment of the Marol unit saying a demand for a poll was refused by the chairman at the extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM). The EGM, held on February 5, 1997, had approved the above resolution. The suit filed by two employee shareholders also said the notice convening the meeting, inter alia, did not contain sufficient particulars on the resolution. The city civil court did not uphold the plaintiff's contention that a poll was refused, but, inter alia, held that the explanatory statement did not
contain sufficient particulars as required under section 173 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
|
 |
