No, Deepak. Let me clarify a couple of points. It’s important to note that this is a very gray area, so there is definitely room for a lot of interpretation on both sides. While I am convinced of my position, I am simply presenting my argument. I completely agree that there can’t be a clear yes or no in this situation. I understand if you present other points, such as the cost of a banking license, and I cannot quantitatively address those.
Let me play devil’s advocate and share my perspective.
First, it was a merger; he was not hired on that specific date. When merger talks are initiated (which can be from a year to six months before the announcement), each party shares their financials. After reviewing both sets of books, they agree on a merger price.
Once the merger is announced, and the price is fixed, there are predefined rules in the agreement that allow or disallow certain actions. This is established to protect the agreed-upon value, ensuring that neither party undermines it. In this case, Mr. Vaidyanathan and his team took over the management, and the previous IDFC Bank management stepped away. It was their responsibility to thoroughly review the books and ensure nothing adverse happened from the merger announcement onward.
Second, and most importantly, Mr. Vaidyanathan was managing part of the combined entity during this period (namely, Capital First). He was not just hired on the first day of the merger.
I want to reiterate that this is a gray area. My point is that Mr. Vaidyanathan cannot completely distance himself from responsibility. This attitude would be particularly concerning for a Capital First shareholder, as they could feel impacted from both sides.
| Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter |
