Shell companies clampdown: Sebi says trading restrictions to continue against Pacific Finstock, promoters and directors

New Delhi: Markets regulator Sebi today said certain trading restrictions on Pacific Finstock Ltd (PFL) and its promoters and directors would continue. Besides, the forensic audit of PFL, which figured among the 331 ‘suspected shell companies’ under the regulatory scanner, has also been completed, according to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).

“As informed by Bombay Stock Exchange, it is noted that the forensic audit of PFL as ordered in the interim order is now complete,” Sebi said in an order, adding that the consequential action in that regard “shall be taken in accordance with law”.

PFL is among the firms against whom Sebi initiated action in August 2017 by ordering trading restrictions, following receipt of a list of 331 ‘suspected shell companies’ from the government. The regulator had placed the firm in the trade-to-trade category with limitation on the frequency of trade and imposed a limitation on the buyer by way of 200 percent deposit on the trade value. Later on, through an interim order passed in October 2017, the regulator had directed BSE to appoint an independent forensic auditor to verify any misrepresentation of financials and business of PFL. [caption id=“attachment_4310813” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Sebi logo. Pic courtesy: IBNLive[/caption] Also, the promoters and directors of PFL were prohibited from selling the securities of the firm held by them, either in physical or dematerialised form. In its fresh order, the regulator said it confirms “the directions issued against PFL vide interim order dated 26 October 2017”. “In respect of the prima facie misrepresentations in the financials of PFL that have been highlighted in the interim order, PFL has submitted that they were errors and has claimed that the same has now been rectified. “It has offered no explanation as to why so many errors (as claimed) had crept in its financials and whether they were bona fide errors,” Sebi said. The regulator also noted that the firm also failed to give any reason as to why the errors did not come to its notice till the time Sebi highlighted the same.