16 March 2011

Rajat Gupta's conversations with Raj Rajaratnam

It seems my last post was in the money. Rajat Gupta has been pretty much caught. Only one conversation has been outed yet (see podcast and the transcript which are available in public domain). Though this is not too damaging except two paras from an insider trading perspective, it surely shows that his previous contentions were all knowingly false. See in italics Rajat Gupta's assertions just a week back and the bold from his transcripts - now officially filed in the court.

Discussions in the Board of a listed public company are not to be discussed with other people - particularly those who are known to trade in securities as a profession i.e. fund managers. The recording shows that this was not hearsay or speculation.

Compare: "I am informed by my lawyers that the case is based on speculation and unreliable third hand hearsay."
with the following transcript:
"Yeah. This was a big discussion at the board meeting"
"Buy a commercial bank. And, you know it was a uh, divided discussion in the board"
"A, AIG, it was definitely on, in, in, in, the discussion..."

"Just to be clear: there are no tapes or any other direct evidence of me tipping Mr. Rajaratnam." Guess what there is clarity now and direct evidence.

"I did not trade any of the securities involved, nor did I share in any of Mr. Rajaratnam's profits." Well for wrong doing in insider trading cases in the US, any kind of monetary or non monetary reward is sufficient. He was angling for a position in Raj's Galleon fund. See: "...you know how I can be helpful in Galleon International. By the way not Galleon International, Galleon Group. I mean you've given...""a position in Galleon International. That's good enough. I, I..." In addition FT.com also says: The jury also heard Mr Rajaratnam discuss that he might pay Mr Gupta with a large stake in the fund, and that Mr Rajaratnam loaned Mr Gupta money so he could increase his investment in a Galleon fund (not in the transcript)

Compare: "In fact, during the period in question, the business relationship between Mr Rajaratnam and I were strained."  The 17 minute conversation doesn't show the strain - sounds more like inseparable twins sharing detailed information.

Can't end without a line or two from Rajat Gupta's  graduation speech at ISB in 2010 (there are other jewels too in that speech - see the last two paras):
"You know, no matter how good you are, how brilliant, how fantastic, by your own efforts you can only achieve so much. But if you work on making other people [Rajaratnam] successful, they will in turn make you successful beyond your dreams." [My suggestive insertion]


john said...

A very significant part of the conversation was (now in court records) that Rajaratnam complains to Rajat Gupta about Anil saying that he was trying to be a mini Rajat and that he (rajaratnam) was paying Kumar a million a year for nothing. This implies

1. rajat was in the know of payments to Anil and thus a conspiratoe very much in the loop

2. It alos imples although indirectly that Rajat was reciving even bigger payments if the mini Rajat was receiving a million a year

3. You have missed the very bold assertion in Rajat's earlier statement ' Just to be clear there are no tapes". Apparently that too was a lie since there are tapes that everyone has heard of.

Apparently illegal practices and lying go hand in hand.

Read more in detain about Rajat activities in India and the Pakistan connection at


John said...

This second comment is more directly to your earlier post regarding Rajat resigning.

A widespread perception has now developed in the corporate world that since Rajat and Anil helped create this School and since Rajaratnam funded it substantially as well as some political help that is not of the best kind, this school is therefore designed for perpetuating the sort of business practices followed by its founders - unethical ones no doubt to persons like you - but nevertheless existing and needed by a part of the industry that includes a significant part of the Indian corporate world. IF such practices are to be carried forward then retaining persons like Rajat and the Deans (that ssisted Satyam earlier) is a necessity.

Kindly do not regard this rebuttal as a defence of such practices. They are obviously detrimental to society at large. However my point is that they are benificial , at least over the short run, to such individuals or businesses and the Indian school of Business is designed to cater to this need.

The fact that Rajat continues as chairman is proof of this argument.