US–based Mirach Capital Group has offered three new options to bail out Sahara group – a loan after a Sahara apology for forgery allegations, acquisition of Sahara properties or permanently end business dealings.
The new offer was made in a letter Saturday by the group’s Indian–American CEO Saransh Sharma to embattled Sahara group chief Subrata Roy two days after what he called “tarnishment” (sic) of Mirach’s reputation with allegations of forgery by Sahara.
“We both know that the question of Mirach forging a letter cannot arise as the letter was sent directly from the bank to Sahara’s attorneys,” Sharma wrote in the letter he has shared with IANS.
If Sahara does not retract the “false public allegations” then Mirach may sue Sahara for breach of contract charges and demand compensation for an estimated loss of over $13 million in likely earnings “from the imminent closing of this transaction,” he warned.
The syndicate of five UK and US investors had last month made a $2 billion loan offer to Roy, who has been trying to raise money to secure his release on bail from Delhi’s Tihar Jail.
He has been locked up there since March on the Supreme Court’s orders for failing to refund his investors.
Mirach, which was specially formed for the execution of the Sahara deal, had offered a loan against Sahara group’s hospitality properties.
These include the Plaza Hotel in New York, the Grosvenor House Hotel in London, Sahara Star in Mumbai and Aamby Valley resorts in Maharashtra.
“The sooner you realise that it is just a matter of time before these properties will be taken away from you; the sooner you will feel your burdens lighten,” Sharma told Roy.
“Perhaps, things are not so bad in prison for you, as no one is there to put pressure on you,” he wrote expressing his willingness to work with any of the three solutions proposed by him.
“However, I will not allow you to target and destroy my career when all I intended to do was structure a solution that benefitted every party involved,” Sharma wrote.
“Perhaps you should stop focusing on what other people are going to make and instead focus on what you are going to receive; Your freedom, at least temporarily,” he added.
Under the first option, Mirach said it can still proceed with the loan structure provided “Sahara publicly retract its statement with a formal apology for the tarnishment (sic) that has been caused on Mirach’s reputation and its business associates and members of its investor network.”
“Altertively, Mirach can proceed with the acquisition of the properties as has been consistently stated,” Sharma wrote describing it as “the quickest solution”.
“We can have all documents redrafted in order to structure this as a sale and still meet the Feb 20th, 2015 deadline,” he wrote.
If these options were not acceptable to Roy, Sharma offered to return to Sahara $2.6 million that was deposited to cover due diligence costs and “end business matters between us permanently.”
Mirach, he wrote, “had offered to return this money 7 business days ago, which you insisted that we keep to cover expenses.”
“However, given the recent public events, if all funds are returned then we will need a public retraction of the false allegations you have made against Mirach,” Sharma told Roy. IANS
(Arun Kumar can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org)