|
A writ petition challenging the disclosures made in WeWork India's initial public offering (IPO) documents was unconditionally withdrawn before the Bombay High Court on wednesday.
A Division Bench of Justice RI Chagla and Justice Advait M Sethna permitted the petitioner, Rishab Agarwal, to withdraw the plea and disposed of the matter, along with all pending interim applications, thereby bringing an end to the final legal challenge related to the company's public issue. The Bench further clarified that, in view of the withdrawal, all interim applications filed in the matter would not survive and were also disposed of. According to a company communication dated February 12, the withdrawal has resulted in the closure of all related proceedings arising from the petition. Agarwal's plea had alleged that WeWork India failed to fully disclose certain regulatory complaints in its IPO prospectus, claiming this amounted to a violation of disclosure requirements under securities regulations. The petition relied on complaints lodged by Sterling and Wilson Renewable Energy Limited and sought to question whether all such material had been adequately reflected in the offer documents. A spokesperson for WeWork India stated that, unlike two earlier petitions, Agarwal's challenge was "premised entirely" on allegations sourced from complaints filed by Sterling & Wilson, an entity separately engaged in litigation against another Embassy Group company. Recently, the Bombay High Court's December 1, 2025, judgment dismissed two similar writ petitions filed by Vinay Bansal and Hemant Kulshrestha, which had sought to challenge the regulatory clearance granted to the IPO. In that ruling, the Court upheld the adequacy and integrity of WeWork India's disclosures under the SEBI (ICDR) Regulations. The Bench also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on one petitioner, noting suppression of material facts and observing that such conduct cast doubts on the bona fides of the litigant approaching the Court. The earlier judgment clarified that the regulatory framework allows issuers to proceed with book-building under Regulation 6(2) even where certain financial eligibility parameters may not be met, provided there are robust and adequate risk-factor disclosures. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a merits review of a public offer that has already been examined under the statutory framework. With the withdrawal of Agarwal's plea, all three petitions filed in relation to WeWork India's IPO disclosures now stand resolved. The company claimed that the sequential timing of the three petitions indicated a coordinated attempt to create uncertainty around its business amid ongoing commercial disputes involving Sterling & Wilson and Embassy-linked entities. "The sequential timing and coordinated nature of these three petitions reveal a pattern of orchestrated legal harassment designed to manufacture uncertainty around our business," the spokesperson said, adding that the Court's earlier ruling had already validated compliance with disclosure norms. The unconditional withdrawal removes the final pending legal challenge relating to the IPO disclosure narrative and leaves intact the High Court's earlier findings affirming SEBI's approval process and the standard of "true and adequate" disclosures in offer documents. WeWork India stated that the resolution of all three petitions reinforces the integrity of India's securities regulatory framework and underscores that judicial processes should not be used for extraneous commercial purposes. The company reiterated its commitment to corporate governance and transparency while noting that its IPO had been oversubscribed and continues to show stable market performance. (ANI)
|
