I Serve Tata Steel, Not Tata Group: Nusli Wadia

“I did not serve Tata Group in any capacity and am not required to act in their interest”, Wadia said in a letter.

Nusli Wadia, chairman of Wadia Group and director of Tata Chemicals. (Photo: PTI)

Nusli Wadia, who along with Cyrus Mistry faces ouster from the Tata Steel board, has said in a letter to shareholders that he does not serve the Tata group in any capacity and hence does not need to act in the group’s interest.

Wadia, in his 15-page letter, said Tata Sons’ allegation that he has not been acting in the interest of the Tata Group, does not pass muster.

I did not serve the Tata Group in any capacity and am not required to act in their interest. The statement is irrelevant to my position as an Independent Director of Tata Steel. It is also baseless and unsubstantiated. I am an Independent Director of certain Tata companies, and have acted and continue to act accordingly. I have a fiduciary responsibility to act as an Independent Director in the best interest of the companies on whose boards I serve, no more no less.

Nusli Wadia’s representation to Tata Steel shareholders

Wadia questioned Kumar Bhattacharya’s authority to make a commitment on behalf of Tata Steel to the British Parliament. Bhattacharya who doesn’t hold any official position in the company is said to have committed to “Tata Steel's continued steelmaking in Britain for at least a decade”.

Bhattacharya was a member of the Selection Committee, who chose Cyrus Mistry as Ratan Tata's successor four years ago, a role reassigned to him now that a new chairman has to be selected.

Quoting media articles, Wadia said Bhattacharya, in June this year and again in September, claimed that he was developing a strategy for Tata Steel to remain in the U.K. This prompted him to believe that Bhattacharya had influenced the decisions taken by the company through Ratan Tata.

Levelling charges of insider trading, he said it's also a failure of the Tata Code of Conduct which applies to all group companies, including Tata Sons, and its interim chairman Ratan Tata.

Wadia said he had strongly differed with the acquisition of Corus. According to him, focusing on the rapidly growing Indian market would’ve brought the company much better returns.

I was strongly of the view that Tata Steel should concentrate on the rapidly growing Indian market, and develop its new greenfield steel plant where the margins and returns would be far superior. My strategic view was that Tata Steel would become the No. 1 steel company of India. Unfortunately, that is not the case today.

Read the original report on BloombergQuint.