Zee Founder Subhash Chandra's Family to Boost Stake to 26% Amidst Sony Deal Fallout

In the aftermath of the collapsed merger between Zee Entertainment and Sony's India unit, Zee founder Subhash Chandra has revealed plans for his family to increase their stake in the media house from the current 4% to 26%. The decision comes days after Japan's Sony terminated a $10 billion merger deal with Zee, citing alleged breaches of the terms of the agreement and seeking $90 million in termination fees, a claim that Zee has vehemently denied.

In an interview with Livemint, Subhash Chandra stated, "I have advised my immediate and extended family to increase their shareholding in Zee... We eventually want to go back to 26%, but it will take time." Chandra, who set up Zee in 1992 and currently serves as chairman emeritus, expressed the need for substantial funds but asserted that the family has no intentions of raising external funds or incurring debt.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) has taken legal action against Sony Group, filing a petition with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) over the termination of the merger deal. Zee claimed that Sony Group entities, Culver Max and BEPL (Bangla Entertainment Pvt Ltd), "are in default of their obligations" by backing out of the merger.

The specifics of the unfulfilled merger conditions have not been disclosed, but the disagreement between the two companies revolves around Zee's proposal for its CEO, Punit Goenka, to lead the combined entity. Chandra emphasized, "Punit is the right person to run the company, and there is no problem with Zee."

Chandra also mentioned approaching his younger son, Amit Goenka, a successful NRI, who has agreed to invest in Zee instead of other ventures. Expressing serious consideration of filing a criminal case against Sony, Chandra criticized the Japanese company for what he described as a "criminal design" to initiate the merger process and then withdraw.

"If I were the CEO of the company, I would have sued them already," he asserted, highlighting the contentious nature of the collapsed deal and its potential legal repercussions.