Brands
Zee and InGovern clash over new governance report
Proxy firm questions promoter control; Zee calls report biased and outdated
MUMBAI: The governance battle at Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Zeel) has intensified after proxy advisory firm InGovern Research Services released a critical “Governance Watch” report on the company.
Zee has strongly rejected the report, calling it “biased,” “misleading,” and a repetition of old issues. The dispute centres on questions about who really controls one of India’s largest broadcasters.
InGovern says the Goenka promoter family still exerts strong influence over Zee despite holding only about 3.99 per cent of the company’s shares.
The firm’s main concern is Punit Goenka’s continued role as CEO. Shareholders voted against his reappointment as a director in late 2024, but he remains in charge of the company. InGovern argues this effectively bypasses the will of investors.
The report also highlights his pay package, which it says is about 40 times the average Zee employee’s salary.
Zee has denied the allegations and said the report lacks proper diligence. The company claims the issues raised are old and that the board has already taken steps to improve governance.
It also stated that all related-party transactions are transparent and that there is no governance crisis.
The dispute comes at a difficult time for Zee. The company is dealing with the collapse of its proposed merger with Sony and ongoing legal battles over cricket broadcasting rights.
With institutional investors owning most of the company, the debate over control versus ownership could affect investor confidence and future funding.
For now, InGovern is pushing for major board changes, while Zee is focusing on its turnaround plans. The outcome could shape how investors view the company’s governance going forward.
Brands
UK’s OnlyFans seeks US investor at $3bn valuation after owner’s death
The adult video platform is seeking stability after the death of its billionaire owner
LONDON: OnlyFans is looking for a new partner. The London-based adult video platform is in advanced talks to sell a minority stake of less than 20 per cent to Architect Capital, a San Francisco-based investment firm, in a deal that would value the business at more than $3bn (£2.2bn).
The move is driven by an urgent need for stability. Leonid Radvinsky, the Ukrainian-American billionaire who owned OnlyFans, died of cancer last month at the age of 43, leaving the future of one of Britain’s most profitable privately held businesses suddenly uncertain.
The choice of Architect Capital is not arbitrary. The firm has deep expertise in financial services, which aligns neatly with OnlyFans’ ambitions to offer banking products to its creators, many of whom have long struggled to access basic financial services because of the nature of their work.
The numbers behind OnlyFans are, by any measure, staggering. The platform posted revenues of $1.4bn in the year to 30th November 2024, with a pre-tax profit of $684m, up four per cent on the prior year. Payments to creators totalled $7.2bn over the same period, a rise of nearly ten per cent. Radvinsky personally collected $701m in dividends from the business in 2024 alone, on top of more than $1bn in such payments he had already received. The platform, run through its parent company Felix International, hosts 4.6m creator accounts, with performers keeping 80 per cent of subscription proceeds and the platform pocketing the remaining 20 per cent. It has 377m fan accounts in total.
The current minority stake talks represent a notable scaling back of ambitions. In January, OnlyFans was reported to be in discussions with Architect about selling a majority stake of 60 per cent. Before that, the company had explored a sale to a consortium led by Forest Road Company, a Los Angeles-based investment firm. Neither deal materialised.
OnlyFans has built an enormously lucrative business on content that mainstream finance has long refused to touch. Now, with its owner gone and a $3bn valuation on the table, it is looking for the kind of respectable institutional backing that might finally persuade the banks to take its calls.
