GECs
SingTel appeal over EPL cross-carriage rejected
MUMBAI: Singaporean IPTV operator mioTV will have to share its English Premier League coverage with rival platform StarHub after losing an appeal seeking an exemption to the country’s cross-carriage rules for pay-TV content.
In April, the Media Development Authority (MDA) ruled that SingTel-owned mioTV’s non-exclusive deal for EPL live matches for three seasons beginning this August triggers the “Cross-Carriage Measure,” which took effect in August 2011.
Under the cross-carriage ruling, pay-TV platforms that acquired any exclusive content on or after 12 March, 2010, must make that programming available through the set-top boxes of other platforms. SingTel subsequently lodged an appeal against the MDA decision with the Minister of Communications and Information.
“The minister’s decision to reject SingNet’s appeal was made based on the assessment of a number of factors,” a statement from the ministry said. “A key consideration was whether certain clauses in the agreement between SingNet and the Football Association Premier League prevent or restrict or are likely to prevent or restrict the EPL content from being acquired or otherwise obtained for transmission on selected network platforms in Singapore by other pay-TV operators.”
“The minister considered the qualitative and quantitative effects of these clauses. The minister also noted that the key objectives of the cross-carriage measure include addressing the high degree of content fragmentation and encouraging pay-TV operators to shift from a content-centric strategy to other forms of competition, such as service and content innovation. Pay-TV operators should keep this in mind and continue to provide better value to the consumers. The minister has also suggested that MDA consider providing further guidance on the circumstances that may trigger the cross-carriage measure so that pay-TV operators can provide more certainty to consumers.”
Customers on both platforms will be able to purchase an EPL stand-alone subscription, granting access to some nine channels, for S$59.90 ($47) a month.
GECs
Sebi sends show-cause notice to Zee over fund diversion, company responds
Regulator questions 2018 letter of comfort and governance lapses; company vows robust legal response
MUMBAI: India’s markets watchdog has reignited its long-running scrutiny of Zee Entertainment Enterprises, issuing a sweeping show-cause notice that drags the broadcaster and 84 others into a widening governance storm.
The notice, dated February 12, has been served by the Securities and Exchange Board of India to Zee, chairman emeritus Subhash Chandra and managing director and chief executive Punit Goenka, among others. At its heart: allegations that company funds were indirectly routed to settle liabilities of entities linked to the Essel Group.
The regulator’s probe traces its roots to November 2019, when two independent directors resigned from Zee’s board, flagging concerns over the alleged appropriation of fixed deposits by Yes Bank. The deposits were reportedly adjusted against loans extended to Essel Group entities, triggering questions about related-party dealings and board oversight.
A key flashpoint is a letter of comfort dated September 4, 2018, issued by Subhash Chandra in his dual capacity as chairman of Zee and the Essel Group. The document, linked to credit facilities availed by certain group companies from Yes Bank, was allegedly known only to select members of management and not disclosed to the full board—an omission SEBI believes raises red flags over transparency and governance controls.
Zee has pushed back hard. In a statement, the company said it “strongly refutes” the allegations against it and its board members and will file a detailed response. It expressed confidence that SEBI would conduct a fair review and signalled readiness to pursue all legal remedies to protect shareholder interests.
The notice marks the latest twist in a saga that has shadowed the broadcaster since 2019. What began as boardroom unease has morphed into a full-blown regulatory confrontation. The final reckoning now rests with SEBI—but the reputational stakes for Zee, and the message for India Inc on governance discipline, could scarcely be higher.
