Lakshmi Venoo and Mallika Srinivasan stated that no agreement has been reached regarding the economic ownership of assets and businesses within the Venoo Srinivasan family in the TVS group, calling for a fair and transparent settlement.
In a joint statement, Lakshmi and Mallika emphasized that while the larger split of the TVS family was agreed upon in 2020 and subsequently implemented through a stakeholder process, a similar process involving transparent valuation, discussion, and mutual consent was not conducted regarding the economic interests within the Venoo Srinivasan family. It was also noted that no agreement on the division of these economic interests had been concluded.
The statement refuted the claim that all family assets belong exclusively to one person who can dispose of them unilaterally. It was clarified that the main issue is not the leadership positions, which have been compensated adequately and proportionally. Instead, it concerns the fair recognition of legal economic ownership, which remains unresolved.
The statement particularly stressed that management duties should not be confused with economic ownership. The distribution of leadership roles or business management opportunities does not constitute a division of family assets and cannot replace the legal economic interests of family members. Similarly, agreements concerning trademarks, brand usage, and non-compete clauses cannot be considered an economic settlement if they were not part of such arrangements.
Mallika Srinivasan explained that mentions of TAFE in this context are incorrect. TAFE is part of the Amalgamations Group, which is a separate family business group in which she is a shareholder. She added that TAFE has no relation to the economic settlement within the Venoo Srinivasan family, and presenting her long-standing connection and role as custodian of TAFE as proof of fair distribution of economic interests in this family is fundamentally misleading.
Furthermore, it was stated that internal family agreements were made unilaterally and cannot be considered fair or based on consent. The statement insists that any fair settlement must take into account the legal economic interests of all involved parties and be based on a transparent process of valuation, discussion, and agreement.
In conclusion, the statement called for a swift, fair, and amicable resolution to the situation, which would be in the best interests of the family, its businesses, and all stakeholders. The parties declared their commitment to resolving these issues through constructive dialogue, maintaining dignity, nobility, and fairness.