 "Franklin Templeton MF")
Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund (MF) on Thursday said it has returned Rs 17,777 crore to unit holders of six shuttered debt schemes till June 15.
This amounts to 71 per cent of assets under management (AUM) as on April 23, 2020, when the fund house shut its six debt mutual fund schemes citing redemption pressures and lack of liquidity in the bond market.
Further, cash to the tune of Rs 580 crore was available for distribution as on June 15, Franklin Templeton MF said in a statement.
The schemes -- Franklin India Low Duration Fund, Franklin India Dynamic Accrual Fund, Franklin India Credit Risk Fund, Franklin India Short Term Income Plan, Franklin India Ultra Short Bond Fund, and Franklin India Income Opportunities Fund -- together had an estimated Rs 25,000 crore as assets under management (AUM).
"The schemes have returned Rs 17,777.59 crore to unitholders amounting to 71 per cent of AUM as on April 23, 2020," the fund house said.
Also Read
Under the first disbursement in February, investors received Rs 9,122 crore, while Rs 2,962 crore were paid to investors during the week of April 12, Rs 2,489 crore in the week of May 3, and in the latest disbursement during the week of June 5, investors were paid Rs 3,205 crore.
In March, the Supreme Court accepted the standard operating procedure (SOP) finalised by SBI Mutual Fund to monetise assets and distribute the proceeds to unitholders of the six debt schemes of Franklin Templeton MF.
SBI MF has been appointed as the liquidator for the schemes under winding up by the Supreme Court.
Last week, Sebi barred Franklin Templeton from launching any new debt scheme for two years and imposed a penalty of Rs 5 crore for violating regulatory norms in the case of winding up of six debt schemes in 2020.
Also, it was asked to refund investment management and advisory fees of over Rs 512 crore (including interest) collected with respect to the six debt schemes. This amount will be used to repay unitholders, as per Sebi order.
Sebi had found several irregularities in the running of the schemes, which impacted the interests of unitholders and the asset management company violated provisions of mutual funds norms.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
