Current Affairs · SEBI Regulatory Actions and Corporate Governance

Case Study: A leading regulatory authority recently concluded an investigation into a major fintech firm's parent company regarding corporate governance lapses. The investigation highlighted that several board members failed to adequately disclose material information pertaining to benefits approved for the company's CEO and his relatives. In response to a show-cause notice alleging that directors authorized documents containing incorrect statements, these former officials resolved the proceedings by paying a settlement. Based on the SEBI regulatory actions concerning the settlement by former officials of One97 Communications (Paytm), evaluate the following statements: 1. SEBI permitted eight former board members, including seven former directors and a former compliance officer, to settle corporate governance violation proceedings by collectively paying ₹3.32 crore. 2. The regulatory action specifically addressed the non-disclosure of material information regarding benefits approved for the CEO and his relatives by the Nomination and Remuneration Committee (NRC). 3. The settlement agreement was executed on the explicit condition that the former officials had to formally admit to SEBI's findings without 'neither admitting nor denying' the charges. 4. SEBI's show-cause notice established that multiple identifiable promoters shared control with CEO Vijay Shekhar Sharma. Which of the above statements are correct?