SUMMARY

The petitioner contended that the failure to reveal all prison proceedings towards the corporate’s promoters in RHP compromised investor safety and market transparency

The coworking area supplier’s INR 3,000 Cr public difficulty contains solely an OFS part of as much as 4.62 Cr fairness shares

The corporate’s public difficulty closed with a 1.15X subscription, and is slated to hit the D-Avenue on October 10

The Bombay Excessive Courtroom (HC) yesterday reserved its order on a plea, which challenged the upcoming public itemizing of coworking area supplier WeWork India. 

“Arguments are concluded. Judgment/ order is reserved,” learn an order handed by Justice RI Chagla and Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash.

As per Livemint, the petitioner, throughout the listening to, contended that there was no exception to the rule requiring full and correct disclosure of all severe prison proceedings pending towards the corporate’s promoters and key managerial personnel in its pink herring prospectus (RHP). 

Failure to reveal such materials data compromises investor safety and market transparency, the petitioner argued reportedly earlier than the HC.

With this, the arguments within the matter have now been concluded and the HC’s judgement on the matter will likely be delivered on a later date. There seems no readability on the slated date of the order, and no interim instructions have been issued within the matter. 

This comes as WeWork India is anticipated to checklist on the exchanges on October 10. 

The coworking area supplier’s INR 3,000 Cr public difficulty contains solely an offer-for-sale (OFS) part of as much as 4.62 Cr fairness shares. Of those, promoter group Embassy Buildcon LLP will promote 3.54 Cr shares, whereas Ariel Manner Tenant will offload 1.08 Cr shares. 

It’s this OFS-heavy IPO that’s on the centre of competition, however extra on this later. 

The corporate’s public difficulty opened to weak retail participation on October 3. Nonetheless, it will definitely closed the IPO with a 1.15X subscription, led primarily by certified institutional consumers (QIBs). 

The Chinks In WeWork India’s Armour

In his petition, Jaipur-based retail investor Vinay Bansal alleged severe lapses within the firm’s provide paperwork and accused the Securities and Change Board of India (SEBI) of regulatory inaction on the identical. 

Bansal additionally alleged that the corporate didn’t disclose related dangers and offered a very optimistic development outlook regardless of reporting heavy losses and a detrimental internet value. 

For context, the coworking startup reported a revenue after tax (PAT) of INR 128.2 Cr in FY25, in comparison with a lack of INR 135.7 Cr in FY24, on the again of a deferred tax achieve of INR 285.7 Cr. In Q1 FY26, WeWork India’s internet loss stood at INR 14.1 Cr, down 51% YoY.

In the meantime, Bansal additionally claimed that  the corporate withheld key data in its draft papers on ongoing complaints and disputes that would affect investor choices. As per a report, these circumstances embody a 2014 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheet for corruption, Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings towards the corporate underneath anti-money laundering norms and an Financial Offences Wing (EoW) chargesheet from November 2024. 

The plea contends that the EoW case was not included within the DRHP filed by the corporate in January 2025, and included within the RHP solely in August 2025 after the petitioner raised it.

The petition additionally claims that WeWork India misrepresented its ties with the worldwide WeWork model, main buyers to imagine it had the father or mother agency’s monetary backing and stability. Bansal alleged that the IPO-bound firm didn’t personal the “WeWork” trademark however slightly operated underneath a administration licence that’s legitimate solely whereas the promoters are on the helm.

 Subsequently, earlier this week, the Bombay HC sought a response from the Securities and Change Board of India (SEBI ) within the case.