Yes Bank on Wednesday said that it has initiated the process to form a new board as it exits from the reconstruction scheme devised for the rescue of the bank in 2020. The proposal for the constitution of a new board will be placed before the bank’s shareholders at its 18th annual general meeting (AGM) on July 15.
The process was started on the recommendation from State Bank of India (SBI), the largest shareholder in Yes Bank. SBI has proposed that MD & CEO Prashant Kumar continue in his position for another three years, along with the names of eight new appointees to the board.
Sunil Mehta, chairman, Yes Bank, said that by initiating the process of formation of the alternate board, Yes Bank has accomplished a significant milestone of coming out of the reconstruction scheme. “On behalf of the board, I assure all our stakeholders that the bank has built a strong ethos of integrity, trust and transparency which shall remain uncompromised. The bank now is fully ready to achieve its long term growth trajectory under the direction of the alternate board being formed,” Mehta said.
Apart from Mehta and chief executive Prashant Kumar, Yes Bank’s board is comprised of independent directors Mahesh Krishnamurti and Atul Bheda, the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) appointee directors R Gandhi and Ananth Narayan, and SBI nominee directors V S Radhakrishnan and Ravindra Pandey. Mehta, Krishnamurti and Bheda shall demit office with the formation of the new board. The terms of Gandhi and Narayan are valid up to March 23, 2023 or till further orders from the regulator.
Yes Bank returned to the black in FY22, posting a full-year profit of Rs 1,066 crore after two years of losses in FY20 and FY21. During the year, the lender’s loan book grew by 9%, with gross disbursements of Rs 70,000 crore. The deposit book grew 88% between FY20 and FY22 to Rs 1.97 trillion.
In March 2020, the RBI had superceded Yes Bank’s board amid fears that the bank’s capital levels would dip below regulatory requirements. SBI and other major financial institutions had infused capital into the bank under its reconstruction scheme, on the condition that they would lock in at least 25% of their investment for three years.