When BT contributed to 80 per cent of our revenues, it accounted for less than $100 million. At current levels, BT’s contribution is around $450 million. So, while the percentage of BT in the overall pie has come down, we have been able to increase our share of business with BT. We have also been able to grow business from other telcos.
I suppose as a percentage, BT will go down, but not in absolute numbers. That is what we hope to achieve. As for the re-tendering impact, we had a $6-million fall in revenue. That was the amount of reduction we had in the business from BT. But since the re-tendering, we have got more than what we were already working with BT. In the IT deal, we have got a larger chunk, except that the pricing that we have got is at a lower level. The BPO business with BT has grown and continues to grow. We will try and optimise the BT account by moving away from pure outsourcing work to more transactional work. The BT stake sell will impact our business with them.
We are very satisfied with our deal with Etisalat. We have been serving them and we have been compensated on time. So, from the business point of view, everything is the same.
We hope to complete the process of merger by next year.
Can you give us some details about the pending US SEC cases and when do you see a possible solution in Satyam.
Nayyar: That issue has been resolved. We have agreed to delist and the process is on. It will be completed by end of February.
On the class-action cases in the US, the federal court judge had accepted the settlement, and orders to that extent had been passed. But one case related to Abardeen, a particular investment fund, is on. And we will see how it turns out.
How many payment obligations do you have at present in Satyam?
Nayyar: About $125 million for class-action, $70 million for Upaid and $10 million for SEC have been paid .
At what stage is your battle with the Income Tax department that you are currently waging in Satyam?
Nayyar: Our statements have been very very open. We believe that the demand on that fictious income is unreasonable. At this stage, I can only say that it is sub judice and we are currently presenting ourselves. I don’t see this dialogue (with I-T department) getting resolved pretty easily.