By SM Sajid 

Corporate filings in Pakistan and the UK raise questions about overseas revenue disclosures, inter-company transactions, related-party payments and the remuneration of HUM Network’s chief executive.

An examination of corporate financial statements filed by Pakistan-listed HUM Network, records available through the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX), and statutory filings with the UK’s Companies House raises significant questions about the company’s overseas operations, financial reporting and corporate governance.

At the centre of the questions are the treatment of HUM Network’s wholly owned UK subsidiary, substantial balances involving its Dubai-based affiliate, the financial reporting of its high-profile international award events, payments to family-affiliated production companies and the exceptionally high remuneration of its chief executive, Duraid Qureshi.

Taken together, these disclosures warrant closer examination by shareholders, auditors and financial regulators. They also raise a broader question about whether the company’s financial arrangements and related-party transactions adequately protect the interests of its public investors.

UK subsidiary written down to zero despite rising sales

One of the most striking developments concerns HUM Network UK, the company’s wholly owned British subsidiary.

In September 2024, HUM Network organised its international awards ceremony at London’s Wembley Arena. During the same financial year, the Pakistani parent company reduced the reported value of its entire investment in HUM Network UK from PKR 95.9 million to zero, effectively recognising the investment as a complete loss while retaining 100 per cent ownership of the subsidiary.

The accounting decision is particularly noteworthy because HUM Network’s reported UK sales increased by 22 per cent during the year, reaching PKR 334.3 million.

The apparent contradiction raises an important question: what commercial or financial circumstances justified writing down the entire value of a wholly owned overseas subsidiary in a year when its UK business reportedly experienced substantial sales growth?

A write-down does not, by itself, establish financial misconduct. However, the basis for the valuation, the impairment assessment and the supporting documentation deserve independent scrutiny.

UK filings leave the Wembley event’s financial performance unclear

Further questions emerge from the subsidiary’s statutory accounts filed with Companies House in March 2026.

The accounts reportedly show that HUM Network UK’s bank cash balance had nearly doubled to approximately £377,000. At the same time, outstanding liabilities exceeded £3.2 million, while accumulated losses stood at approximately £1.958 million.

Crucially, the publicly available accounts do not contain a detailed profit-and-loss statement. The company appears to have relied on reporting exemptions available to qualifying small companies under UK law, including an exemption from statutory audit.

While such exemptions may be legally available, they limit the financial information accessible to external observers.

Consequently, the publicly available filings do not establish the precise financial performance of the Wembley awards ceremony, including ticket-sale revenue, sponsorship receipts, production costs, payments to contractors or the event’s ultimate profitability.

For an international event involving substantial commercial activity and a Pakistani listed company’s overseas subsidiary, the absence of publicly accessible detailed revenue and expenditure figures raises legitimate questions about financial transparency.

PKR 5.32 billion receivable from Dubai subsidiary

The treatment of inter-company transactions raises another significant set of questions.

Following the write-down of its UK investment, HUM Network’s Pakistani parent company also reportedly wrote off PKR 105.3 million owed by the British subsidiary, treating the trade receivable as irrecoverable.

Meanwhile, the amount recorded as receivable from its Dubai-based subsidiary, HUM Network FZ LLC, increased from approximately PKR 2.59 billion in 2024 to more than PKR 5.32 billion in 2026.

The increase warrants a detailed explanation.

What transactions account for the additional billions of rupees? Are these amounts trade receivables, operational advances, inter-company loans or other financial arrangements? What are the repayment terms, and what evidence establishes their recoverability?

Most importantly, what is the ultimate utilisation of these funds?

Inter-company transactions are not inherently improper. However, balances of this magnitude involving overseas subsidiaries require transparent disclosures, clear commercial justification and appropriate oversight, particularly where the parent company has public shareholders.

Wembley awards: Where are the ticketing and sponsorship figures?

The financial reporting surrounding the September 2024 Wembley event also deserves closer examination.

Despite the scale and commercial profile of the ceremony, the publicly available records examined do not provide a comprehensive breakdown of ticket-sale proceeds or the event’s overall financial performance.

One specific reference identified in Brent Council records concerns 10 complimentary tickets, valued at £450, provided to local councillor Ajmal Akram. This isolated entry does not establish the wider ticketing arrangements or account for the event’s total revenue.

Questions also arise from the financial disclosures of Alliance Advertising, the UK agency associated with sponsorship arrangements for the event.

Its publicly available filings reportedly do not include a profit-and-loss statement and show outstanding receivables of approximately £1.5 million at year-end, despite a reported bank cash balance of zero.

These figures do not establish that sponsorship funds were misappropriated or unaccounted for. They do, however, make it difficult to independently establish how much sponsorship revenue was generated, collected, transferred and ultimately recognised.

A separate issue concerns the 2022 Canada Awards Show, for which a commitment was reportedly made to contribute ticket proceeds towards relief for victims of Pakistan’s devastating floods.

The company’s annual-report disclosures examined do not identify a specific accounting entry, amount or receipt substantiating that contribution.

Was the promised contribution made? If so, to which organisation, in what amount and on what date? Documentary evidence would help resolve the question.

Billions paid to family-affiliated production companies

Questions about financial governance are not limited to HUM Network’s overseas operations.

During FY2025, the company reportedly recorded production expenses of PKR 7.68 billion and payments of approximately PKR 2.47 billion to affiliated family-owned production entities, including MD Productions and Momina & Duraid Films.

Such transactions are particularly relevant because they involve companies associated with the management’s own business and family interests.

Related-party transactions are not necessarily improper and are common in media and entertainment businesses. Nevertheless, their commercial justification, pricing, approval procedures and disclosure standards are essential safeguards for public shareholders.

Were the production services competitively priced? Were alternative suppliers considered? Were the transactions independently evaluated and approved by the appropriate board committees? Were all relevant relationships and interests adequately disclosed?

The answers matter because substantial amounts of shareholder-backed corporate resources are being channelled to entities affiliated with the company’s management.

Independent examination would help establish whether these arrangements were conducted on an arm’s-length basis and in the genuine commercial interests of HUM Network.

CEO remuneration exceeds PKR 36 crore annually

Perhaps the most striking contrast in the company’s financial disclosures concerns the remuneration of its chief executive.

During FY2025, Duraid Qureshi reportedly received PKR 361.2 million in salary, bonuses and other benefits.

That represents more than PKR 36 crore annually, equivalent to approximately PKR 3 crore per month.

The figure raises legitimate questions about executive compensation, particularly when considered alongside the reported write-down of the UK investment, substantial overseas receivables and the company’s wider financial performance.

The issue is not simply the absolute amount of remuneration. It is whether the compensation structure is adequately linked to the company’s financial performance, shareholder returns and long-term value creation.

Where public shareholders bear the risks associated with overseas investments and corporate losses, there should be clear accountability for executive rewards and demonstrable evidence that remuneration decisions are aligned with shareholder interests.

Tax adjustments raise further questions

HUM Network’s parent company reportedly recorded a net tax credit of PKR 25.2 million rather than an income-tax expense, following accounting losses and adjustments.

This warrants clarification regarding the nature of the credit, the tax adjustments involved and their reconciliation with the company’s reported financial performance.

A tax credit is not, in itself, evidence of irregularity. However, where significant corporate losses, overseas financial arrangements and related-party transactions coexist, a transparent explanation of the company’s tax position becomes particularly important.

Questions requiring answers

The available disclosures leave several important questions unanswered:

1. What independent valuation and impairment assessment justified reducing HUM Network UK’s investment value to zero despite reported UK sales growth?

2. What was the actual financial performance of the Wembley awards ceremony, including ticket sales, sponsorship receipts, production expenditure and net proceeds?

3. Why was PKR 105.3 million owed by the UK subsidiary written off, and what recovery efforts were undertaken?

4. What explains the increase in amounts receivable from HUM Network’s Dubai subsidiary from PKR 2.59 billion to more than PKR 5.32 billion?

5. What documentary evidence establishes the collection, transfer and utilisation of Wembley sponsorship and ticketing proceeds?

6. Was the promised contribution from the 2022 Canada Awards Show towards Pakistan’s flood relief actually made, and can the payment be independently verified?

7. Were the PKR 2.47 billion payments to affiliated production companies independently assessed, competitively priced and approved in accordance with corporate-governance requirements?

8. What performance criteria justified the CEO’s reported PKR 361.2 million remuneration during FY2025?

A matter for regulators and shareholders

These questions cannot be resolved through corporate reputation, public relations or institutional relationships. They require documentary evidence, independent verification and, where appropriate, regulatory examination.

The Pakistan Stock Exchange and Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan should consider whether the company’s disclosures concerning overseas subsidiaries, related-party transactions, impairment of investments and executive remuneration meet applicable transparency and corporate-governance requirements.

The Federal Board of Revenue may also examine relevant tax treatments within its jurisdiction. UK regulatory authorities may consider the statutory disclosures of the British entities under the applicable reporting framework.

Any examination should be based on the underlying financial statements, bank records, inter-company agreements, board approvals, contracts, invoices and independent audit documentation.

HUM Network and Duraid Qureshi should also be given an opportunity to respond to these specific questions and provide supporting explanations.

The significance of this case extends beyond one media company. It concerns the accountability of publicly listed corporations, the transparency of cross-border financial arrangements and the protection of minority shareholders in Pakistan’s capital markets.

A company operating in the public domain, benefiting from the confidence of investors and generating substantial revenues through its media platforms, has a responsibility to ensure that its financial disclosures withstand independent scrutiny.

If the transactions are commercially justified and the accounting treatments are sound, comprehensive documentary explanations should resolve the concerns. If material discrepancies remain unexplained, regulators and shareholders are entitled to demand a deeper investigation.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether HUM Network has a prominent public profile, but whether its financial affairs are as transparent and accountable as the obligations of a publicly listed company require.