
Steinhoff
#5661
Posted 05 December 2020 - 12:59 PM
#5662
Posted 05 December 2020 - 12:55 PM
#5663
Posted 03 December 2020 - 10:05 PM
Saw this on another forum. Does anyone disagree with their interpretation of Conservatoriums claim?
"wiese had a loan from a bank consortium, backed by Steinhoff shares. When the value of the shares fell, the loan was canceled and the shares went to the banks. the banks have realized (= sold) the shares. the consequent of the credit a specialized law firm bought from the banks, conservatorium.
It was now: Conservatory sued wiese, he should pay back ..
the lawsuit is typical of usa jurisprudence, they will never get anything from wiese. no judge will agree, the original loan was forcibly disposed of - so it ends.
the only real chance for conservatorum to see money is via global settlement. but they are not there. and therefore angry"
I agree with the comment. The reality CW borrowed from banks and pledged shares as security. Now the shares collapsed so the bank can only ask CW for their money. the reality is CW claim with SNH is selling Pepkor to SNH and not the pledge to banks. Therefore the legal claim is between CW and SNH the only option Conservatory have is to sue CW. SNH has nothing to do with Conservatory. The fact that they bought the rights from the banks puts tem on the line that they are like bounty hunters and the bounty is CW not SNH. Anyway my thoughts. I believe this is the reason why SNH changed they stance.
Edited by DayTraderDad, 03 December 2020 - 10:06 PM.
#5664
Posted 03 December 2020 - 08:00 PM
"wiese had a loan from a bank consortium, backed by Steinhoff shares. When the value of the shares fell, the loan was canceled and the shares went to the banks. the banks have realized (= sold) the shares. the consequent of the credit a specialized law firm bought from the banks, conservatorium.
It was now: Conservatory sued wiese, he should pay back ..
the lawsuit is typical of usa jurisprudence, they will never get anything from wiese. no judge will agree, the original loan was forcibly disposed of - so it ends.
the only real chance for conservatorum to see money is via global settlement. but they are not there. and therefore angry"
#5665
Posted 03 December 2020 - 05:49 PM
#5666
Posted 03 December 2020 - 09:55 AM
#5667
Posted 02 December 2020 - 06:50 PM
#5668
Posted 02 December 2020 - 12:09 PM
Its looking stable guys, I hope I don't curse it but its looking really good, the rip up and carry is close
Watch it today Brexit deal should be announced shortly!!!
#5669
Posted 02 December 2020 - 10:09 AM
Its looking stable guys, I hope I don't curse it but its looking really good, the rip up and carry is close
#5670
Posted 01 December 2020 - 10:53 AM
#5671
Posted 01 December 2020 - 05:49 AM
#5672
Posted 30 November 2020 - 11:58 PM
https://www.moneyweb...its-own-making/
Steinhoff’s settlement proposal hits hurdle of its own making
Steinhoff appears to have done an about-turn on its undertaking not to pay out on Christo Wiese-related claims until legal battles with US-registered Conservatorium disputing those claims have been settled.
The original settlement proposal released at the end of July revealed that Wiese-related entities were set to be the single largest group of beneficiaries with a possible total payout of around R9 billion on the R59 billion claimed.
However, at that stage Steinhoff made it clear that it would not pay out on any claims where there was a dispute to the legal ownership of the amount being claimed.
On Friday Steinhoff released an updated version of the proposed settlement, which contains one critical change. Steinhoff is now intending to pay Wiese-related entities around R7 billion for the ‘Upington 2 claim’ without waiting for the outcome of the court battle between Wiese and Conservatorium.
No explanation is given for the change; indeed there is not even a reference to the fact that there has been a change.
Strangely, proceeds for the Upington 1 claim, estimated at around €82 million, will remain ringfenced until the dispute between Wiese and Conservatorium has been resolved.
Remarkably, the dramatic change in approach comes after the Western Cape High Court strengthened Conservatorium’s claim by granting it intervention status.
ver the weekend Michael-James Currie and John Oxenham of Nortons Inc, legal advisors to Conservatorium, told Moneyweb their client had voted against the settlement proposal because of the change.
“Conservatorium’s view is that both the Upington 1 and Upington 2 claims are being disputed and the [Western] Cape High Court found that this is clearly a triable issue to be determined by a court,” said Currie, adding that the Steinhoff proposal to pay out the Upington 2 proceeds when there is clearly a disputed claim “is prejudicial to Conservatorium”.
When asked for an explanation, a spokesperson for Steinhoff told Moneyweb: “The position of the company has changed since the 27 July 2020 term sheet and the view of the company, after taking appropriate advice, is set out in the current proposal.”
Edited by Tom, 01 December 2020 - 12:00 AM.
#5673
Posted 30 November 2020 - 07:21 PM
Anyone wanting to get familiar with algorithm trading follow the share FCEL in the Nasdaq. Lionel it is good understanding of day trading.
For those that have charts follow the 10 second chart.
https://finance.yaho...&.tsrc=fin-srch
#5674
Posted 30 November 2020 - 07:07 PM
#5675
Posted 30 November 2020 - 10:42 AM
#5676
Posted 30 November 2020 - 09:07 AM
Steinhoff’s settlement proposal hits hurdle of its own makingIs set to pay Christo Wiese-related entities around R7bn prior to outcome of court battle.
https://www.moneyweb...its-own-making/
They have something up their sleeve surely
#5677
Posted 30 November 2020 - 07:39 AM
#5678
Posted 29 November 2020 - 03:35 PM
What you thinking guys, we close to a rip up to a min of 3 bucks ?
Next important dates:
1 - By Wednesday either there is a deal or no deal for BREXIT.
2 - 15th December 2020 creditors meetings to get approval in implements the UK arrangement.
#5679
Posted 29 November 2020 - 11:37 AM
#5680
Posted 29 November 2020 - 10:45 AM
.....>Paxi-diens maandeliks sowat 100 000 pakkies in sy netwerk van winkels gestuur. Dit het nou verdriedubbel.In die afgelope belastingjaar het Paxi meer as 1,9 miljoen pakkies gekarwei wat groei van 120% op ’n jaargrondslag is.Pep Stores bied die toonbank-tot-toonbank-diens sedert 2018.Pakkies word op dieselfde afleweringsvoertuie gelaai wat produkte na Pep-winkels landwyd neem en die ontvangers kom haal dit by die toonbank af. Daar is nou meer as 2 200 Paxi-punte in Pep- en Shoe City-winkels landwyd, sê Silke.Die plan is om die netwerk uiteindelik uit te brei na die meer as 5 000 winkels wat Pep, Ackermans, Tekkie Town en Refinery insluit.....>Volgens Silke het die gebruik van die Paxi-diens die meeste in Johannesburg en die Durbanse stadskern toegeneem. Die besigste oplaaipunte is winkels in die Oos-Kaap en veral in Mthatha, Alice, Butterworth en Oos-Londen.Kliënte word per SMS, die Paxi-bot en -webblad op hoogte gehou van waar hul pakkies trek.Pakkies in twee groottes kan gestuur word en daar is ’n keuse tussen ’n standaard- en ’n sneldiens. Pryse wissel tussen R59,95 en R119,95. Silke sê teen R59,95 is dit ’n uiters bekostigbare manier om pakkies van tot 5 kg te stuur.Baie klein sakeondernemings gebruik die diens om pakkies na hul klante te stuur. Sedert Paxi begin het, is sowat 10 000 klein ondernemings geïdentifiseer wat pakkies op dié manier by hul klante kry.Afleweringstye wissel volgens die opsie wat die versender kies.Die opsie van sewe tot nege dae is gewild, maar Paxi bied ook ’n diens van drie tot vyf dae.
What you thinking guys, we close to a rip up to a min of 3 bucks ?