15225 replies to this topic

[Squideye]

...Braam v H.

Attached Files

•  20210917.pdf   1.39MB   56 downloads

[Tiekkie]

Excellent podcast!!!

like the narrator said one step forward two steps back

[DayTraderDad]

https://www.news24.c...ations-20210917

Excellent podcast!!!

[Squideye]

https://www.news24.c...ations-20210917

[DayTraderDad]

is there anything happening today? can't keep track when the TT case is, know it's not consecutive days

Haha going to be a party with the various parties and judge at V&A vismaark to determine the road ahead!!!

[Matt744]

Capitalised terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the compromise that has been proposed by the Company to Scheme Creditors (the "Proposal") in accordance with section 155 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, as amended ("Companies Act"), available at www.SteinhoffSettlement.com.

Part A – NOTICE OF RESULTS OF MEETINGS

1 Notice is hereby given to Scheme Creditors that the results of the virtual meetings (collectively "Meetings" and individually "Meeting") held in terms of section 155(6) of the Companies Act for the purposes of considering and voting on the Proposal are as set out below. 2 At the Meeting of the Financial Creditors held on 6 September 2021, the Financial Creditors voted as follows: 2.1   100% in number of the Financial Creditors present and voting (all by proxy) voted in favour of the Proposal; and 2.2   100% in value of the Financial Creditors present and voting (all by proxy) voted in favour of the Proposal,   and accordingly the Proposal was adopted by the Financial Creditors. 3 At the Meeting of the Contractual Claimants held on 10 September 2021, the Contractual Claimants voted as follows 3.1   100% in number of the Contractual Claimants present and voting in person or by proxy voted in favour of the Proposal. Of the 16 Contractual Claimants present (in person or by proxy) at the Meeting, 1 Contractual Claimant abstained from voting on the Proposal; and 3.2   100% in value of the Contractual Claimants present and voting in person or by proxy representing 95.42% in value of the claims of all Contractual Claimants voted in favour of the Proposal,   and accordingly the Proposal was adopted by the Contractual Claimants. 4 At the Meeting of the SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants held on 6 September 2021, the SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants voted as follows: 4.1   100% in number of the SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants present and voting in person or by proxy voted in favour of the Proposal. Of the 8,481 SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants present in person or by proxy at the Meeting, 1 SIHPL Market Purchase Claimant abstained from voting on the Proposal; and 4.2   100% in value of the SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants present and voting in person or by proxy representing 99.9999398054% in value of the claims of all SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants present at the Meeting voted in favour of the Proposal,   and accordingly the Proposal was adopted by the SIHPL Market Purchase Claimants. 5 A proposal as contemplated in section 155 of the Companies Act will have been adopted by the creditors, or the members of a relevant class of creditors, if it is supported by a majority in number representing at least 75% in value of the creditors or class, as the case may be, present and voting in person or by proxy at a meeting called for that purpose. 6 As each Class of Scheme Creditors has adopted the Proposal by a majority in number representing not less than 75% in value of each Class of Scheme Creditors, present and voting in person or by proxy at the Meetings, the Proposal has been Adopted as defined in the Proposal and as contemplated by section 155 of the Companies Act.

Part B – NOTICE OF THE COMPANY'S SANCTION APPLICATION

1 Notice is hereby given that, in light of the fact that the Proposal was Adopted at the Meetings, SIHPL has issued its application to the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa for an Order approving and sanctioning the Proposal in accordance with section 155 of the Companies Act (the "Sanction Application"). 2 Electronic copies of the papers filed by SIHPL in the Sanction Application are available at www.SteinhoffSettlement.com under the 'Case Documents' tab and onwww.steinhoffinternational.com.

 

 

Correct, I see now it is just the SENS sent via email. I saw the mail come through while walking into a meeting, thought I'd mention it incase anyone else could look for it, in the case of a urgent message.

 

Mr Squid, apologies for the rookie error It is now noted, that mistake shall never repeat itself.. 

[GutfeelTrader]

is there anything happening today? can't keep track when the TT case is, know it's not consecutive days

[Tiekkie]

Thanks please share it!!!

was basically the sense that was put out yesterday

[Squideye]

Steinhoff Settlements just sent out an email, I haven’t had a chance to read through it yet. I’ll pass it on a bit later.

No time to read through but time to mention it here. !?      Tsek newbie...

[DayTraderDad]

Steinhoff Settlements just sent out an email, I haven’t had a chance to read through it yet. I’ll pass it on a bit later.

Thanks please share it!!!

[DayTraderDad]

Claiming a company is insolvent is a pretty bold statement. Mostert clearly can’t read into a balance sheet or conduct a simple DCF Model.

Indeed it appears so they went on the TT deal with SNH just because Deloite said accounts are good and CW was there, but did not have the knowledge to see the red flags like Piet Viljoen mentioned.

 

Me as a small investor could see there was something wrong with the financials in 2016 that's why I did not buy SNH then even when all the financial gurus were saying its a good buy.

 

Also a big red flag was they bought Coforama making losses and had a miraculous turnaround in one year.

[Matt744]

Steinhoff Settlements just sent out an email, I haven’t had a chance to read through it yet. I’ll pass it on a bit later.

[Tiekkie]

Why the mini dump this morning

[Batra]

https://uk.finance.y...l?.tsrc=applewf

[Matt744]

Claiming a company is insolvent is a pretty bold statement. Mostert clearly can’t read into a balance sheet or conduct a simple DCF Model.

[Bubble]

bwhaaaahaha  Wound up SH but all the assets preserved????..definitely taking weed or magic mushrooms

 

One interview, Mostert said there is a reputational risk for him to withdraw the case....I think there is a reputation risk to continue also....so, where would you look less stupid.

[Trader001]

Former Tekkie Town chief executive Bernard Mostert said yesterday that erstwhile footwear retail owners had significant reasons to oppose Steinhoff's attempts to have the S155 process sanctioned.

“Firstly, the Section 155 proposal treats the creditors of Steinhoff International Holdings (SIHPL) unfairly. Steinhoff NV, the parent company of SIHPL, is actually insolvent. It should be wound up and its assets preserved,” Mostert said.

bwhaaaahaha  Wound up SH but all the assets preserved????..definitely taking weed or magic mushrooms

[Junz]

It's playing out like a scene from suits. TT boys have Harvey specter as thier lawyer and the judge has been bought. I feel like TT boys know this approach is unsustainable...but when you fight for principal you have to be willing to go the while way

[Tiekkie]

Former Tekkie Town chief executive Bernard Mostert said yesterday that erstwhile footwear retail owners had significant reasons to oppose Steinhoff's attempts to have the S155 process sanctioned.

“Firstly, the Section 155 proposal treats the creditors of Steinhoff International Holdings (SIHPL) unfairly. Steinhoff NV, the parent company of SIHPL, is actually insolvent. It should be wound up and its assets preserved,” Mostert said.

is this guy delusional or is he smoking weed all creditors voted in favor of a settlement why is the courts entertaining him

[Tiekkie]

Former Tekkie Town chief executive Bernard Mostert said yesterday that erstwhile footwear retail owners had significant reasons to oppose Steinhoff's attempts to have the S155 process sanctioned.

“Firstly, the Section 155 proposal treats the creditors of Steinhoff International Holdings (SIHPL) unfairly. Steinhoff NV, the parent company of SIHPL, is actually insolvent. It should be wound up and its assets preserved,” Mostert said.