15225 replies to this topic

[Tom]

They breaking their own record over and over again.

Should be in Guinness soon.

[Sleepwa123]

Oh look another delayed set of financials. At least they are consistent in keeping us waiting.

[Africa1962]

New Sens out

[Tom]

 

Correction:

 

 

Interesting ruling, and actually according to the law in South Africa,

 

I agree with it because I don't see why should Van Huyssteen or Wiese be treated any different than any other share holder.

 

But unfortunately Steinhoff has bought into that and in its settlement has decided to actually treat them favorably.

 

It looks like Van Huyssteen was wrong NOT to accept the settlement, however that doesn't apply to Wiese where his only and best option for now is to fight his case in The Netherlands or Germany, because in South Africa he would probably lose the case, even though Steinhoff is Dutch, while Pepkor is South African, but still Wiese need to try to take his case to The Netherlands or Germany to stand a better chance at winning.

 

If Steinhoff has a proof that Jooste facked the accounts, why are they not showing it yet, and what do they gain by keep locking the PwC report, knowing that they can't lock it for ever.

 

Takkie Town claim is relatively not big or game changer value wise, but important in that it indicates what can happen to Wiese's claim.

 

Wiese's claim is big and a game changer, but involves Conservatorium, and that's probably why the "all or nothing" settlement previously announced by Steinhoff has failed, and the declared main goal of this failed settlement which is avoiding costly and exhausting court cases has failed.

 

 

Highlights from the news article:

 

"they never actually proved fraud by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste, the SCA says, and their claim that Steinhoff and Pepkor had faked internal sales of Pepkor was also not substantiated" ... (This really makes me wonder of what proofs Steinhoff management of Dec 2017 had against Jooste to substantiate their claims that it was Jooste that cooked the books, and why until now they haven't produced definite evidences to prove their claims, despite that the PwC has been finalized it's been time).

 

"The high court which had granted that order had erred, the SCA said, and no legal basis had been established for such a ban".

 

"Van Huyssteen group "produced no evidence to substantiate fraud" they claim was perpetrated by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste".

 

"The group had also wrongly argued that Steinhoff controlled the legally-separate Pepkor, the SCA said, and had not shown that Tekkie Town had ended up with Pepkor through simulated transactions", rather than in a genuine series of transactions for value".

 

"In June the SCA threw out, with costs, an appeal by Van Huyssteen and other former Tekkie Town executives against an order that they may not sell shoes in direct competition to their former business, after they had set up the Mr Tekkie chain".

 

 

 

Again, I think the ruling of the SCA is sound and correctly follows the laws and regulations in South Africa (which can be different to other countries).

 

However I disagree with the SCA in their statement: "The group had also wrongly argued that Steinhoff controlled the legally-separate Pepkor". I think Steinhoff does possess a lot of control over Pepkor (up until now Steinhoff is the majority shareholder of Pepkor, as they hold 68% STAKE), I don't understand why the SCA concluded otherwise.

Edited by Tom, 26 October 2020 - 02:39 PM.

[Zanme]

To me the entire shareholder claim against the company seems illogical. The company did nothing wrong. It was management who did if anything. The company is owned by shareholders before and after. So how can one group of shareholders benefit over the other. It does not make sense at all.

[BradH]

Exactly Larry!

[LarryK]

Here’s my opinion.

We are all a bunch of people hoping to make a buck. Nobody has a clue what’s going to happen tomorrow but we share our opinions, thoughts and ideas.

Anyone that uses this information to make an investment decision should seek help!

We should stop being so critical of people with enough courage to actually post on here.

It’s the weekend so let’s have a few beers and take it easy.

[DayTraderDad]

I have warned before Brexit is playing a role on the share price. Keep good track in what is happeneing, The reason price is up is negociations resumed again today.

 

My believe why Brexit is important a big chunck of Pepco Group will be affected by the final result of the negociations.

 

Also remember the volumes traded in SA of much less than traded in Europe. If I am correct the share holding in Europe is now has high as 75%.

[DayTraderDad]

Very true.

 

There are liars here that claim to be or to will be making money on this share, while the truth is that they've lost huge amounts of money, and continue to lose more, and cause others to also lose, and on top of that some of them post using multiple screen names on here and on other chat and comment sites.

Again lots of bla bla but not one single figure. I hope you have a big mouth because one day soon you going to have to swallow your insults.

[Tom]

On the pump and dump scale it is clear that the dump is the best payer.

 

Very true.

 

There are liars here that claim to be or to will be making money on this share, while the truth is that they've lost huge amounts of money, and continue to lose more, and cause others to also lose, and on top of that some of them post using multiple screen names on here and on other chat and comment sites.

Edited by Tom, 22 October 2020 - 07:48 PM.

[Tom]

Correction:

 

 

Interesting ruling, and actually according to the law in South Africa,

 

I agree with it because I don't see why should Van Huyssteen or Wiese be treated any different than any other share holder.

 

But unfortunately Steinhoff has bought into that and in its settlement has decided to actually treat them favorably.

 

It looks like Van Huyssteen was wrong NOT to accept the settlement, however that doesn't apply to Wiese where his only and best option for now is to fight his case in The Netherlands or Germany, because in South Africa he would probably lose the case, even though Steinhoff is Dutch, while Pepkor is South African, but still Wiese need to try to take his case to The Netherlands or Germany to stand a better chance at winning.

 

If Steinhoff has a proof that Jooste facked the accounts, why are they not showing it yet, and what do they gain by keep locking the PwC report, knowing that they can't lock it for ever.

 

Takkie Town claim is relatively not big or game changer value wise, but important in that it indicates what can happen to Wiese's claim.

 

Wiese's claim is big and a game changer, but involves Conservatorium, and that's probably why the "all or nothing" settlement previously announced by Steinhoff has failed, and the declared main goal of this failed settlement which is avoiding costly and exhausting court cases has failed.

 

 

Highlights from the news article:

 

"they never actually proved fraud by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste, the SCA says, and their claim that Steinhoff and Pepkor had faked internal sales of Pepkor was also not substantiated" ... (This really makes me wonder of what proofs Steinhoff management of Dec 2017 had against Jooste to substantiate their claims that it was Jooste that cooked the books, and why until now they haven't produced definite evidences to prove their claims, despite that the PwC has been finalized it's been time).

 

"The high court which had granted that order had erred, the SCA said, and no legal basis had been established for such a ban".

 

"Van Huyssteen group "produced no evidence to substantiate fraud" they claim was perpetrated by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste".

 

"The group had also wrongly argued that Steinhoff controlled the legally-separate Pepkor, the SCA said, and had not shown that Tekkie Town had ended up with Pepkor through simulated transactions", rather than in a genuine series of transactions for value".

 

"In June the SCA threw out, with costs, an appeal by Van Huyssteen and other former Tekkie Town executives against an order that they may not sell shoes in direct competition to their former business, after they had set up the Mr Tekkie chain".

 

Edited by Tom, 22 October 2020 - 06:57 PM.

[Snippit]

On the pump and dump scale it is clear that the dump is the best payer.

[Tom]

Interesting ruling, and actually according to the law in South Africa,

 

I agree with it because I don't see why should Van Huyssteen or Wiese be treated any different than any other share holder.

 

But unfortunately Steinhoff has bought into that and in its settlement has decided to actually treat them favorably.

 

It looks like Van Huyssteen was wrong to accept the settlement, however that doesn't apply to Wiese where his only and best option for now is to fight his case in The Netherlands or Germany while in South Africa he would probably lose the case, even though Steinhoff is Dutch, while Pepkor is South African, but still Wiese need to try to take his case to The Netherlands or Germany to stand a better chance at winning.

 

If Steinhoff has a proof that Jooste facked the accounts, why are they not showing it yet, and what do they gain by keep locking the PwC report, knowing that they can't lock it for ever.

 

Takkie Town claim is relatively not big or game changer value wise, but important in that it indicates what can happen to Wiese's claim.

 

Wiese's claim is big and a game changer, but involves Conservatorium, and that's probably why the "all or nothing" settlement previously announced by Steinhoff has failed, and the declared main goal of this failed settlement which is avoiding costly and exhausting court cases has failed.

 

 

Highlights from the news article:

 

"they never actually proved fraud by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste, the SCA says, and their claim that Steinhoff and Pepkor had faked internal sales of Pepkor was also not substantiated" ... (This really makes me wonder of what proofs Steinhoff management of Dec 2017 had against Jooste to substantiate their claims that it was Jooste that cooked the books, and why until now they haven't produced definite evidences to prove their claims, despite that the PwC has been finalized it's been time).

 

"The high court which had granted that order had erred, the SCA said, and no legal basis had been established for such a ban".

 

"Van Huyssteen group "produced no evidence to substantiate fraud" they claim was perpetrated by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste".

 

"The group had also wrongly argued that Steinhoff controlled the legally-separate Pepkor, the SCA said, and had not shown that Tekkie Town had ended up with Pepkor through simulated transactions", rather than in a genuine series of transactions for value".

 

"In June the SCA threw out, with costs, an appeal by Van Huyssteen and other former Tekkie Town executives against an order that they may not sell shoes in direct competition to their former business, after they had set up the Mr Tekkie chain".

Edited by Tom, 22 October 2020 - 06:48 PM.

[Lionelza1]

Get excited when price goes over previous high of R1.02

[Leadingedge]

Tradegate seems to be responding positively, strange that the SA market is not following on for a change...maybe a good thing to be breaking the same old trends?

[Investment novice]

Oh dear Ho dear another success:

https://www.business...ie-town-2020-10

Lining up nicely...

[DayTraderDad]

Hi All
Been following for a while, but only just got account approved.
Surely this should also help snh

I think so PEPKOR up over 5% so far today.

[AMG76]

Hi All
Been following for a while, but only just got account approved.
Surely this should also help snh

[AMG76]

Hi All
Been following for a while, but only just got account approved.
Surely this should also help snh

[DayTraderDad]

Oh dear Ho dear another success:  

 

https://www.business...ie-town-2020-10