This is from April 2018:
"
...
German Litigation – Seifert Entities GERMAN PROCEEDINGS • German proceedings in relation to the ultimate ownership interests in POCO are pending • The Seifert related entities (“Seifert Entities”) are contesting the existing forfeiture of their 50% shareholding in POCO by Steinhoff. Steinhoff’s position is that the forfeiture was valid • In addition, the Seifert Entities have brought a separate claim against Steinhoff, by which they are seeking forfeiture of Steinhoff’s 50% shareholding in POCO. Steinhoff is defending this attempted forfeiture • German Courts set high hurdles for forfeiture of shares owned by a fellow shareholder. On the basis of the evidence currently available, it is unclear whether either forfeiture attempt would ultimately be deemed valid by the Courts • Should the Court find either of the forfeitures to be valid, POCO would be liable to pay compensation for the fair market value of those forfeited shares. The quantum of the fair market value would be determined through an expert opinion by an independent valuation appraiser. In the event that POCO did not have sufficient funds to make such payment, each shareholder has already guaranteed to provide POCO with the necessary funds • The first oral hearing in these proceedings is scheduled for 25 April 2018 AMSTERDAM ENTERPRISE CHAMBER • The Amsterdam Enterprise Chamber ruled in February 2018 with regards to accounting treatment (not ownership) that the Company was correct to consolidate POCO as a controlled interest in its 2016 accounts • However, it has ordered that the company amend the 2016 accounts to change its consolidation treatment of POCO from a 100% controlling interest to a 50% controlling interest and release the related settlement liability • The Group intends to comply with the Amsterdam ruling until further clarity is obtained in the German ownership proceedings.
...
"
I add here that probably the Amsterdam ruling abruptly came at a time, and was influenced by, the bad publicity in the media that Steinhoff was receiving (and Seifert used swiftly to his favour), and so came at a time where Steinhoff should have defended itself in a better way.
I add here that Steinhoff at the time announced that they would anyway appeal the Amsterdam ruling, and still carrying on with the legal battle in Germany which mattered more (but later abruptly retracted).
Futher more, this is also from April 2018:
"
...
Vienna Litigation – Seifert Entities All litigation referred to in this presentation is sub judice and covered by legal privilege. A provision has previously been raised in respect of the Seifert claims, the adequacy of which is being reviewed as part of the restatement of the Group accounts. Upon advice received, we can not divulge more details at this stage OVERVIEW • AIH Investment Holding AG (“AIH”) is an intermediate holding company which in turn indirectly owns Conforama • There are two legal proceedings regarding AIH pending before the Vienna Commercial Court LOAN CLAIM • The Seifert entities are currently claiming against AIH and Steinhoff Europe AG (“SEAG”) an amount of €249m plus interest and costs in respect of the outstanding portion of c.€300m loan advanced in 2011 • Steinhoff is opposing this claim • The next hearing date is scheduled for early May 2018, with further dates set for 2018 EQUITY CLAIM • The parties at the time (2011) also entered into a convertible loan arrangement. Under this agreement a Seifert entity advanced €70k which it now claims entitles it to a 50% shareholding in AIH • Steinhoff is opposing this claim. This matter is currently on hold pending the finalisation of the taking of evidence or testimony in the loan proceedings referred to above.
...
"
Yet and after all the announcements (by the the new management), this new management decided to settle the matter, and that arguably can or cannot be ok, have they really settled with him, in other words by including an article in the settlement where both parties (and the entities related to them) are prevented from having any pre-signature claim against the other what so ever.
And so Seifert got the first half of POCO for free (uncontested, unconditional and no pay), and yet in addition to it, also got the second half on discounted price, and Steinhoff new management bragged by announcing a settlement. Just to have him again coming back in 10 months with another claim, and legal battle against Steinhoff, a legal battle that is now (and for the second time) threatening the collapse of the whole group.
SENS:
"
STEINHOFF – SETTLEMENT OF GERMAN LITIGATION WITH SEIFERT ENTITIES
...
The Company is pleased to announce that, at the Hearing, the Parties agreed, in principle, to
settle the matter on acceptable terms. To this end, it was agreed that the Group would no
longer contest the validity of the forfeiture of the Seifert Entities’ existing 50% interest in POCO.
Furthermore, the Seifert Entities offered to acquire the Group’s remaining interest in POCO
...
Date: 26/04/2018
...
"
See:
https://www.biznews....ifert-steinhoff
Edited by Tom, 21 March 2019 - 12:50 PM.
