Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 7 votes

Steinhoff


  • Please log in to reply
15225 replies to this topic

#9941 andi222

andi222

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:13 PM

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

Suspension will only occur if Steinhoff goes into business rescue, bringing you back to point one above.

 

 

 

IMO if the company was honest with themselves , they should have asked for suspension themselves the day MJ jumped shipped......Many other companies request that.

 

​Then cleared the mess , done the investigation or confirmed mess is to big and cant be cleared.. None of this **** wuda happened...

 

Just poor strategy used by company and and strategy used now is even worse..

 

​Why not disclose the PWC report to its shareholders once and for all....What are they hiding??

 

They were forced to disclose the names of those 8 by parliament...why did they not disclose it freely on their own will day report came out!!

 

Ducking and diving creating more uncertainty and MR M knows only one way...smash...

 

 

Yeah agreed they should have suspended the share as in December 2017. But can't change the past.

 

And I see your risk assessment. Which I can understand. However I see this as a once in a life time opportunity. 

 

Let's say I invest 100k.

 

Worst case scenario occurs. Company goes bust, unit gets sold and they go into business rescue which means my 100k are gone. Thousand of people loose their jobs. And I go on with my life having 100k less. **** happens haha

 

Best scenario:

Company can implement CVA, company issues AFS (12 Billion write off not as high due to PwC report of 6.5 Billion), CW pulls back claim, other claims from shareholders get resolved, Operating units all turn to profits, All produce profits at the moment except for Mattress(However was successfully restructured within 2 months), loans at 10% per annum get repaid slowly, to raise finance they could list some of their operating units for example sell 30% via IPO to reduce debt.Target price then for me would be 1,35 Euro and 58 Euro cents.  That would give me a Million rand. Giving me a 10:1 ratio. Say we take your 75% bust and I take my 25% best view the overall risk ratio would be 0,75:3. Very very High level tho. 

 

For me time will tell whats going to happen. I see this 100k as a learning opportunity for future Investments. I mean we can learn so much out of this story. No degree can give you this kind of scenario.

 

We should thus just wait and see what happens and all learn out of this. 

I personally made some big bucks back in 2009 with Infineon. Bought in when everyone was saying this company will go bust at 50 euro cents and there is no hope. Today this share is trading at 22 Euro. 

 

I'm really glad that we have some pro and some contra people here in the forum. Leads to constructive discussion where I think we can all learn from.


  • 0

#9942 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:10 PM

There are more than seven groups of lawyers that are suing Steinhoff for the losses of the shareholders.


Edited by Tom, 20 March 2019 - 12:12 PM.

  • 0

#9943 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:08 PM

Shareholders bought based on financial statements, which turned now to be fraudulent, and so they are entitled for every cent they lost on the share, but because Steinhoff is financially in a precarious position, and because the share holders might accept a settlement where Steinhoff pay them a reasonable compensation (simply because the share holders would not want to wait long court proceedings), otherwise Steinhoff will have to face a court order that doesn't take their precarious position into account, and that can liquidate them.

Just an alternative view than...

 

can the company claim back from shareholders who bought in 2014 at R25.00 and sold in 2017 @ R90.00.. Surely these gains were of a  fraudulent nature.


Edited by Polly, 20 March 2019 - 12:11 PM.

  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9944 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 12:02 PM

Shareholders bought based on financial statements, which turned now to be fraudulent, and so they are entitled for every cent they lost on the share (same like Wiese), but because Steinhoff is financially in a precarious position, and because the share holders might accept a settlement where Steinhoff pay them a reasonable compensation (simply because the share holders would not want to wait long court proceedings), otherwise Steinhoff will have to face a court order that doesn't take their precarious position into account, and that can liquidate them.


Edited by Tom, 20 March 2019 - 12:06 PM.

  • 0

#9945 DayTraderDad

DayTraderDad

    The Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,941 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:57 AM

Hi DTD

Honestly, regardless of our opinion, the share is not doing well, even after all the information released. I assume releasing the full report will not help much either. It’s crazy that confirming the 8 names had no positive impact, the market didn’t care.

So we have afs to look forward to and if this is not very positive or better than expected what then?

Heather Sonn stressed the fact yesterday that they are still in a precarious position financially and isn’t the CVA being challenged?

I am invested in this share and hope for good returns but so far all I’m doing is paying school fees.

Also, imho, our judicial system is not exactly perfect, so there’s no guarantee precedence will be upheld, should any of this go to court.
I do however feel CW’s claim should be withdrawn as he could have sold his shares for big profits a few years ago, but then again he is a billionaire for a reason and would not do this without good reason/council

What needs to happen for Mr Market to pay R3 or R5 or R10 a share?

Hi LarryK,

 

I am not living on any illusion that SNH going through a very tough time and the 8 implicated was already well known with maybe one or two exception and what was done was also old news taking into account that on the 7th Dec 2017 SNH sense already said there as a issue with 6 Bil Euro.

Further to make it even more complicated is the massive negativity around the company so it is only time that will cure the perception.

Guros and analyst went from overconfident (if you bored go to you tube and listen to the comments before Dec 2017 where everybody were saying no worries MJ is so brilliant he has the ability to turn things around make people work hard etc, its like watching a comedy show) to over pessimist ( people focusing on the same thing over and over) and lots of people making different comments and forecasts.

What is being overlook and don't ear much about is the fact that the amount of moneys involved with the PwC report is 6,5 bil however 11 bil was impaired on the restatement of the accounts of 31 Marh 2017 so for me the results in April 2018 will not be a surprise even looking for a possible pleasant surprise.

 

The precarious situation mention is due to the LSW claim ( still part of the POCO fight) which is preventing the implementation of the CVA but we will have to see what is the result of the court hearing this week coming.

 

For me the share price rise will come in stages depending on the following:

1 - LSW claim has to be sorted out  - So next week after the court hearing we will know what will happen.

2 - Successful solution to Brexit because if UK leaves with no agreement then the pound going to fall and SNH financials is in Euro. I believe yesterday fall in the share price is linked to the various news from both EU and UK.

2 - Implementation of the CVA which looks like it is in advance stages.

3- The AFS in 18 April.

4 - The final restructure plan and implementation. This will be the big mover because will show what SNH will look like going forward.

5 - The claims this will take a long time and yes I agree eventually there will be some settlement but think Deloitte insurance will be taking a big knock and will not be SNH. For me Wiese has no claim in SA or in Holland. 

 

Anyway this is what I think will happen.


  • 0

#9946 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:54 AM

 

 

In my opinion, Wiese is not entitle to reverse the buy/sell deal with Steinhoff, neither he's entitled a money equivalent of the deal. But he's very entitled (just like all other aggrieved share holders) for a compensation on his losses, that he was presented with a fraudulent financial statements when doing the deal.

 Tough one...Dont think case law allows a shareholder to sue a company to compensate for drop in share price..

 

Think better option from this astute buinessman and im sure he already got opinions from senior counsel is to go the " Here your worthless shares , Give me back my Jewels" cos you defrauded me with that transaction...again who benefited with that fraudulent transaction.... The Steinhoff group and not MJ!!!


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9947 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:48 AM

Wiese has never said that he will drop his case just because Steinhoff is doing a CVA or LUA or selling assets (so called restructuring), or in any case other than getting the maximum pay back that can be.

 

Wiese or any company associated with him is and hasn't bought shares in SNH during 2018 nor 2019, they only have 6% of SNH shares, and this hasn't changed since the margin calls they had in early 2018, and the reason why they're not selling it is because they can't, and simply the price will drop to zero if they try to sell (same goes for the PIC).

And for Wiese to buy shares now SNH will not help in any way him getting more in his legal claims against Steinhoff, because Steinhoff (the respondent) has confirmed that there were indeed frauds.

 

In my opinion, Wiese is not entitle to reverse the buy/sell deal with Steinhoff, neither he's entitled a money equivalent of the deal. But he's very entitled (just like all other aggrieved share holders) for a compensation on his losses, that he was presented with a fraudulent financial statements when doing the deal.


Edited by Tom, 20 March 2019 - 11:52 AM.

  • 0

#9948 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:35 AM

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

Suspension will only occur if Steinhoff goes into business rescue, bringing you back to point one above.

 

 

 

IMO if the company was honest with themselves , they should have asked for suspension themselves the day MJ jumped shipped......Many other companies request that.

 

​Then cleared the mess , done the investigation or confirmed mess is to big and cant be cleared.. None of this **** wuda happened...

 

Just poor strategy used by company and and strategy used now is even worse..

 

​Why not disclose the PWC report to its shareholders once and for all....What are they hiding??

 

They were forced to disclose the names of those 8 by parliament...why did they not disclose it freely on their own will day report came out!!

 

Ducking and diving creating more uncertainty and MR M knows only one way...smash...


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9949 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:26 AM

and Andi about thsi points and i quote :

 

 I do agree with you if this fails the company is going to go bust and thousands of people will be jobless which in my opinion government won't allow that easily.

 

 

ALTERNATIVE VIEW:

GOVT WAiTING TO MAKE SCAPEGOATS OF SOMEONE..They kept using words White monopolistic capital....No way they gona save this company...and its not a bank...


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9950 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:22 AM

 

Good points Polly, just some comment on the points you have mentioned for some constructive debate.

 

1. with all this uncertainty especially pwc phase 2 to come , will afs be out on date they stipulated( mid april)..Not a chance imo

 

Yes, there is uncertainty that's why price is sitting at -97% of value. I really doubt that they will postpone the AFS release again (Although possible- however if they do postpone it wouldn't worsen their current position as business is continuing). I'm pretty sure the AFS are ready and they are just double/tripple checking these as they cannot allow any irregularities. 

 

 

2. Going concern now major problem... with creditors LUA still not finalized no way auditors can issue an unqualified opinion

 

They are in the final stages of finalizing the LUA. CEO said they should be done by end of the month so they can start the implementation. This would grant 3 years of going concern for the company. But yes, I do agree with you if this fails the company is going to go bust and thousands of people will be jobless which in my opinion government won't allow that easily.

 

3. contingent liabilities another makor headache for audiotrs re wiese claim..

 

In my opinion the claims are all not gonna be realised. Shareholders cant claim back their losses as they know investing is risky, Secondly CW said if he sees the restructuring is positive he will withdraw his claim. Thats why I think he is topping up shares slowly to get back to his 25% might even be more then 25% soon. He currently sits at around 15%

 

so if report out , either qualified or more likely do not express an opinion in my view..

 

They will express an opinion however with a disclaimer. However we know what these disclaimers will be. Litigation, ongoing investigation, etc. However the numbers will be confirmed. 

 

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

Suspension will only occur if Steinhoff goes into business rescue, bringing you back to point one above.

 

 

BTW read somwhere yesterday , costing the company R5.4 million a day on average in employing these specialists and  the pwc costs...eish...has to be a goner with good money chasing bad...

 

And Polly let's be honest here. 5.4 Million a day. Do you believe that? Just think about it for two seconds. . .5.4 times 365 days per year brings you to 2 billion Rands haha. A full audit which requires thousands of hours at a big firm for example Naspers sits at around 45 million per audit. For these audits thousands of hours from different types of specialists are included. So I think that source of yours is not very reliable.

 

 

 

Thanks Andi.....your points taken and valid

 

all im getting at is RISK....

 

 

from day 1 ,  2 years ago i said this share can go up or can go down....But the main criteria is risk....and  at moment my alternative views show the risks involved..even in above...nothing cast in stone but open to too many risks to invest here...Risk is actually stacked against you big time imo..

 

1. afs being delayed again i give it a 80% probability .

 

2.. going concern 50 %

 

3. CL....75%

 

 

4. To be honest A , those costs were from an article in June 2018,,,since then more specialist have been appointed.  we could be well over R6 m a day now..

 

 

Steinhoff is paying experts R5.4 million a day to sort out its financial mess - and it may get worse

 

 

Steinhoff reported that it had paid €39 million, or the equivalent of nearly R650 million, in professional fees over a period of four months, up to the end of March 2018

That is the equivalent of R5.4 million per day, on average.


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9951 andi222

andi222

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:09 AM

1. with all this uncertainty especially pwc phase 2 to come , will afs be out on date they stipulated( mid april)..Not a chance imo

 

 

2. Going concern now major problem... with creditors LUA still not finalized no way auditors can issue an unqualified opinion

 

3. contingent liabilities another makor headache for audiotrs re wiese claim..

 

 

so if report out , either qualified or more likely do not express an opinion in my view..

 

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

 

BTW read somwhere yesterday , costing the company R5.4 million a day on average in employing these specialists and  the pwc costs...eish...has to be a goner with good money chasing bad...

 

Good points Polly, just some comment on the points you have mentioned for some constructive debate.

 

1. with all this uncertainty especially pwc phase 2 to come , will afs be out on date they stipulated( mid april)..Not a chance imo

 

Yes, there is uncertainty that's why price is sitting at -97% of value. I really doubt that they will postpone the AFS release again (Although possible- however if they do postpone it wouldn't worsen their current position as business is continuing). I'm pretty sure the AFS are ready and they are just double/tripple checking these as they cannot allow any irregularities. 

 

 

2. Going concern now major problem... with creditors LUA still not finalized no way auditors can issue an unqualified opinion

 

They are in the final stages of finalizing the LUA. CEO said they should be done by end of the month so they can start the implementation. This would grant 3 years of going concern for the company. But yes, I do agree with you if this fails the company is going to go bust and thousands of people will be jobless which in my opinion government won't allow that easily.

 

3. contingent liabilities another makor headache for audiotrs re wiese claim..

 

In my opinion the claims are all not gonna be realised. Shareholders cant claim back their losses as they know investing is risky, Secondly CW said if he sees the restructuring is positive he will withdraw his claim. Thats why I think he is topping up shares slowly to get back to his 25% might even be more then 25% soon. He currently sits at around 15%

 

so if report out , either qualified or more likely do not express an opinion in my view..

 

They will express an opinion however with a disclaimer. However we know what these disclaimers will be. Litigation, ongoing investigation, etc. However the numbers will be confirmed. 

 

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

Suspension will only occur if Steinhoff goes into business rescue, bringing you back to point one above.

 

 

BTW read somwhere yesterday , costing the company R5.4 million a day on average in employing these specialists and  the pwc costs...eish...has to be a goner with good money chasing bad...

 

And Polly let's be honest here. 5.4 Million a day. Do you believe that? Just think about it for two seconds. . .5.4 times 365 days per year brings you to 2 billion Rands haha. A full audit which requires thousands of hours at a big firm for example Naspers sits at around 45 million per audit. For these audits thousands of hours from different types of specialists are included. So I think that source of yours is not very reliable.


  • 0

#9952 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:03 AM

1. with all this uncertainty especially pwc phase 2 to come , will afs be out on date they stipulated( mid april)..Not a chance imo

 

 

2. Going concern now major problem... with creditors LUA still not finalized no way auditors can issue an unqualified opinion

 

3. contingent liabilities another makor headache for audiotrs re wiese claim..

 

 

so if report out , either qualified or more likely do not express an opinion in my view..

 

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

 

BTW read somwhere yesterday , costing the company R5.4 million a day on average in employing these specialists and  the pwc costs...eish...has to be a goner with good money chasing bad...

Thanks


  • 0

#9953 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 11:00 AM

In Accounting you do not reissue AFS for prior years if errors are found.

The cumulative effect of the error is disclosed in the Opening Balance of the prior period.

The total estimate of revenue overstatement as identified by PWC did indicate the effect of overstatement on each of the 7 years, and then the total effect thereof.

Therefor it would add no value in re-issuing the older AFS.

Correcting the 2017 AFS will take the cumulative effect into consideration.

 

Du Preez also mentioned that the effect of the errors will be disclosed in the 2016/2017 AFS.

Not everyone on here understood that and thought it to be obvious that the AFS will disclose it.

What he meant by this is that in the 2017 AFS you would have a correction of Error note that indicates:

Prior amounts as report - Effect of error identified - Restated amount.

This will also include narrative explanations of the error and effect.

 

The 2017/8 AFS will not include the above Correction of Error as the comparative (2017) in that AFS will already be the corrected amounts.

So if they issue the 2017 and 2018 AFS on one day, i.e. 18 April, you have to look at the 2017 AFS to see the actual error and effect thereof.

2018 AFS will theoretically include non of this and just be the new amounts that we are taking forward.

 

Thanks Matrix


  • 0

#9954 Polly

Polly

    The Oracle

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:47 AM

1. with all this uncertainty especially pwc phase 2 to come , will afs be out on date they stipulated( mid april)..Not a chance imo

 

 

2. Going concern now major problem... with creditors LUA still not finalized no way auditors can issue an unqualified opinion

 

3. contingent liabilities another makor headache for audiotrs re wiese claim..

 

 

so if report out , either qualified or more likely do not express an opinion in my view..

 

 

Chance getting stronger and stronger for suspension of this share...

 

 

BTW read somwhere yesterday , costing the company R5.4 million a day on average in employing these specialists and  the pwc costs...eish...has to be a goner with good money chasing bad...


  • 0

Trading is one of the only fields where genuine con artists/scammers will urge you to “be careful of con artists/scammers.”


#9955 Milo

Milo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:26 AM

 

Does not look to good but I think Steinhoff has found a support line at around 1.80

 

 

The support is also part of an upward trend line so it is maybe a good thing it went back to 1.80 and now upwards from here with higher support in future. Just an observation not fact.


  • 0

#9956 Matrix

Matrix

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:23 AM

From:

https://ewn.co.za/20...eld-accountable

 

----------

"

Du Preez said

... ... ... “Another point we want to bring to the attention of the market is the forensic findings may influence (( the nature of the audit opinions )) that are ultimately received.”

"

----------

 

This can be any of the following: Unqualified Opinion, Qualified Opinion, Adverse Opinion, or Disclaimer of Opinion.

And how can they accurately restate 2017, 2018, without first restating the previous 7 years (that as claimed that the fraud started 9 years ago (or more)).

 

 

In Accounting you do not reissue AFS for prior years if errors are found.

The cumulative effect of the error is disclosed in the Opening Balance of the prior period.

The total estimate of revenue overstatement as identified by PWC did indicate the effect of overstatement on each of the 7 years, and then the total effect thereof.

Therefor it would add no value in re-issuing the older AFS.

Correcting the 2017 AFS will take the cumulative effect into consideration.

 

Du Preez also mentioned that the effect of the errors will be disclosed in the 2016/2017 AFS.

Not everyone on here understood that and thought it to be obvious that the AFS will disclose it.

What he meant by this is that in the 2017 AFS you would have a correction of Error note that indicates:

Prior amounts as report - Effect of error identified - Restated amount.

This will also include narrative explanations of the error and effect.

 

The 2017/8 AFS will not include the above Correction of Error as the comparative (2017) in that AFS will already be the corrected amounts.

So if they issue the 2017 and 2018 AFS on one day, i.e. 18 April, you have to look at the 2017 AFS to see the actual error and effect thereof.

2018 AFS will theoretically include non of this and just be the new amounts that we are taking forward.


  • 0

#9957 Tom

Tom

    Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 10:07 AM

From:

https://ewn.co.za/20...eld-accountable

 

----------

"

Du Preez said

... ... ... “Another point we want to bring to the attention of the market is the forensic findings may influence (( the nature of the audit opinions )) that are ultimately received.”

"

----------

 

This can be any of the following: Unqualified Opinion, Qualified Opinion, Adverse Opinion, or Disclaimer of Opinion.

And how can they accurately restate 2017, 2018, without first restating the previous 7 years (that as claimed that the fraud started 9 years ago (or more)).


Edited by Tom, 20 March 2019 - 10:11 AM.

  • -1

#9958 Milo

Milo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 09:59 AM

Does not look to good but I think Steinhoff has found a support line at around 1.80


  • 0

#9959 Lionelza1

Lionelza1

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 08:26 AM

You don't have to apologise for truth you have never posted nothing at all all you do is vague statement even when asking for facts you are as vague as a snake. All I can do is promise you you will eat every single work in time I will be there even if I put the comment in your Help Desk. You don't help people you try to scare people helping is providing proper information very much like Captain does in a few post he said much more then you all this time. One can learn from his posts.

The reason I challenge you and bore everybody in the forum is because you are arrogant and never commit just vague and bite peoples head when they comment.

i did not watch the parli process but look  Larry K re: Heather Sonns comment about the companies financial position. Now theres the fact


  • 0

#9960 Lionelza1

Lionelza1

    Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 20 March 2019 - 08:14 AM

 

Steinhoff - Update on Restructuring
 
Steinhoff International Holdings N.V. (the "Company" and with its subsidiaries, the "Group")
 
The Company refers to its announcement earlier today (the "19 November Announcement") in respect of the launch of the CVA and Consent Solicitations (each as defined in the 19 November Announcement).
 
Further to the 19 October Announcement the Company is pleased to provide an update on the following:
 
- the launch of the CVA in relation to Steinhoff Europe AG ("SEAG");
 
- the launch of the Consent Solicitations in respect of Steinhoff Finance Holding GmbH ("SFHG") issued convertible bonds;
 
- the SUSHI Scheme; and
 
- an extension to the LUA under its terms.
 
The CVA and Consent Solicitations processes relate to the restructuring of debt at SEAG and SFHG and are not expected to have any impact on any of the Group's operating businesses, their landlords or trade creditors.
 
Launch of CVA in relation to SEAG
 
In relation to the lock-up agreement entered into by the Company on 11 July 2018 (the "LUA"), SEAG has today made a proposal for a CVA under Part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "CVA Proposal") to Alan Bloom, Alan Hudson and Simon Edel of Ernst & Young, acting as nominees for the CVA Proposal (the "Nominees"). The Nominees will now proceed to review and consider the CVA Proposal and are expected (if they see fit) to issue a report to the High Court of England and Wales. Under the relevant UK statutory provisions, the Nominees have up to 28 days to consider the CVA Proposal. A further announcement will be made once the Nominees issue their report including an update on the timetable for the CVA Proposal.
 
Upon the issuance of the Nominees' report to the High Court, the CVA Proposal will be published to all creditors of SEAG, whereupon the creditors will have a period to review the CVA Proposal before voting on it. The CVA Proposal includes the following key aspects:
 
- the corporate holding structure of SEAG will be restructured with the incorporation of new Luxembourg, Jersey and UK incorporated companies as direct and indirect holding companies and subsidiaries of SEAG;
 
- at closing there will be a hive-down of almost all of the assets and liabilities from SEAG to certain of these newly incorporated Jersey and UK companies;
 
- SEAG's existing financial indebtedness will be refinanced by way of a new debt instrument issued by a newly incorporated Luxembourg company which shall sit as an indirect subsidiary of SEAG (the "New SEAG Luxco Debt");
 
- SEAG's existing financial creditors will be able to participate in the New SEAG Luxco Debt, such participations to have the benefit of a security package to be granted by the new SEAG corporate group;
 
- to the extent that SEAG's existing financial creditors currently benefit from a guarantee from the Company in respect of their holding of existing SEAG debt, such financial creditors will also receive the benefit of a new deferred contingent payment instrument to be provided by the Company in respect of the New SEAG Luxco Debt; and
 
- to facilitate completion of the financial restructuring, an interim moratorium will, subject to approval by SEAG's creditors of the CVA Proposal, come into force from the date of such approval and will have the effect that SEAG's creditors will be prohibited from taking certain enforcement action against SEAG from such date until the implementation of the financial restructuring or the termination of the CVA.
 
Further information will be contained in the CVA Proposal which when published, will include an anticipated timetable and will also contain instructions for SEAG creditors on the actions which they will need to take. A further announcement will be provided upon publication of the CVA Proposal.
 
Launch of Consent Solicitations in respect of SFHG issued convertible bonds
 
The Company has today launched Consent Solicitations in respect of the three series of outstanding SFHG issued convertible bonds due 2021, 2022 and 2023. Bondholder meetings for each series of bonds will, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Solicitations, be convened for holders to consider the extraordinary resolutions proposed by the Company. The date for those meetings has not yet been fixed. Each such extraordinary resolution includes the following key proposals:
 
- the restructuring of the convertible bonds as new indebtedness in the form of guaranteed secured loans with a three-year maturity and PIK interest terms. It is proposed that the loans so extended by holders of the convertible bonds due 2021 and 2022 would be restructured into a single loan facility and that the loans so extended by the holders of the convertible bonds due 2023 would be restructured into a separate loan facility, each with a new Luxembourg incorporated entity as the borrower. The 2021/2022 and the 2023 loan facilities will rank pari passu at borrower level;
 
- These loan facilities will benefit from deferred contingent payment instruments from in the case of the 2021/2022 loan facility, the Company and Steinhoff International Holdings Pty Ltd and in the case of the 2023 loan facility, the Company, reflecting the guarantor structure in relation to each existing series of convertible bonds;
 
- the new restructured indebtedness will take the form of private loan facilities and the convertible feature of the existing convertible bonds will be removed; and
 
- to facilitate completion of the financial restructuring, an interim moratorium will, subject to approval of SFHG's creditors of the Consent Solicitations, come into force from the date of such approval and will have the effect that SFHG's creditors will be prohibited from taking certain enforcement action against SFHG or the Company from such date until the implementation of the financial restructuring or the termination of the Consent Solicitations.
 
It is expected that detailed supporting documents for the Consent Solicitations will be provided to bondholders in due course to assist bondholders in considering the extraordinary resolutions. A further announcement will be provided once such long form documents have been circulated.
 
A requirement in respect of each of the CVA and Consent Solicitations processes is that completion of both exercises will be inter-conditional with each other.
 
Update on SUSHI Scheme
 
The Company refers to its announcement of 13 November (the "13 November Announcement") in respect of the SUSHI Scheme (as defined in the 13 November Announcement) having been sanctioned by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales. The Scheme Sanction Order was recognised in proceedings under chapter 15 of title 11 of the United States Code by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 13 November 2018. The Scheme Sanction Order (as defined in the 13 November Announcement) was lodged with the Registrar of Companies (within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, as amended) on 16 November 2018, and the SUSHI Scheme was implemented in accordance with its terms.
 
Extension of LUA
 
The SUSHI Scheme having become effective and the CVA Proposal and Consent Solicitations processes having been initiated, the LUA is extended to 20 February 2019.
 
The Group restructuring otherwise continues in accordance with the terms of the LUA and the Company will continue to provide updates as appropriate.
 
Shareholders and other investors in the Company are advised to exercise caution when dealing in the securities of the Group.
 
Stellenbosch, 19 November 2018

 

 

what am i missing on this one tho, the LUA.....is it also dependent on CVA challenge?


  • 0





Sponsored by Sharenet and VPSNine Linux VPS Hosting