15225 replies to this topic

[DayTraderDad]

And people still blame management yet everywhere accountants are failing: https://www.fin24.co...nances-20190311

[Bubble]

There are a number of people implicated... MJ was one of the puppets. This was an orchestrated family fraud and multiple companies and entities will eventually be indicted.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

The family is from Wilgenhof male residence in Stellenbosch. CW/Jacob W/Daniel vd M/Ben la G included in this list and many others in senior/exec position in SNH. I expect many being implicated, if PWC report is detailed enough(which it should be). The brotherhood and mafia is strong there.

 

That is why Steve Booysen never knew anything until the end, he studied in Pretoria. (Outsider)

[Captainfrom82]

There are a number of people implicated... MJ was one of the puppets. This was an orchestrated family fraud and multiple companies and entities will eventually be indicted.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Hey there IN,

 

I'm not sure what is your source on this point of view?  But it is an interesting thought.

 

My own sense says that in the Steinhoff business football match some (many??) of the senior management may have been aware of and even condoned some marginally offside goals.  This was especially the case when Steinhoff had to remove JD Group off the 2015 Steinhoff consolidated accounts.  It would seem  that BNP Paribas were never ever serious buyers.  But the Steinhoff CFO and his team allowed this to be classed as discontinued operations to get it off the Steinhoff reccords.  At best they should have been a lot more skeptical - at worst they were part of MJ's plans.  I doubt though that there were genuine and overt fraud perpetrated that involved them.  In this latter regard, at Steinhoff MJ and possibly one or two others were involved.

 

The thing about perpetrating a fraud however, especially in a high stakes poker game line Securities Exchange fraud across multiple jurisdictions, is that you need to keep a very, very tight hold on those involved.  This would be impossible with a large group.   

 

Outside of Steinhoff though, MJ as the chief, used his cronies at the related companies (senior partners at Kluh Investments (a subsidiary of Fihag); Di*k Sch***ber (Steinhoff European Ops); partners at Genesis; partners at Talgarth, Wands Inv, Fulcrum, Campion Caapital, etc. 

 

FWIW,  I hope that you are wrong. 'Cos, if you are not, this is going to get very messy.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[DayTraderDad]

Interesting looks like Greenlit Brands selling general merchandise division.

 

https://www.afr.com/...20190304-h1bxzo

 

"Street Talk can reveal that Greenlit's long time adviser, Monash Private Capital, has been quietly speaking to trade players and private equity investors about their potential interest in the general merchandise division.

 

This appears to be a change in tack since last year, when the company was considering selling some of its household goods and furniture assets.

 

 

Analysts believed Nick Scali was pretty close to buying Freedom and Fantastic, but the sale process went quiet mid-year when Greenlit battened down the hatches and refinanced almost $500 million of debt."

 

[DayTraderDad]

From the Retail Leaders Forum:

 

“60% of our customers who shop online never visited our physical store at Fantastic. They want convenience that we give them via digital. We make it simpler & faster for them.” - Debra Singh, Group CEO Household Goods @GreenlitBrands.  #RLForum

 

 

[Investment novice]

There are a number of people implicated... MJ was one of the puppets. This was an orchestrated family fraud and multiple companies and entities will eventually be indicted.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Polly]

Hi IN,

 

"The management directors and auditors failed in their duty... And were fraudulent misrepresenting the value of the company...."

 

There is a subtle difference that I hope that the Courts identify and recognise.  While is is arguably correct that the management, directors and auditors failed in their duty, I believe that that this resulted in a negligent misrepresenting the value of the company. 

 

As far as we know, MJ seems to have acted fraudulently.  The rest of the senior management team, and the Board and especially the auditors had no reason to act fraudulently.  Especially the auditors.  The auditors had nothing to gain from any incorrect valuation of the company.

 

They were all duped by MF.

 

Of course, the question of whether or not they should have picked up on the fraud is another matter - hence I say it may have been negligence!!!  But even in this case, they have a pretty good response.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

 

 

Agree MJ was the only one who acted fraudulently and  thats why he jumped ship and not the others..

 

Now the crucial question is : Did MJ or Steinhoff itself benefit from the incorrect valuation placed on it by MJs fraudulently activities mainly in respect of the Wiese giving up his jewel for a piece of worthless junk script????

 

and also other smaller transactions where script was given in exchange for compamies acquired ( but thats immaterial to bigger picture although there will be claims)

 

If you think MJ benefitted financially , Wiese and Steinhoff will go for him. If Steinhoff benefited then Claim will be against Steinhoff.

 

Of cos its in black and white who benefited the most..

 

Make up your own mind.....

[Captainfrom82]

The question of patent defects also need to be asked: Would a competent skilled person with all the information to his disposal (which Wiese had and is more than the the shareholders had) been able to detect something wrong? Then ( to my understanding) also Wiese approved buying Matresss Firm at elevated value. Can he then claim for the value reduction of MF?

 

Hi ESS,

 

But IS Wiese claiming relief for Mattress Firm?

 

My understanding is that there was no fraud involved in Steinhoff's acquisition of MF.  Yes, it was a rather poor decision as measured by many variables (too expensive, poor strategy, possibly over saturated market, low margins, etc).  Note, I am note speaking of the internal Mattress Firm fraud which did not involve Steinhoff or Jooste.

 

The fact that the carrying value of MF exceeded the recoverable value and led to impairments is deeply affected by the revised WACC after the Steinhoff crisis broke in December 2017.  In other words MF's acquisition price may have been overstated, but the value of this overstatement was recognised in Note 17.1 and impaired (€144m) and again in in Note 17.2 for €1.5b

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

A question for a legal expert....

Through steinhof many years of misrepresentation the company was listed and owned by shareholders..... The management directors and auditors failed in their duty... And were fraudulent misrepresenting the value of the company....

A shareholder lawsuit would be against the company or against those culpable. Any lawsuit against a company would in fact be against shareholders themselves.... As the shareholders would be the ultimate loser....

Do we have legal opinions on liability....


Also... A companies valuation... Nav.. And share price differs.... How would you sue for loss of value... Where the shareholders actions themselves impact share price...

How would you quantify liability?.

Be good to get a sense of the legal strategy...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

 

Hi IN,

 

"The management directors and auditors failed in their duty... And were fraudulent misrepresenting the value of the company...."

 

There is a subtle difference that I hope that the Courts identify and recognise.  While is is arguably correct that the management, directors and auditors failed in their duty, I believe that that this resulted in a negligent misrepresenting the value of the company. 

 

As far as we know, MJ seems to have acted fraudulently.  The rest of the senior management team, and the Board and especially the auditors had no reason to act fraudulently.  Especially the auditors.  The auditors had nothing to gain from any incorrect valuation of the company.

 

They were all duped by MF.

 

Of course, the question of whether or not they should have picked up on the fraud is another matter - hence I say it may have been negligence!!!  But even in this case, they have a pretty good response.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Captainfrom82]

   

yea i know ur shorting and well done on making money....i see the harvard boys question why sell in the green....wonder if they were taught on how to make money....maybe they sell in the red eh

bru u cannot talk investment and steinhoff in the same sentence......u talk gambling and steinhoff in the same sentence yeah....when r u gonna realise this?

 

Hi Lionelza1,

 

As usual you will mouth off without understanding or even bothering to read properly.  You love to quote out of context so that the narrative is changed to suit your own position.  That is unethical mate.

 

My point was that it made little sense for me, for someone to buy a share, watch the share price fall, hold it for a long period, and then promptly sell it when it was marginally back up over his acquisition price.

 

Best Regards

Captainfrom82

[Milo]

http://www.businessl...hoff-for-r59bn/

[Investment novice]

Thanks for this.... Veb postponing some of the trial work may point o a collaboration with snh on targeting the fraudsters and probably again deloitte..

Nothing is as it seems...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Milo]

Wiese bought more shares because he knows his court case will not succeed. Can someone please phone him and ask him when he is going to drop his lawsuit.

We are tired of waiting for the share price to jump back to R5 and above.  

[DayTraderDad]

The question of patent defects also need to be asked: Would a competent skilled person with all the information to his disposal (which Wiese had and is more than the the shareholders had) been able to detect something wrong? Then ( to my understanding) also Wiese approved buying Matresss Firm at elevated value. Can he then claim for the value reduction of MF?

ESS this is exactly what is intriguing me how come all these smart people on the board did not question what was going on? And every time I try to answer this question then my answer is "What if all this was done with accountants approval and that things started to get too hot and Deloitte decided to pull the plug" Keeping in mind that the  SUPERVISORY BOARD had well known competent people but by December 2017 the audit firms were under a lot of pressure in the UK as well as SA.

[DayTraderDad]

Ni  ..wink wink..

how do you want that answered? from a pump or already invested point of view , or from an outsiders point of view...

 

That is the real question... 

You have no clue what you talking about!!!

[DayTraderDad]

Really sad.... gurus still dont know the big picture as to who will sue who..

 

directors, shareholders , auditors , Joe Soap, Jooste , the tea boy,  etc  etc

 

 

 

Only if you understand the big picture and look at this from an outsider and not as someone invested here, will you really know whats potting...

 

 

 

and i already mentioned this case will be unprecedented...unlike your normal shareholder suing cases...Fact is i already mentioned it but nobody understands the concept or turns a blind eye to it .... 

 

 

Clue again : why is Wiese buying shares?  

 

 

Well something for youll to figure out....................................................................................................

Polly you have no clue what you talking about always lots of bla bla blowing hot air but no facts. FORGOT TEKKIE TOWN OLD BOYS AGAIN GOING TO COURT and need publicity!!

 

I just cannot figure out why you cannot let people have a opinion always have to attack people!!! You have a mental problem get sorted!!!

 

 

 

[Polly]

Poll I have maintained respect and withheld comments, but really your g-string is too tight... This questioned was always posed.. See my threads. I am reasking the question to drive conversation. If you cannot add value, best......

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

Ni  ..wink wink..

how do you want that answered? from a pump or already invested point of view , or from an outsiders point of view...

 

That is the real question... 

[ESS]

Poll I have maintained respect and withheld comments, but really your g-string is too tight... This questioned was always posed.. See my threads. I am reasking the question to drive conversation. If you cannot add value, best......

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

The question of patent defects also need to be asked: Would a competent skilled person with all the information to his disposal (which Wiese had and is more than the the shareholders had) been able to detect something wrong? Then ( to my understanding) also Wiese approved buying Matresss Firm at elevated value. Can he then claim for the value reduction of MF?

[Investment novice]

Poll I have maintained respect and withheld comments, but really your g-string is too tight... This questioned was always posed.. See my threads. I am reasking the question to drive conversation. If you cannot add value, best......

Sent from my SM-G950F using Sharenet Sharechat mobile app

[Polly]

Really sad.... gurus still dont know the big picture as to who will sue who..

 

directors, shareholders , auditors , Joe Soap, Jooste , the tea boy,  etc  etc

 

 

 

Only if you understand the big picture and look at this from an outsider and not as someone invested here, will you really know whats potting...

 

 

 

and i already mentioned this case will be unprecedented...unlike your normal shareholder suing cases...Fact is i already mentioned it but nobody understands the concept or turns a blind eye to it .... 

 

 

Clue again : why is Wiese buying shares?  

 

 

Well something for youll to figure out....................................................................................................