Tom, on 19 Feb 2019 - 2:27 PM, said:
Steinhoff management keep raving about the LAU and CVA (means insolvency), and they used to say it's taking their concentration away from the core business (and asked for a bonus for their so called efforts), but later changed this statement to (concentrating on both).
So if Steinhoff defaulted on paying 5% interest rate on their loans, when it had more business units, how will it now pay 10% on bigger loans while having smaller business after selling many business units.
Hi Tom,
My apologies for responding a week later. I have written to you previously (5 Feb 2019 12h12) asking for the basis of your decision/judgement that Steinhoff is insolvent. See below"
==========snip=========
Hi Tom,
I am uncertain if you appreciate the actual meaning of "bankrupt" or "insolvent".
For the record Steinhoff is neither bankrupt nor insolvent.
1. There has been no Court order compelling Steinhoff to settle a debt (which it has renegaded on). So no bankruptcy!!
2. Insolvent refers to the position when a company's liabilities exceed its assets. Have you looked through the Steinhoff financials in this regard? Let me assist you. As at the most recent Statement of Financial position (issued 29 June 2018 for 1H18) Total Assets is € 19838m with Total Liabilities € 16045m. So there is no insolvency by this definition.
The wider definition includes a position where a company is unable to pay it's debts. I am not aware of any non-financial creditor or lender making a demand for payment that was rebuffed or led to a Court Action. Therefore, this wider definition also does not apply.
==========snip=============
Can you also please advise the source for your claim that "Steinhoff defaulted on paying 5% interest rate on their loans"?
I am not aware of any default.
I apologise if you have already provided the evidence and if I may have missed your post.
Best Regards
Captainfrom82