Friday, December 16, 2011

Definition of Sharemax

City Press
says that directors of the ailing Sharemax property syndication companies have assets worth R250 million in trust funds and companies owned by former Sharemax managing director Willie Botha and his marketing manager, Andre Brand.

Botha and Brand were at the helm of Sharemax for about 10 years, persuading almost 40 000 people to invest some R5 billion in the 50 property syndications operated by the company, says the City Press report.

Sharemax investors this week intend bringing an urgent court application to declare the company bankrupt and to freeze the assets of both Botha and Brand. Among the assets that they are after, reports City Press, is the Scuba Scene, a luxury yacht owned by the Willem Botha Family Trust. It is moored in the Egyptian port of Hurghada and is believed to be worth about R120 million.

"Sharemax Investors Due in Court Again"
15 November 2011

( )

Informing Consumers and Financial Advisors since 1988

News Article : Sharemax reacts to Andre Prakke's Letter to the Editor - demanding removal of same Category: Views & Letters : Letters to the Editor
Author: Coenie Willemse
Posted: 11 Dec 2007


A letter from Coenie Willemse

Re: Article by Andre Prakke: "Behaving with criminal intend?" - "Divide and rule in the current jurisdiction of the various government departments"

Writer's client: Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd / Zambezi Retail Park

1. Writer refer you to previous correspondence. Writer is acting on behalf of his client Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd.

2. Writer refer you to the above article, which was written by Mr Andrè Prakke and which is currently publicised on your website under the heading of: "Behaving with criminal intend?" - "Divide and rule in the current jurisdiction of the various Government Departments", and hereinafter referred to as "the article", which comments on the syndication, and hereinafter referred thereto as "the syndication.

3. Apart from the fact that the article is currently publicised on your website, has this article also been forwarded to your current subscribers.

4. It is writer's instructions that this article is defamatory, in the extreme to client and the directors of client, in that the article directly state or at least imply, to the reasonable reader thereof, that:

4.1 Client and directors of client had neglect, alternatively, wrongfully and with criminal intend, misled the investors and public in general in respect of the syndication;

4.2 Client and directors of client to be deceitful and greedy;

4.3 Client and directors of client to be guilty of non-disclosure and misrepresentations and seek to dupe investors in the syndications

4.4 Client and directors of client to take excessive and or undue profit at expense of the investors.

5. The afore going is not purported to be comprehensive and our client reserve its right to add to the afore going at a later stage, at a applicable time and in a applicable forum.

6. It is further writer's instructions that the allegations and conclusions reached by Mr Prakke, to be grossly false, alternatively, your Mr Wilson and ITI News knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the statements and/or conclusions are false with the intend to dissuade potential investors from investing in (and to persuade potential investors to withdraw their investments from) the syndication.

7. It is further writer's instructions that by publishing the article your Mr Wilson and ITI News as well as Mr Prakke, have embarked on an unlawful campaign of spreading gross defamatory matter and injurious falsehood about client to existing and potential investors, as well as the public in general, alternatively, is the behaviour of your Messrs Wilson and Prakke tantamount to an unlawful campaign of spreading defamation and injurious falsehood about client.

8. It is writer's instructions that it is abundantly clear that your Mr Wilson is willingly allowing yourself, through the auspices of your Internet site (ITI News), to become a mouth piece for Mr Prakke.

9. It is writer's instructions that as a result of the above, has client suffered damages and will client most definitely institute an action against both your Mr Wilson and ITI News, and Mr Prakke, for damages. Client's rights remains strictly reserved in this regard.

10. It is writer's instructions to hereby request your Mr Wilson and ITI News, to provide this office, with a written undertaking, before 12h00 noon on 11 December 2007:

10.1 That your Mr Wilson and ITI News will immediately remove the said article from the website. In this instance does client insist, that your Mr Wilson publish this letter, as to client's response on the article.

10.2 That your Mr Wilson, ITI News and Mr Andrè Prakke will refrain from continuing to publish or causing to publish, distributing, posting on your website, forwarding of any e-mails, stating publicly or communicating publicly the article and/or any similar material or statements which directly and/or indirectly states or implies the same as the contents of paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 supra.

11. We require a separate written undertaking from your Mr Andrè Prakke in respect of paragraph 10.2 supra.

12. Please be advised, that should we not receive the above written undertakings, will it leave writer's client with no alternative, but to approach the High Court of Pretoria, on an urgent basis, with an application to interdict your Mr Wilson, ITI News and Mr Prakke, in which event a cost order will also be sought.

13. Although client is well acquainted with the principles of the individual's right of freedom of expression, especially the rights of the press, are these rights subject thereto that the comments to be faithful, fair and just.

14. It is writer's instructions that in respect of the article had your Mr Prakke by writing this article, and your Mr Wilson of ITI News, by publishing the article, overstep these boundaries of truthfulness, fairness and justness.

15. Although, client will not at this stage deal comprehensively with the contents of the article, and do client reserve the right to deal comprehensively therewith in the court papers, if need be, is it writer's instructions to briefly outline certain false and incorrect statements.

16. It is writer's instructions that Mr Prakke to a certain extend correctly disclose his involvement, with the pending Deon Basson / Sharemax dispute. Mr Prakke fail to disclose that this matter has been set down for trial, in the High Court of Pretoria, from 13 April to 23 April 2008. Mr Prakke is a witness in this forthcoming court case. Client has not "stayed silent on the issues raised". The issues raised by Mr Prakke, in his so named "report", will be ventilated in full in the forthcoming court case.

17. However, as per previous correspondence to your Mr Brent Wilson, do client again wish to state that the website of ITI News is not the forum to ventilate the issues pertaining to the forthcoming court case.

18. The reference to the second valuator in the article, seems to be in respect of the valuation by Mr W Haese.

19. Mr W Haese is not the husband of the financial director of Sharemax. Neither Mr W Haese nor his wife, are directors of Planet Waves Development, "one of the syndications of Sharemax".

20. Mrs D Haese is the financial director of client.

21. Mrs D Haese, together with her husband, is a director in Planet Waves 108 (Pty) Ltd, a private company which has no connection whatsoever, with client.

22. In respect of the syndication of R900 million plus, are there two valuations, from independent registered valuators. The difference between these two valuations are approximately R30 million, which do not constitute (taken into consideration, the extend of the syndication), a "huge variance".

23. There is no obligation on client to make use of Mr Rhode for a valuation.

In conclusion, the above factually incorrect statements, to name a few, in the article, which is the basis on which Mr Prakke comes to the "shocking" conclusion, that client and directors of client, are not only negligent, but to such an extend acting wrongfully, and that they are behaving with criminal intend in their endeavours to mislead the public.

We urgently await to hear from you.

Yours faithfully

Botha Willemse & Wilkinson
per: CJ Willemse

Comments: Rudolph: No Mercy take them on! (11.12.2007 11:47)


Please Login To Comment On an Article - Click here To Login



Letters to the Editor

More in Views & Letters : Letters to the Editor
FAIS Penalty Letters

Letter to the Editor

Comments from FSPs on the FSB 'Penalty Letters'

Published verbatim - but anonymously because most Financial Service Providers fear retaliation

FSB Penalty Letters

Providers have been bludgeoned by sweeping attempts at coercion

Should lawyers and accountants give investment advice?

The anomaly of occasional advice

ITInews and SEESA Commercial

Letter to the Editor - RE: MJ Jansen van Rensburg complaint

Response by Andre Prakke to Coenie Willemse and Sharemax

Material non-disclosure of the facts - Zambezi Retail Park prospectus

One for the price of two

Intermediaries should take responsibility for poor returns

Policy returns

The damage is compounded by repeated years of underperformance

Stay away from retirement annuities, they are bad for your financial health

The more astute client will grasp this

These problems persist country wide, as similar problems from fellow brokers have surfaced

The industry is often described as a necessary evil

Why are they even allowed to be in business?

Churning or cancel and replacement is once again misunderstood

Churning of policies - let's hear both sides of the story - up front commission the problem

Letters to the Editor

Rob Spendley speaks out

Comments on the "Long and winding road"

Letters to the Editor

An open letter to Mr Williams

Camouflaged as the good guys

1 comment:

  1. Sharemax
    Sharemax R200 000 claim
    hearing set for next month
    A claim of R200 000 lodged with the fidelity
    fund of the Law Society of the Northern
    Provinces relating to the alleged illegal release
    of funds from the trust account of Sharemax
    Investments attorneys Weavind & Weavind is
    set to be heard next month.
    Pierre Hough, the managing director of Chase
    International and a business strategist,
    lodged the claim in October on behalf of
    Johanna Bosman, one of his clients.
    Jaco Fourie, a senior legal official in the
    disciplinary department at the law society,
    said yesterday he had received a response on
    Monday from Hough to the comments made
    by Weavind & Weavind on the claim.
    He said the matter would now be placed
    before a committee of the law society to
    decide how to deal with it.
    A date had not yet been arranged for the
    committee meeting. Hough also lodged a
    R750 000 claim with the Attorneys Insurance
    Indemnity Fund related to the same matter
    on behalf of another client, Toffie Risk.
    But this claim was rejected on the grounds
    that the fund’s liability was excluded by
    section 47(1) (g) of the Attorneys Act and
    non-compliance with section 26 of the same
    In terms of section 47(1) (g), the fund shall
    not be liable in respect of any loss suffered by
    any person as a result of theft of money
    which a practitioner has been instructed to
    invest on behalf of such persons.
    Section 26 of the Attorneys Act relates to the
    purpose of the fund and, among other things,
    states the fund shall be applied for the
    purpose of reimbursing persons who may
    suffer pecuniary loss as a result of theft by a
    practising practitioner, candidate attorney or
    employee of any money or property “in the
    course of his practice”.
    Both claims followed the halting of
    construction on the Zambezi Retail Park and
    The Villa projects in September last year
    when Sharemax funds dried up, which also
    coincided with investors in the syndications
    not receiving their monthly payment.
    The registrar of banks subsequently
    appointed statutory managers to Sharemax
    to manage the repayment of funds to
    investors after an investigation found
    Sharemax’s funding model contravened the
    Banks Act.