Zambezi, The Villa transferred to Sharemax group companies
July 22 2011 at 05:00am
By Roy Cokayne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Cokayne
Ownership of Zambezi Retail Park and 80 percent of The Villa, two of the partially completed property developments syndicated by troubled Sharemax Investments, has been transferred to Sharemax group companies.
A statement issued yesterday by the boards of the Sharemax syndication companies announced the transfer of ownership of the properties from Capicol, the developer of both projects.
It said the boards were now able to progress with the implementation of the schemes of arrangement process “to the enhanced benefit of the investor body as a whole”.
It said these processes were expected to be completed by the end of next month and after sanctioning of the schemes by investors, the Reserve Bank would be approached to withdraw the directive imposed on the Sharemax group of companies.
Chase International managing director Pierre Hough, a financial adviser, previously claimed the planned offer of compromise and scheme of arrangement was seeking to legalise an illegal act and was prejudicial to the rights of “prospective investors”.
He said the issue of share certificates to prospective investors was also highly irregular and possibly fraudulent.
Sharemax defaulted on monthly payments to investors from September last year and construction on both Zambezi Retail Park and The Villa stopped in the same month when funds due from Sharemax to Capicol dried up.
The registrar of banks, also in September, appointed statutory managers to Sharemax and all its syndications to manage the repayment of investments after an investigation found Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Banks Act.
About 40 000 shareholders have invested R4.5 billion through Sharemax’s various property syndications.
The Sharemax board statement added that the transfer of ownership meant future income from the business activities at Zambezi Mall would accrue to the benefit of investors.
Capicol would have no further involvement in regard to investment returns becoming due to investors from Zambezi Mall, it said. But it warned that the current weak rental status at the mall would have to be improved “before investment returns will eventuate”.
The Villa transaction was concluded this week and it was contractually agreed Capicol’s 20 percent interest in the project would be available for acquisition at various stages at predetermined amounts.
It referred to a suspensive condition in The Villa agreement, which has to be fulfilled by August 15.
It gave no specific details about this condition other than if it was not fulfilled, Capicol would no longer be involved in the development, including the completion and management of the centre, apart from its 20 percent stake.
The statement said the acquisitions of both properties had paved the way for the board to effectively promote financing activities in regard to the completion of the project from an enhanced commercial basis.
However, it did not disclose how the transfer of ownership had been achieved, particularly as it was previously disclosed that some of the companies in the Sharemax group were bankrupt and Sharemax did not have the money to pay outstanding amounts to allow for the transfer of ownership to take place.
Attempts to obtain comment from Dawie Roodt, a spokesman for the new Sharemax group board, were not successful. Paul Kyriacou, the chief executive of Capicol, was also not available for comment yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Syndications
Julius Cobbett
22 July 2011 14:45
Sharemax flip flop on ownership
Dawie Roodt resigns. New plan for investors to own The Villa and Zambezi.
JOHANNESBURG - The latest plan to come out of Sharemax will see investors in the two largest syndications, Zambezi and The Villa, getting ownership of the underlying incomplete shopping centres. This is a complete about-turn on a previous proposal which would see investors being repaid their funds over nearly two decades. And details are scarce as to how investors hope to raise the money that is required to transfer these buildings.
Meanwhile Dawie Roodt, who was appointed independent director and spokesman for the syndication companies, tendered his resignation on Friday. Roodt was hesitant to divulge the reason for his resignation.
“I don’t think I can make a contribution to the [restructuring] process anymore,” says Roodt. “I think it’s also safe to say there were some disagreements.”
Roodt emphasised that he still believes that a proposed scheme of arrangement is preferable to the alternative, which would likely result in liquidation of investors’ companies. However, Roodt notes that the scheme of arrangement can be done in many different ways, some of which would be more investor-friendly than others.
Roodt was one of a trio of directors who were appointed in November last year to add independence to the Sharemax syndication companies. The other directors were High Court judge Willie Hartzenberg and accountant Rudi Badenhorst, who will continue to render their services to investors.
The original proposal, presented to the High Court earlier this year, planned for investors in Zambezi and The Villa to be repaid their money over nearly two decades.
On Thursday Sharemax successor Frontier Asset Management issued an update (click here to download) in which it noted that the boards of Zambezi and The Villa had “gleaned the general wish of investors to have ownership” of the shopping centres.
But the update was silent on how the companies hope to pay the outstanding amounts that are allegedly owed to Capicol, the developer of the two malls. Last year arbitration proceedings found that Zambezi investors owed Capicol R64.5m to purchase the property. However, Capicol claimed it was owed a further several hundred million in alleged damages.
Investors in Zambezi and The Villa have yet to receive a circular providing the finer details of the proposed compromise. Thursday’s update says it hopes to dispatch circulars in the latter part of August 2011. Formal meetings are expected to be held in September.
Meanwhile, the costs of the rescue plan are being borne by investors in the income-producing syndications. It is proposed that these investors eventually be repaid by shareholders of Zambezi and The Villa.
To date, the directors of the Sharemax syndication companies have not disclosed the legal costs that have come out of the recovery efforts. The lawyer leading these efforts is Connie Myburgh. Moneyweb readers may remember Myburgh for his aggressive defence of Garek, a scheme which cost its investors many millions of rand.
( Moneyweb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Sharemax deserves a death blow
Mar 08 2011 06:49
Vic de Klerk
IT’S TIME for the coup de grâce for Sharemax and its property syndications. For its thousands of investors… please put them out of their misery.
Declare the whole business model an illegal practice and use a general liquidation to start the process of recovering assets from all those who benefited from this illegal scheme – from the advisers who sold the products to the shareholders in Sharemax Investments, who derived considerable financial benefit from the illegal scheme over the years.
Investors and the entire financial community now need “closure”. Unfortunately, they’ll also have to accept that – at best – the investments in Sharemax aren’t going to realise more than 20c in the rand.
It will be some consolation to investors to know all those who benefited from this illegal business practice will lose their profit and luxurious lifestyle – through the orderly liquidation of the entire group, hopefully at the insistence of the SA Reserve Bank, which in any case has the final say via its two statutory managers, Neels Alant and Jaco Spies.
The past week or two was a rather tense time for the Sharemax group. The new “independent” board – with former Judge Hartzenberg and Dawie Roodt as its spokesperson – tried hard to convince investors – with whom nobody is actually communicating and who don’t have any statutory or other say in what happens – to follow a 311 scheme of arrangement route rather than liquidation.
Of course, the people they have to convince are Alant and Spies, plus Deputy Registrar of Banks Michael Blackbeard, who has become saddled with the Sharemax problem.
On the other hand, there are one or two lawyers in Pretoria who are very keen to place Sharemax and all its syndications under judicial management or liquidation.
Once again, it looks as if the Reserve Bank has the power to put a stop to that, if it likes.
In brief, the difference between a 311 scheme and the process of declaring it an illegal business – which would involve compulsory repayment of all monies to the original investors – is as follows.
But no matter which way it goes, there’s no magic wand to wave that will save the investors, mostly elderly Afrikaans-speakers, from considerable losses.
* For more of Vic de Klerk on Sharemax, click here. Applicable only if you are a subscriber to Finweek’s print edition.
* If you are not a subscriber to Finweek’s print edition, click here.
Read more about: property | sharemax | sarb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waar's ek? Tuis >Maatskappye >Eiendomme Last Traded: Change: Volume: Market Cap: Aandeelpryse is met 15 min. vertraag.
Sharemax-plan dalk nie so gunstig
Jul 22 2011 16:30
David van Rooyen
Sharemax-plan dalk nie so gunstig
Jul 22 2011 16:30
En daar sit die beleggers in Sharemax se twee grootse sindikasieskemas, Zambezi Retail en The Villa, op die oog af weer met niks.
Johannesburg. - En daar sit die beleggers in Sharemax se twee grootse sindikasieskemas, Zambezi Retail en The Villa, op die oog af weer met niks, nadat daar onlangs nog allerlei beloftes aan hulle gedoen is oor hoe hulle kapitaal oor die volgende 15 jaar aan hulle terugbetaal gaan word.
In ’n nuwe ontwikkeling het die Sharemax-direksie gister aangekondig dat ’n skikkingsooreenkoms bereik is waarvolgens die twee projekte deur die ontwikkelaar, Capicol, aan die Sharemax-beleggers in die twee skemas oorgedra word. In die geval van The Villa word 80% oorgedra.
In ’n verklaring word dit voorgehou as ’n belangrike deurbraak omdat die beleggers nog altyd laat blyk het dat hulle dit sal verkies dat hulle self die bates beheer, en nie Capicol nie.
Die vraag is egter wát beleggers sal beheer. In die geval van The Villa is daar ’n halfvoltooide winkelsentrum met twyfelagtige lewensvatbaarheid, wat boonop waarskynlik nog met honderdmiljoene rande se skuld opgesaal is, en wat net met beduidende bykomende finansiering voltooi sal kan word.
In die geval van die Zambezi-sentrum, wat voltooi is, het beleggers waarskynlik gehoop dat hulle ’n opbrengs kan verdien uit die huurinkomste wat die sentrum verdien.
Die werklikheid is egter dat die huurinkomste so swak is dat beleggers geen opbrengs uit die sentrum kan verwag nie. Dít blyk uit die verklaring wat gister uitgereik is.
Daar kan net sprake van ’n opbrengs wees as die sentrum van voor af volverhuur en bemark word.
Om dit te doen moet die halfvoltooide toegangspaaie na die sentrum voltooi word. Geen huurder gaan belang stel as mense nie maklik by die sentrum kan inkom nie.
Dan is daar ook die vraag wat word van die R40 miljoen wat Capicol aan die bouer van die sentrum skuld.
In die vorige reddingsplan sou Capicol beheer van die sentrum gekry het en hy sou finansiering van sowat R100 miljoen bekom het om die skuld af te los en die toegangspaaie te voltooi, en dan begin het om beleggers se geld uit die huurgeld terug te betaal.
Dié voorstel, wat met geesdrif aan beleggers verkoop is, het behels dat 70% van die huurgeld gebruik sou word om die beleggers se geld oor 10 tot 12 jaar terug te betaal. Daarna sou 30% van die huurinkomste gebruik word om ’n opbrengs aan beleggers te betaal, totdat hulle 130% van hul geld teruggekry het.
Dié plan is met geesdrif aan beleggers verkoop as dié oplossing, en nou vlieg dit by die deur uit.
Wat het skeefgeloop? Sake24 kon gister nie antwoorde kry nie en dit lyk nie of die betrokkenes kan of wil antwoorde gee nie.
Mnr. Dawie Roodt, die woordvoerder van Sharemax se direksie wat gewoonlik baie tegemoetkomend met die media is, is deur die direksie gemuilband en kon niks sê nie.
Capicol se besturende direkteur, mnr. Paul Kyriacou, is glo land uit en sal volgens sy kantoor “’n paar weke lank” nie beskikbaar wees nie.
Sy prokureur, mnr. Bert Smith, het belowe om terug te bel nadat hy die Sharemax-direksie se verklaring gelees het, maar het die res van die dag nie weer sy selfoon geantwoord, of boodskappe beantwoord nie.
Teen druktyd was sy foon af.
Die vermoede is waarskynlik dat Kyriacou nie daarin kon slaag om die finansiering te kry om die Zambezi-sentrum op koers te kry nie.
’n Sentrum wat nie eens genoeg huurgeld kry om ’n opbrengs vir beleggers te verdien nie, en nie maklik bereikbaar vir die publiek is nie, is kwalik goeie sekuriteit vir ’n finansier.
Nou word daar in die verklaring gesê Sharemax sal nou makliker finansiering kry omdat die eienaarskapsituasie opgelos is.
Tot onlangs is daar egter nog gesê dat Sharemax se slegte reputasie dit baie moeilik maak vir enige entiteit met Sharemax-verbintenisse om krediet bekom.
In die geval van The Villa kan dieselfde vrae ook gestel word, want sonder ’n belegger of finansier met ’n baie diep sak gaan beleggers lank niks meer as ’n belang in ’n murasie hê nie.
Beleggers in The Villa neem natuurlik nie net ’n halfklaar gebou oor nie. Die meer as R300 miljoen wat Capicol die bouer skuld, word waarskynlik ook in die beleggers se skoot gegooi.
En as die bouer nie betaal word, is daar steeds die dreigende gevaar dat hy die hele spulletjie kan laat likwideer.
In die geval van The Villa word gesê dat daar ’n opskortende voorwaarde is wat gaan bepaal of Capicol 80% van The Villa aan beleggers gaan oordra.
Die voorwaarde hou vermoedelik verband met die skuld. Die een oplossing is om die bouer so ver te kry om eerder aandele in die “murasie” op te neem.
Dit sal volgens die verklaring teen 15 Augustus duidelik wees wat die uitslag van die opskortende voorwaarde is.
Lees meer oor: zambezi retail | the villa | sharemax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I requested Advocate Michael Blackbeard, Deputy Registrar of Banks to inform me what is intended be done if 'investors' who want their money back instead of compromising their position in the belief they are "shareholders" and "debenture holders" in these illegal schemes. The primary function of the appointed managers after all was to ensure the monies collected in these illegal schemes are repaid to them by the managers. The primary and sole purpose of the appointed SARB managers was not to compromise people's interest in the envisaged compomise scheme, where it is intended through the mechanism of a compromise scheme in the Companies Act, 1973, to make right that which the law, the Banks Act, 1990 prohibited. That is not permissible. The law cannot be used to make right or compromise, that which the law forbids. He undertook this morning to revert to me after meeting with the two appointed managers Jaco Spies and Neels Alant today. He undertook to revert to me by Monday/Tuesday next week.
Here is my communication to adv Blackbeard on Thursday 21 July:
"I have received and perused today's communication of the
newly appointed directors “under directive of the SARB” to 'investors' of the
Sharemax Zambezi and The Villa public property syndication schemes. I have
clients who are adamant they want nothing to do with these arrangements and
want their trust funds returned, plus interest thereon. Could you clarify the
position to me? Do you intend that the appointed managers proceed with their
mandate to repay these persons? Please clarify otherwise the stage is set for a
seeking a declaratory order in the High Court. Whilst I do not believe that the
directors could issue today's communication to 'investors' on your behalf, I'd
like to know how you view these developments which the directors view as being
their "considered opinion ... that the actions taken pertaining to the
Villa Mall, as set out hereinbefore, are currently, and will, in future, be to
the best benefit and in the best interests of Investors in the Zambezi Mall
Project and Villa Mall Project."
I look forward to receiving your urgent reply."
Adv Blackbeard responded this morning 22 July as follows-
"Dear Pierre
I have received your e-mails -- and will discuss with the managers today -- will get an answer to you by Monday/Tuesday next week --
Regards - Michael"
I will keep Moneyweb readers posted so watch this space and post your comments. It's important to the debate.
My compliments to Julius Cobbett and the Moneyweb team for allowing this debate!
A Like Reply 23 hours ago 2 Likes F .
Sharemax Admin 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Ek lees nou al hierdie mooi stories en raad.
Alles is goed en wel,maar daar is een probleem 'n groot probleem en dit is wanneer daar opgetree moet word deur die wetstoepassers in belang van lede van die publiek dan is hulle "TOOTHLESS WATCHDOGS en LAW ENFORCERS ".
Hulle beskik nie oor die nodige kennis en vermoee om hierdie wetsoortreeders vas te vat of is net plain useless.
Die Hawks is nie op standaard en effektief soos die ou Skerpioene wanneer dit met die bekamping van hierdie tipe misdaad kom nie en volgens onlangse koerant berigte beskik hulle oor nie die nodige finansiele kapasiteit ( Budget ) en opgeleide mannekrag om groot witboordjie misdadigers vas te vat nie.
Daar is te veel van hierdie klas van misdadigers wat maak en doen net wat hulle wil want hulle weet teen die tyd wanneer die Reserwebank of ander reguleerders wakker word het hulle alreeds soveel onomkeerbare skade verrig dat dit nie meer saak maak of daar hofsake kom of nie .
Korrupsie is aan die orde van die dag. Kyk wie die grootse kriminele is in hierdie verband dan is dit nie staatsamptenare alleen nie ,maar wel one eie mense " Ons vir jou ...Suid Afrika "
A Like Reply 2 days ago 4 Likes F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Jy's grootendeels reg.
Ek het destyds as klaer die Masterbond Trust ondersoeke aan die gang gesit, in 1986. Toe die Nel Kommissie se verslag publiseer word sowat 20 jaar na die ondersoeke deur die Polisie en Finansies Departement begin het, het Regter Nel bevind die Prokureur-Generaal van die Kaap se besluit, nadat ek hom versoek het om die bedrogspul toe te maak en hy dit nie gedoen het nie, 'n "gross dereliction of duty" was.
Die Registrateur vaan Banke se aangestelde inspekteurs, sedert 2008 reeds ondersoek Sharemax se aktiwiteite. Hulle is eers laat in 2010 as bestuurders aangestel nadat die Registrateur korrek besluit het die Bankwet, 1990 is oortree. Hy was toe reeds vir geruime tyd in besit van 'n senior advokaat mening van verskeie oortredings, van die Maatskappyewet, 1973, wanvoorstellings, ens.Die inspekteurs ondersoek lankal reeds PIC Sindikasies (nou Pickvest) se dinge.
Al my Sharemax kliente se geld is wanaangewend deur die prokureurs in wie se trustrekening hulle geld vandag nog moes wees! - dit terwyl die SARB inspekteurs ondersoek doen. Klink ongelooflik maar dis waar!
Toe ek die klagtes van my kliente indien oor hulle geld uit die prokureur se trustrekening onttrek is sonder hulle toesteming, terwyl die sindikaateiendomme nog nie oorgedra is in naam van die sindikasiemaatskappy nie - wat die prokureurs geweet het - waarin volgens voorskrif daarin vervat moet wees om by die Wetsgenootskap ingedien te word, die eis teen die Getrouheidsfonds van Prokureurs t.o.v. diefstal van trustfondse en 'n saak van diefstal uitgemaak moet word vir die Polisie om te ondersoek, gebeur die volgende:
1. Die Wetsgenootskap weier om die trustrekening van die prokureur te ondersoek omrede daar nie meer trustgeld in is nie (huh!).
2. Die Nasionale Vervolginggesag beweer die hele transaksie tussen die 'belegger' en Sharemax was 'n 'oorbruggingfinansieringtransaksie' en dit is geen kriminaliteit nie (huh! vertel daai storie vir sowat 40,000 mense!).
3. Die Getrouheidsfonds se Raad verwerp die eise teen die Fonds omrede hulle o.a. van mening is die geld is gegee vir die prokureur om namens die klient 'n 'belegging' te doen (vertel daai storie vir sowat 40,000 mense!) en dit word dus nie gedek nie - net diefstal word gedek.
Onlangs eers het die Wetsgenootskap 'n Kommittee van Ondersoek aangestel wat op 27 Julie sit om oor die prokureurs se lot te besluit in 'n dissiplinere verhoor. Sover ek weet is die trustrekening van die prokureyr steeds nie ndersoek nie maar ek mag dalk net nie ingelig wees daaroor nie.
Die NPA (Nasionale Vervolginggesag) soos ek verstaan kyk opnuut weer na die klagtes maar hulle ondersoek steeds al die ander klagtes teen die Sharemax maatskappye en direkteure wat saam ingedien is.
Kost na die klagtes ingedien is, dagvaar die prokureurs my (soos hulle met Deoan Basson ook gedoen het) vir R18 miljoen en my kliente elk vir R9 miljoen omrede ons beweer hulle het die trustgeld gesteel. Dit net 'n foefie want tot nou toe het hulle my nog nie op belet geplaas om te pleit nie! Dus net 'n misbruik van die Hof terwyl hulle weet al die verwere in die reg is beskikbaar omm hulle eis af te weer.
Hulle skryf aan my een klient, nou laas week dat sou hy 'n dokument onderteken wat deur hulle opgetrek is en aan hom gestuur is, waarin hy die bewering moet maak dat ek aan hom verkeerde advies gegee het oor diefstal en bedrog, hy die klagtes by die Wetsgenootskap en Polisie en die eis teen die Getrouheidsfonds moet terugtrek en ook aan hulle om verskoning vra vir hulle 'ongerief' (kan jy dit glo!) hulle dan die lasteraksie teen hom sal terugtrek. Hy het R800,000 wat hy vir medies ongeskikktheid ontvang het in The Villa aansoek voor gedoen, toe verdwyn sy geld sommer net so soos almal s'n in verskeie mense se sakke.
Praat van druk! As jy nog nooit van poging tot afpersing gehoor het nie dan hoor jy dit nou en lees sommer my lippe ook maar hou jou ore assblied toe!)). Ek het hulle aangekla by die Wetsgenootskap daaroor.
Om op te som: Met 'n nimmereindigende 'gullible' publiek aan die een kant, 'n trae regulerende sisteem aan die ander kant, skelm bliksems in die middel (soos die promoters van die skemas), onbekwame finansiele dienste adviseurs wie groot kommisies jaag (wat uit jou en ander se trustfondse betaal is), 'n stregie om "robbing Peter to pay Paul wat hulle nie kan raaksiensien nie en blindelings die skemas bemark, is die resep reg vir slenters soos Masterbond, Sharemax, PIC Sindikasies en nog vele ander om te floreer.
Nie een persoon van 'regstellende aanstelling' het besluite in die proses geneem nie.
A Like Reply 1 day ago in reply to Sharemax Admin 1 Like F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand My advise to applicant's in these illegal schemes are that they must not make the mistake of thinking they are "investors". Share certificates were issued to them, and/or debentures and it is my view the issue thereof were in contravention of the Companies Act, 1973 (as amended), the Banks Act, 1990 and took place in circumstances of the clear prohibition by virtue of the DTI Notice 204 of 2006 a copy of which you can download from the main article above. Attempts now to get you to move your position such as to accept an arrangement being proposed by the main culprit Nic Georgio (or his legal entity(ies)) - he is one of the 'promoters' of these illegal schemes (as defined in the said Notice 204 of 2006) - must be resisted. Those caught up in these illegal schemes must consider very carefully their position and seek legal advise that must as a point of departure be founded on whether Eugene Kruger the attorney firm involved, could release funds they paid into the attorney's trust account (which had to comply in all respects with the provisions of the said DTI Notice). I have the view their funds were misappropriated by the attorney in cahoots with some of the promoters of the illegal schemes. Such misappropriation constitutes theft of trust funds. In my view, their claims lie against the attorney concerned. It is my view that managers as contemplated in the Banks Act, 1990 must be appointed without any delay to manage the repayment of funds illegally obtained in these illegal syndication schemes, to applicants in these schemes. And always bear the following in mind (this is not investment advise at all!): “A person is guilty of the crime of extortion who from improper motives, and by inspiring fear in the mind of another, demands from, and compels the latter to render some advantage which is not due” (followed inter alia in R v Sharp 1935 TPD 418 420; R v Xalise 1939 EDL 189 191; R v Jansen 1959 1 SA 777 (C); S v Gokool 1965 3 SA 461 (N) 463).
A Like Reply 3 days ago 4 Likes F .
Rikus 12 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Well done Pierre . I appreciate your information . It is a pity that our current directors of the Syndication companies do not show the same interest in helping investors as you have . They seem more keen on looking after themselves than looking after the investors they represent - as per Ben Van Der Linde .
There are currently buyers out there for our various Syndications (15-18) and this has been communicated to the directors . There however seems to be a real resistance in selling such -why?
It seems that everyone concerned is in bed together and the "fighting" shown is all a smoke screen in order to steal the investors funds .
I agree with you that you must be insane in order to go into another deal with the same individuals that have already broken contracts with you ???!!!
A Like Reply 3 days ago 1 Like F .
Ben 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Rikus, if there are any other offers made to the Syndications 15 to 18, can we please be notified of them. You claim that we as directors have ignored any other offers. I am only aware of the Orthotouch offer, which I support in view of your dispute with Zephan properties for Syndications 19 to 22. There is no other offer I am aware of. Please provide proof that you have notified me of another offer for Syndications 15 to 18. You can not provide proof because you are lying again.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Rikus 0 Like
F .
Pierre Hough 10 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Rikus, I have not focussed any attention on PIC's Highveld Syndications No's 15-18, only on later ones. You are welcome to make contact with me on hphough@live.co.za to discuss your situation further. Perhaps I may be of assistance that may also help others in a similar situation..
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Rikus 0 Like
F .
Rikus 9 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Thanks Pierre , I will be contacting you .
You are by now well aware that the dispute amount between Rikus Myburgh ( and his companies ) and Nic Georgiou ( and his companies ) totals R 800m in "missing" funds. I understand that 99% of the recons has now been done by Georgiou's people and the outcome is that there are outstanding funds owing by Rikus Myburgh and his companies . Funny how Rikus Myburgh sends out letters detailing that all disputes have been resolved when it in fact has not . When questioned Nic Georgiou hinted that should the new deal on the table not go through he would transfer all properties except those he is owed money for ( R 800m ? ) . Now , if all disputes have been resolved then why would he make such statements ? Funny how Rikus Muburgh always runs away from these questions .
Your memo would help investors realize the "thieving" and "scaming" that has been going on . I am sure that your memo would also show that in order for "stolen" or "missing" funds to be swept under the carpet the new deal has to realize for Rikus Myburgh and Nic Georgiou . The aforementioned's representatives will soon be holding a "roadshow" to promote the new deal . The "roadshow" will only be for brokers and not for the investor himself - I wonder I wonder why ? Apparently the brokers and everone that has sold Picvest products in the past are told that if they push the new deal on the table they will then not be liable for claims by the investors . INVESTORS , BE CAREFULL .
Pierre , do you have any contact with the TRP in order for us to warn them of what they are asked to approve ? I understand that there are various forums that are busy drawing up statements to present to the TRP .
I will be in contact .
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Pierre Hough 0 Like
F .
Julius Cobbett 8 comments collapsed Collapse Expand I have been in touch with the TRP. This is the response I received:
"We must stress that in terms of the Companies Act, the TRP when it scrutinizes and approves documents submitted to it must not concern itself with the commercial advantages/disadvantages of a transaction ; Our role is only to ensure that the documents comply with the regulations and the Act for the purpose stated above and the shareholders must make a decision on the transaction themselves based on the information prescribed by the provisions of the Act and regulations."
In short, the TRP expresses no opinion on the merits of the proposed Orthotouch transaction. It is up to investors (and the Reserve Bank?) to decide whether or not to accept it.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Rikus 0 Like
F .
Pierre Hough 7 comments collapsed Collapse Expand "Investors" must take notice that time is of the essence.
If documents have been submitted in terms of the Companies Act, 2008 (as amended) to anyone, be under Takeover Regulations or by notice to "shareholders" or intended, in any manner to affect the rights of people caught up in the PIC Syndications schemes, these documents must be considered and scrutinized with the utmost of care and haste. I have no doubt there are so-called 'confidential' agreement in place and I have just read such an agreement last night (I shall refer to it as the ORTOTOUCH agreement) that significantly seeks to affect the rights of those who may be of a belief they are shareholders and debentureholders in the Highveld Syndication companies, with rights. I have the view the 'paper' by way of 'share certificates" or of loan indebtedness ("debenture certificates") is not worth the paper it is written on and merely serve as proof, in evidence, of how the promoters misled them.
The response by the Takeover Regulations Panel referred to in the main article in my view underscore the inefficiency of the system. The Companies Act and its Regulations according to Takeover Regulations Panel (TRP), only deal with documents submitted to them to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act and Regulations but no further. This is in circumstances where there are clear contraventions of the Banks Act, 1900 as commercial paper had been issued, in billions, all illegally. The TRP has obviously not been made aware by the applicants seeking approval for a transaction that there serves before the TRP an proposed transaction for approval where rights of the public who are caught up in illegal schemes, are concerned and where the proposed transaction is in respect of manifestly illegal business activities.
There are also clear contraventions with criminal sanction of the DTI Notice 204 of 2006 referred to in the main article. Both the Companies Act as well as the CONSUMER AFFAIRS (UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES) ACT, 1988 are administered by the Department of Trade & Industry. It seems there is NO interaction or liaison between the Takeover Regulations Panel and the DTI’s Consumer and Corporate Regulation Division or for that matter, the National Consumer Commission of the DTI. Why is that so?
Also, what is vividly evident is that the DTI await complaints to be submitted before they act and the way they say they can act, is simply not sufficient at all to deal with these illegalities in protection of rights of the public caught by these unscrupulous operators. The regulators so far failed to act against these illegal schemes effectively, efficiently and decisively.
I hold the view there are grounds to consider a class action.
Why for instance has the Registrar of Banks who has appointed inspectors under the Banks Act as long ago as 2008 in the Sharemax scamming, not clamped down earlier?
The Registrar of Banks had been warned by the journalist late Deon Basson years ago about these illegal schemes. They failed to act thereon.
My own fingers point at the DTI and Registrar of Banks for not acting decisively the moment these illegalities came to light.
Both the Sharemax "Zambezi" and" The Villa schemes" as well as PIC' Syndication's Highveld Syndication 20-22 schemes were offered to the public during the period when the Registrar of Banks had already appointed inspectors to investigate these illegalities. The Registrar of Banks in my view played possum (pretending to the public to be asleep or unconscious as the Australian marsupial that typically has a prehensile tail does when threatened), whilst his appointed inspectors were going about at a pace of their own as if there was no haste to investigate and get to the point that action be taken.
It took me a less than an hour to realize the scamming going on when I began to investigate these illegalities and within days, my first two clients caught up in the Highveld Syndications scam where they were 'guaranteed' by a so-called "underwriter' (which is illegal as the underwriter is not a registered insurance company in terms of law) 100% of their money after five years (how long after is a mystery!), received repayment from the attorney concerned Eugene Kruger, with interest calculated thereon had their funds still been held in trust! It turns out later that other peoples money who were also 'investors' were used to repay my clients their money, plus interest!. I insisted that my clients be refunded and that they are no offering their "shares" for resale as it was a fraudulent scam. Now I am informed by Rikus Myburgh who at first denied there was ever a refund of investors money, that there was a "resale" of a wiling buyer and wiling seller. That is bull! Documentary evidence of that has been furnished to Moneyweb who confronted Myburgh who at the time approved of my clients being refunded at a board meeting of directors in Pretoria with Morkel Steyn and others.
That ultimate "underwriter' turns out to be Nic Georgio, the main dramatis personae in most if not all, the PIC debacles. He and his various legal entities are key 'promoters', as defined in the DTI Notice 204 of 2006.
The Registrar of Banks failed to act whilst millions were being illegally collected from the public, He was only concerned with contravention of the Banks Act (which was glaringly obvious) and not with any other contraventions of laws.
Why has the Registrar of Banks not alerted, so as to kick-start investigations, by the DTI at the time?
Billions could have been prevented from disappearing into pockets of frauds and thieves. Now the Registrar of Bank appointed managers are attempting to put together Humpty Dumpty. They sought to use section 311 provisions of the Companies Act, 1973 (as amended) to achieve that which was prohibited by the Banks Act, 1990. The law cannot rectify or regularize that which the law itself prohibited.
Failing to act knowing billions were being collected by the promoters of these illegal schemes into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind Inc (attorneys in the Sharemax schemes) and Eugene Kruger (attorneys in the PIC Syndication schemes) in circumstances where they were aware of the illegalities, but failed to act, screams for public outcry.
This is how Notice 204 of 2006 came into being eventually. The Minister of Trade and Industry published the following in the Government Gazette:
"In terms of the provisions of section 8(4) of the Consumer Affairs (Unfair Business Practices) Act, 7988 (Act NO 71 of 1988), notice is hereby given that the Consumer Affairs Committee intends undertaking an investigation in terms of section 8(1)(ob) of he said Act into public property syndication schemes. Public property syndication comprises “the assembly of a group of investors who pool funds to invest in entities, which could be companies, close corporations, partnerships or individual whose sole asset(s) are commercial, retail or industrial properties.” Investors share in the profits and losses of these properties and enjoy the benefits of net rental growth therefrom through a proportionate share of income.” In public property syndications members of the public are invited through the use of electronic and print media such as inter alia radio, television, telephone, newspaper and magazine advertising, brochures, direct mail, to participate in such schemes."
Then, DTI Notice 204 of 2006 followed the very purpose of which was to protect the public against unscrupulous operators in the public property syndication business, wishing to "to participate in such schemes by investing in entities, which could be companies" (see para 1.3 of the said Notice).
Judge for yourself, so far. Subterfuge prevail.
Show your interest by posting comments on Moneyweb, or make contact with me.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Julius Cobbett 1 Like F .
Johan Pretorius 6 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Hello Pierre and Julius
My name is Johan Pretorius. Myself and a group of advisors founded a Investors Forum about two months ago. During this period we have put a lot of efford in getting documentation and information with regards to B&V and the Public Companies as well as agreements with Nic Gergiou. The purpose of this forum is to make sure that action is taken in the best interest of investors. We have also send two or three newsletter to keep our advisors and invetors up to date. This forum is currently funded by the advisors themselves but can you imagine would we can achieve if we have 30000 investors and the +- 600 advisrors each contibuting a R100 towards legal fees.
We have consulted with two Advocates and have a opinion in writing on this whole matter. Our attorney is in process of drafting a state complaint against Mr Eugene Kruger and Coopers and Madjiet (the attorneys involved). These complaints will be submitted in the next day or two to the North Gauteng- and Freestate Law society. At this point in time we have no prove of the R800 million rand short payment but I have also heard this number. A letter from Eugene Kruger states "....from copies of the audited financial statements of Bosman and Visser (Pty) Limited....it is clear that not only were the purchase prices paid in full but in fact an overpayment had been made to the sellers". We feel that it is important for the Directors of the Public Companies to start acting in the interest of Investors, so we will put pressure on them to do so and if they don't we will remove them by way of mandates from Investors and appoint Directors that are capable to do so. We are also in the process of taking action against the Directors of B & V. This wil follow wait actions against Nic Gergiou.
We have created a email address for the forum : picinvestorsforum@gmail.com . We will also have a website up and running soon. You are welcome to send me your details so that I can contact you and we can exchange some information.
Lastely but not least. There is no sense in taking on advisors that was deceived by dishonest people. We should keep the people with the investors money and who are responsible, accountable for their actions. I believe that we can turn this boat arround if we get the properties transferred and have the contracts imposed that was signed by Nic Gergiou. If it means that he has to sell his assets to do so, so be it.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Pierre Hough 0 Like
F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Johan, thank you for the comments. I believe there would be a real conflict if advisors become involved. The financial service providers acted as agents for the principal, the promoter and as such you are also a promoter by virtue of the definition of DTI Notice 204 of 2006. The liability of financial service providers to persons in the illegal public property syndication schemes is beyond question. They were all under a duty independently to ensure that the product they were marketing on the principal's behalf, is legal. That they did not do, as is obvious. I fail to see what locus standi you will have to lay a complaint as it was not your funds that were invested in the trust account of the attorneys concerned. Only the owner of those funds can lodge a claim against the attorneys concerned, lay a criminal charge with the SAPS and lodge a claim against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund. Financial service providers received commission in these illegal schemes. Determinations of the Ombudsman of the Financial Services Board abound holding FSP's liable to pay the full amount to people to whom they made representations regarding the illegal schemes. There is no basis that FSP's can 'tun the boat around' just as they cannot reverse the damage that was done by the promoters involved, of which they are but one. They should pay their commission rather into a pooled trust account with a reputable attorney firm (where hopefully the trust monies won't disappear again into oblivion), and in that way show good faith in reparation. Sorry, but my view accords with numerous determinations made by the Ombud. A word of warning: There is a three month period within which a claim must be submitted in the prescribed manner against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund, via the Law Society where the attorneys are located, in order not to be excluded from lodging a claim against the Fund. How long have you been aware of the difficulties? Have you advised any of the people whose money has been misappropriated to protect their rights by lodging claims against the Fund? I know only of FSP's who misled the people whose monies are caught up in these illegal schemes by telling them their money is safe.
A Like Reply 2 days ago in reply to Johan Pretorius 2 Likes F .
Julius Cobbett 4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Hi Johan
Thanks for your comment. You can reach me at julius@moneyweb.co.za. I would be interested to see your complaints when they are ready. I am also very interested to know whether you obtained an opinion on the apparent non-compliance with the DTI notice mentioned in the article.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Johan Pretorius 1 Like F .
Johan Pretorius 3 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Hello Julius. The opinion of our advocate clearly states that the payment of monies from the attorneys trust account without the properties being transferred is unheard of. This is the reason for his advice that we must lodge a complaint with the Northern Gauteng- and Freestate lawsociety, and we will do so a.s.a.p.
A Like Reply 2 days ago in reply to Julius Cobbett 2 Likes F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Johan, your counsel opinion is quite correct. But why is that your complaint? It is a complaint properly to be lodged by the person who applied to participate in the scheme. You must have realised there is something grossly wrong the day you received your commission. Where did you think the money came from other than from the capital of the person whom you persuaded to apply to participate in the scheme(s)? I shall be lodging numerous complaints as prescribed by the Law Society Rules and a claim against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund in terms of their Rules and criminal charges with the SAPS, as is prescribed. Good luck anyway! Remember: merely lodging a complaint with the Law Society may only result in disciplinary investigations against the attorney firm, who no longer have the money in their trust account. There is an Investigating Committee convened by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in Pretoria sitting on 27 July 2011 (nex week) dealing with the complaints I lodged on behalf of my clients against Weavind & Weavind Inc in the Sharemax illegal schemes.
A Like Reply 2 days ago in reply to Johan Pretorius 2 Likes F .
Julius Cobbett 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Do you have a copy of his opinion? Or would he be willing to talk to me about it?
A Like Reply 2 days ago in reply to Johan Pretorius 1 Like F .
Unknown 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand I have just found out that Nick Georgiou has bought all syndication properties from Rikus Myburg. This information is not known to anyone, but the deal is done. Wonder what they are up to....
A Like Reply 22 hours ago 0 Like
F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand There are provisions in the Companies Act, 2008 that would not make that possible without compliance therewith. Julius, start snooping around and inform us!
A Like Reply 20 hours ago in reply to Unknown 0 Like
F .
don 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Die geld is volgens 'n epos uit Eugene Kruger se kantoor(op rekord) vanuit Eugene Kruger se rekening op versoek van die direkteure oorbetaal na die beleggingsmaatskappy se rekening - en nie direk na die verkoper nie. Lyk my die direkteure het die geld eers 'n draai laat maak in Boshoff en Visser( 'n agent wat opgestel was vir nog kommisie vir direksie) se rekening en toe nie alles aan die koper oorbetaal nie. Vandaar die despuit oor die oordrag. Nou is die klomp direkteure dood stom oor wat hulle aangejaag het en niks kom na 'n kant toe nie. Hoogtyd dat 'n forensiese audit gedoen word en die skuldiges vasgevat word - so kan dinge nie aangaan nie!
A Like Reply 3 days ago 0 Like
F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand Don, ek weet nie watter draaie die papierspoor geloop het nie, maar ek was in die kantoor van Eugene Kruger en PIC Syndications (langs mekaar) die dag en die renteberekenings is na my met 'n excel program per epos gestuur waar ek sit en wag het in die ontvangsarea totdat hulle per sms van die bank bevestiging aan my gestuur het die geld is in my kliente se rekening inbestaal. Toe eers loop ek. Ek het die bewys daarvan aan Julius Cobbett gelewer lank reeds. Die geld is deur Eugene Kruger se firma in my kliente se bankrekeninge direk elektronies inbetaal. Ek weet nie waar jy aan jou inligting kom nie. Mt kliente is hulle kapitaal en rente betaal. Ongelukkig kan ek nie die werklike syfers hier plaas nie (dit kom snaaks uit) maar stuur my jou e-posbesonderhede en ek stuur die bewys. OK? hphough@live.co.za
A Like Reply 2 days ago in reply to don 1 Like F .
Pierre Hough 3 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Julius, with the powerful use of Moneyweb and its reach, I suggest that I prepare a memorandum of my investigations into the PIC Syndication public property syndication schemes, so you can publish it for all to see. It seems there are many people out there who simply have no idea how to go about in light of all the uncertainty. In my memorandum, I will also advise on how to go about in protection of their rights, which advise of course everyone will be urged to seek advises first from their attorneys, before taking steps based thereon. It is in the public interest to do so. Perhaps you may set up a fund of sorts to cover my expenses as the information will really will be in Moneyweb's public image benefit and all your readers caught up in these syndication schemes. Call me to discuss further. In the meantime, I would urge 'investors' to show their interest to my proposal by posting their comments on Moneyweb.
A Like Reply 3 days ago 0 Like
F .
Julius Cobbett 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand Hi Pierre, we appreciate your contribution to the Pickvest debate. You are most welcome to submit a memorandum which we will consider for publication. Readers are also welcome to contact you directly if they wish to make use of your services. However, we will not get involved in setting up a fund.
We encourage readers to make use of free complaint mechanisms, such as the Fais Ombud and the National Consumer Commission, before they consider risking good money to chase after bad.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Pierre Hough 2 Likes F .
Pierre Hough 1 comment collapsed
Collapse Expand Thank you for the positive response Julius. Your persistence I am sure will be appreciated by many. I am willing to assist where I can and will deal with the queries of 'investors'. I am contactable on email hphough@live.co.za.
A Like Reply 3 days ago in reply to Julius Cobbett 1 Like F .
