Tuesday, 09 February 2010
Loading...
Advanced search 

Fear and loathing

PwC sued for R7,6bn

In the mother of all damages cases, Brett Kebble’s ghost haunts the erstwhile auditors of horribly looted Randgold & Exploration.

Barry Sergeant
08 May 2008 00:00
JOHANNESBURG - Randgold & Exploration (R&E) is suing PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), one of the world's "Big Four" auditors, for R7,6bn, in what surely ranks as the biggest damages case in South African history. The summons in the case was quietly served on PwC on Friday, March 7 2008, but the detailed particulars of claim in the case only emerged this week, after your intrepid reporter had spent weeks doing whatever was necessary (and of course legal) to obtain the papers, which number well over 300.

Despite the public domain classification of the papers, R&E had declined to hand over copies, in line with its apparent intention of keeping the case away from stricken R&E shareholders. R&E attorneys in the case against PwC are listed as Van Hulsteyns, where may be found attorney Andrew Legg, who has been known for some time to Peter Gray, the incumbent CEO of R&E and its once-bent sibling, JCI. The two have been suspended from the JSE since August 2005.JOHN STRATTON, closest confidant of the late Brett Kebble, in a recent “inspecting something” picture, Perth, Australia.

Starting in at least 2000, the late Brett Kebble, who controlled both entities, started looting R&E in order to fund JCI's capital starvation, mainly from its funding commitments at the South Deep ultra deep gold mine, west of Johannesburg. In the years that followed Kebble and a closely bound network devised endless sneaky schemes to loot R&E, mainly by thieving valuable shares it held in other listed companies, and selling the same for cash.

Kebble, who lost control of R&E and JCI in August 2005, and was brutally murdered the next month, is identified as one of the main dramatis personae in the case against PwC, along with Roger "Teflon" Kebble, Hennie Buitendag (Brett Kebble's ubiquitous financial director), John Stratton (latterly seen in Perth, Australia), Charles Cornwall (latterly back in the UK), and smaller players such as Patricia Beale (ubiquitous Brett Kebble company secretary), George Poole (frustrated helicopter owner and pilot) and the mysterious Lieben Swanevelder.

According to the court papers, many of the stolen shares were laundered through Tlotlisa Securities (T-Sec), a Johannesburg-based stockbroker where Peter Gray was apparently CEO for some years before taking the helm at R&E and JCI in August 2005. The court papers are extensive, as noted, but the typical allegation is to the effect that various of the named players conspired to deprive R&E through theft of various numbers of shares at various times. The cash proceeds were used to first, provide JCI with working capital; second, pay entities and individuals "in an endeavour to promote generally corrupt relationships" to secure various benefits for JCI, and third, to confer on the principal players, and also various unknown persons, "homes, motor vehicles and other luxury items".

Most of the looted cash - by far - was derived from the theft and sale of 24,6m shares R&E held in Randgold Resources (today an independent and successful company in its own right). The claim against PwC on this score is R5,9bn, and includes 4m Randgold Resources shares that ended up in deals with SocGen (Johannesburg) and 5,46m Randgold Resources shares that ended up in deals with Investec UK. Before taking up the helm at R&E and JCI in August 2005, Gray had for years worked at SocGen (Johannesburg). Also in August 2005, the chairman's position at both R&E and JCI was taken up by David Nurek, from Investec.

PwC audited R&E for each of the financial years to December 31 in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. A number of the crooked transactions were conceived and executed, or consummated, after December 31 2003, but R&E alleges in court papers that PwC "failed" in no less than 31 specific areas (just one sample: "failed to exercise the professional care and skill of an auditor in public practice"). R&E essentially argues that had PwC done its job properly, it would have detected the "unlawful and wrongful misappropriation" of 2m DRDGOLD shares during the 2000 financial year. The argument continues that, in essence, had PwC property done its duty by exposing this specific looting, the rest of the carnage and larceny would have been stillborn.

R&E vs. PwC: summary of damages claim

 

 

Per summons

 

 

 

Shares (m)

Claim (Rm)

DRDGOLD

3.00

47.43

Randgold Resources

24.62

5797.95

R&E

16.76

481.62

JCI

12.57

6.54

Western Areas

0.03

0.96

Aflease

102.10

1102.68

Simmers

40.00

194.00

TOTAL

 

7631.18



Print icon  Print story Email icon   Email story

Related Links

Articles:  Randgold - media statement
R&E sues PWC as auditors



COMMENTS

View disclaimer
 
 responses to this article

Randgold Resources, JCI etc vs PWC
Not a pretty picture ! A very poor reflection on corporate governance in SA which could be detrimental to how SA businesses are seen by the enlightened global investing community. As for the PWC involvement in this saga, the reputational damage will . .more

by Jemstone on May 08 2008, 17:32
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

jackrj7@icon.co.za
Yep. Shades of Enron and Arthur Anderson. If PWC are found liable, even for a lesser amount, their reputation would be in tatters. And reputation is everything for auditing firms, specially big 4 members. Enron buried Arthur Anderson, even though it . .more

by Jack on May 08 2008, 17:55
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Ligthning conductor
This is a neat way of shifting the attention away from where it should be focused.

by Bliksem on May 08 2008, 17:56
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Deja vu Enron and Arthur Anderson?
Yep. Shades of Enron and Arthur Anderson. If PWC are found liable, even for a lesser amount, their reputation would be in tatters. And reputation is everything for auditing firms, specially big 4 members. Enron buried Arthur Anderson, even though it . .more

by Jack on May 08 2008, 17:57
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

FeS2
The problem is that Kebble and his ilk were calculating fraudsters with cunning criminal minds that could have easily pulled the wool over the auditors eyes, Whether it was PwC or any of the other major auditing firms, I believe this would have . .more

by Faulty on May 08 2008, 20:55
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

But why keep the information
But why try to keep the information secret from the shareholders, especially since lawsuits are public anyway?I still think the best way to proceed is to merge R

by Adamantane on May 08 2008, 21:41
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Ferrous Sulphide
Whats with irresponsible? I am comparing two situations which resemble each other. A big corporate involved an dark deeds and a big 4 auditor who was clearly either complicit or incompetent. "Pulling the wool" as you put it, would indicate . .more

by Jack on May 09 2008, 01:06
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

eish
doubt PwC will be held liable - big 4 make sure they cover their tracks very well. difficult to prove negligence when it comes to auditing... bit of reputational damage, but nothing that'll be where it ends - all of the big 4 come under fire every . .more

by eish on May 09 2008, 04:50
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

To Jack
Just a note of ccrrection Jack, auditors are not required to 'not approve the accounts if anything is wrong'. They are merely to state whether it 'fairly represents' the business activities. Since they use sampling techniques and risk based . .more

by Daniel on May 09 2008, 08:33
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

this is nothing more than an attempt to divert blaim from Investec and Gray
The people controlling the company are the people who sold the shares etc. The argument that PWC should have stopped the theft before most of it happened does not wash, since Gray and Investec could have done more than PwC! This is a PR exercise by . .more

by distraction on May 09 2008, 08:56
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Not as big as it seems
Under ordinary circumstances, a $1bn damages claim is massive but this particular case won't really go anywhere for a number of reasons:1) It s going to be tied up in court for decades as PWC will use every resource at its disposal to keep it . .more

by Basil2 on May 09 2008, 11:46
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Once again
An audit firm finds itself in hot water once again, what a shame. What happened to the Codes of Processional Practice (CPC) of Professional Skill and Due Care? Are these just thins you learn to pass board exams, and carry on with unethical client . .more

by trocc on May 09 2008, 15:22
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Greed will do that to you.
Whats the bet that at the centre of the controversy will be the issue of grossly undeserved and overinflated audit fees, so that a "top Four" (used to be top five?) can lend its bought air of respectability to the lies published under the guise of . .more

by Darko on May 10 2008, 12:20
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

easy tiger...
Last time i looked, a party was innocent until proven guilty. How things have changed in modern society?! We have very little factualy detail from this article, and many have already condemned PWC. I'm not saying they are right, and I'm not . .more

by Dean on May 12 2008, 12:34
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

sales of the major assets of RNG
Give me a break. How is it possible to "pull the wool" on a big four accounting company when what went on was the sale of the main assets of the company. It has no comparison to what went on with Enron---pushing losses onto SPV's.

by mud on May 14 2008, 05:42
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

this seems to be an easy for a forensic accountant.
The RNG shareholders could pay a per share fee to hire a good forensic accountant. This was all too obvious for any accounting firm to have missed the shell game. It is too bad that the Kitco archives are gone. I smelled the stink at the time that . .more

by mud on May 14 2008, 05:55
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

What about the "new faces" and subsidiaries?
Although Arthur Anderson disappeared in the US, they are currently comfortable operating with full government blessing (the elusive certificate) in corporate South Africa. Their disguise? Accenture off course!I wonder how this would affect the PwC . .more

by SA Citizen on May 15 2008, 11:33
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Arthur Andersen
@ SA CitizenGet your facts straight before you put your foot in your mouth. Andersen Consulting (renamed Accenture after the separation) separated from Arthur AndersEn some time before Enron killed AA (and all of the non-US parts of AA that had . .more

by Blah blah blah on May 27 2008, 23:09
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Lawsuit against PWC
Being a professional Auditor I worry about the amount of money being paid by Companies to Audit Firms. How objective are you going to be if a client pays you R50m p.a.? Are the firms "overlooking" certain transactions for fear of biting the hand . .more

by Tshepo Thipe on July 08 2008, 10:18
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Doubt it will get away free
People like Kebble were so powerful that they could influence people who are supposed to act ethically,chances that pwc (which had a good reputation)could be guilt-free are slim,these is just one of those unfortunate cases where a good reputation . .more

by Koena maimela on November 23 2008, 21:13
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it


Name
Subject
Comment