Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

‘Guilt without trial ’ – Klopper

Business rescue practitioner harshly criticises Section 417 report.

Business rescue practitioner and corporate lawyer Hans Klopper has vehemently denied any wrongdoing during the events leading up to the liquidation of a company called Harrison & White (H&W). 

He harshly criticised the Section 417 inquiry and subsequent report as being inaccurate in many material aspects and unfair, which found him “guilt[y] without [a] trial “. 

Klopper has also condemned Moneyweb for publishing an article based on the confidential report. (A Section 417 inquiry looks at possible stripping of assets before a company is put into liquidation.) 

Read: The dark underbelly of the business rescue industry

Klopper last week sent Moneyweb a memorandum addressed to the Master of the High Court in Johannesburg. It was written in response to the Section 417 report, which found he was “gravely remiss in the exercise of his functions” as a business rescue practitioner. The report states that he should have been aware from the onset that H&W was insolvent, yet he allowed the business rescue process to continue for more than three years.

This, according to the report, allowed for the looting of H&W’s assets to the detriment of creditors.

Respected and retired Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann was the commissioner of the inquiry and penned the report. Bertelsmann also recommended that the liquidators hold Klopper personally liable for the damage the delay caused and that the Legal Practice Council (LPC) should investigate his conduct.

The report also cites possible wrongdoing by Connie Myburgh, a corporate lawyer and current chair of the Nova Property Group.

In his case, the report recommended that Myburgh’s conduct be referred to the Hawks and the LPC for investigation.

Investigations

In response to Moneyweb’s questions, the LPC said its Gauteng office would investigate the allegations contained in the report. Charity Nzuza, acting CEO of the LPC, said it would first ask Klopper and Myburgh to comment on the report. “After receipt of their comments, we will present the matter to an investigating committee of the Legal Practice Council to consider the explanations given and the way forward.”

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), the regulator of the business rescue industry, confirmed that it referred the matter to the South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association NPC (Saripa, non-profit company). Saripa is the representative body of the business rescue industry, of which Klopper is a member.

Lucinda Steenkamp, a senior legal advisor at the CIPC, said the matter was “directed” to Saripa for investigation based on its internal code of conduct and disciplinary procedures. She added that the CIPC might suspend or revoke a business rescue practitioner’s licence should they be found guilty of misconduct. 

René Bekker, CEO of Saripa, said in response to Moneyweb’s questions that “the allegations of improper conduct on the part of Mr Klopper are viewed in a very serious light and the board has made the decision to approach the Master of the High Court, Johannesburg, for permission to have regards to the report [sic] authored by retired judge Bertelsmann.

“We respectfully take note that the report is, in your view, in the public domain but we have been advised to obtain the permission of the Master of the High Court ex-abundante cautela [by way of extreme caution] considering the provisions of Section 417(7). Embarking on a process with a document which may not be in the public domain would derail the process and result in wasteful expenditure.”

Bertelsmann declined to comment on Klopper’s memorandum.

Klopper’s memorandum

Klopper does not mince his words in the three-page memorandum. He severely criticises the inquiry and report, as well as Moneyweb’s decision to publish the findings and recommendations. 

Klopper claims the report and the article are factually incorrect in many material respects and that the recommendations are neither fair nor justified. “I was not present, and was not permitted to be present, during the enquiry other than when I testified. I testified willingly and cooperatively and in an effort to assist the liquidators and the Commissioner in the winding-up process. I left the enquiry believing that I had done so and did not contemplate for a moment that I would be one of the targets of the report.”

Klopper says he was “appalled” when he saw the report. “The Commissioner had grouped everybody involved in the company’s management together, myself included, even though my involvement was completely different in time and purpose to that of the erstwhile managers and directors. Then, with the same brush, he tarred us all.”

Klopper adds that Bertelsmann did not fully take his evidence into account. “I saw, for the first time, that the evidence of other witnesses that was never put to me during my testimony, had informed the Commissioner’s findings and recommendations. The recommendations themselves (or even the fact that the Commissioner was considering them) were never put to me. I was not given an opportunity to respond to any of the adverse contents of the report.”

Klopper says he was found guilty after testifying for only an hour. “It is guilt without trial. Unlike any other defendant or accused in civil or criminal proceedings, I had none of the basic rights and protections afforded to a person before their fate is decided, including the right to cross-examine their accusers and appeal the decision.”

He added that he was a cooperative witness and now has to deal with “the fallout of a factually incorrect report by a respected member of the legal fraternity and an unlawfully published article by Moneyweb in flagrant disregard of the Act and the Commissioner”.

Klopper says he wanted to take the report on review to have it set aside, but was advised that he could not do so as the commissioner did not make “findings” against him and that there is no prejudice towards him.

“Although this may be the position adopted by courts of law, the courts of public opinion do not operate in the same way. In that space, where I conduct my day to day business activities and deal with colleagues and clients, far from the sanctity of a court room, I have suffered a great deal of damage to my personal and professional reputation.

“As I am left without a legal remedy, I will deal with the content of the report and its inaccuracies in a court of law should proceedings ever be instituted against me.”

Read the full memorandum here.

Criticism of Moneyweb

Klopper said in his memorandum that the inquiry and the report were confidential in terms of the Companies Act. “Moneyweb did this [publish an article based on the report] despite the Commissioner personally informing him [Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk] that the report was confidential and that the information contained therein could not be published.”

Moneyweb sought extensive legal counsel after acquiring a copy of the report and published the report as a matter of public interest.  Klopper and Myburgh play critical roles in the management of the rescue vehicles of the failed Highveld Syndication and Sharemax investment schemes in which nearly 30 000 investors invested close to R10 billion. 

Both rescue vehicles have seen the significant sell-off of assets over the past few years, with little of the proceeds flowing through to investors. Both companies are also in dire financial positions.

Read: Nova board sidesteps disclosure obligations

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions (Part 1)  (Background)

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions (Part 2)  (Background)

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions (Part 3)  (Overvaluation of properties)

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions (Part 4)  (Property transactions prior to HS companies being put into business rescue)

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions (Part 5)  (Disposal of properties contradicts the intent of the business rescue plan)

Read: The peculiar case of the Picvest billions: Part 6 (The sale of 31 ‘Orthotouch Properties’ to Accelerate)

Myburgh’s response

Connie Myburgh, a corporate lawyer and chairman of the Nova Property Group. Image: Nova

In response to Moneyweb’s questions, Myburgh refused to comment on the findings of the report and reiterated that the report was confidential in terms of the Companies Act.

“The disclosure and use of the document was and remains unlawful, and you were made aware of this.

“I have previously asked you if you have approval [from the Master of the High Court to publish the report]. You did not answer me and continued to use and make the report public.

“I have been informed that Mrs (Cornelia) van der Merwe was formally informed that the Master did not authorise the use of the report [in her court papers]. Your use of Mrs Van der Merwe’s actions does not excuse you and does not give you the right to use and make the report public.

“I reserve my rights against your unlawful conduct, insofar it has and will affect me in the future.

“I am not prepared to discuss the report with you and reserve my rights to deal with the report when and if necessary.”

(Myburgh’s full response in Afrikaans appears below this article).

Myburgh’s reference to Van der Merwe has bearing, as she included the Section 417 report in court papers forming part of her defence against a defamation suit involving Klopper. This inclusion makes the document a public document. In response to questions, Van der Merwe denied that she received any communication from the Master of the High Court, Myburgh or Klopper regarding the use of the report in her court papers.

Original response from Connie Myburgh to Moneyweb’s questions:

Mnr. Van Niekerk.

Die verslag is nie en het nie ‘n openbare dokument geword nie.

Die openbaarmaking en gebruik daarvan deur u, was en bly onregmatig, en ek maan u teen u voortgesette onregmatige openbaarmaking en gebruik van die vertroulike dokument, van welke vertroulikheid en u onregmatige optrede, u bewus is en van bewus gemaak is.

Nieteenstaande die bovermelde, verwys ek u na paragraaf 97 van die verslag, wat dit duidelik maak dat die verslag slegs met die toestemming van die Meester van die Hooggeregshof openbaar gemaak en gebruik mag word.

U is duidelik bewus van hierdie bepaling in die verslag.

Ek het u voorheen gevra of u goedkeuring het. U het my nie geantwoord nie en voortgegaan om die verslag, willens en wetens, openbaar te maak en te gebruik.

Ek het verneem dat Mev Van der Merwe formeel in kennis gestel is dat haar gebruik van die verslag sonder die Meester se toestemming plaasgevind het.

U gebruikmaking van Mev Van der Merwe se optrede, verontskuldig u nie en gee nie aan u die reg om die verslag openbaar te maak en te gebruik nie.

U het duidelik geen gewetenswroeging om onregmatig op te tree en om voort gaan met sulke onregmatige optrede nie, selfs nadat u gewys is op en gemaan is teen u onregmatige optrede. 

Ek behou my regte voor teen u onregmatige optrede, insoverre dit my reeds geraak het en in die toekoms, mag raak.

Ek is nie bereid om die verslag met u te bepreek nie, en behou my regte voor om met die verslag te handel, soos en wanneer dit vir my nodig is.

Indien u enigiets publiseer, wat my betrek, moet u hierdie antwoord op u onderstaande versoek aan my, woordeliks publiseer.

Die uwe.

Connie Myburgh.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

AUTHOR PROFILE

COMMENTS   54

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

Shame. Long letters weeks later, probably at the insistence of those who currently employ them for their rescue expertise.

Almal neem eksepsie wel-edele heer, edelagbare.

Mr Klopper&Co forget that they hail from the ‘brown envelope’ era when liquidators and auctioneers slithered up and down the staircases of Sanlam Centre in JHB Central as well as other establishments, soliciting underpaid and over-indebted bank officials for support.

Surely, by now, the response should have been supported by contradicting facts and not some emotional plea that begs to reader to disregard the published facts because it is confidential or privileged.

So let me broadbrush, generalise, judge, choose a word or phrase. There is no difference between state capture, Steinhoff and this.

Bertelsmann v Klopper and Myburgh

I would believe everything retired Judge said.

As for Klopper and Myburgh – – NEVER! When in doubt, look at their history and make your own conclusions.

Bertelsman is and always has been a man of integrity with a sharp legal mind in search of the truth.I would believe his every word. Klopper and Myburgh’s histories speak for themselves. And it is not a pretty picture.

Huge difference between Steinhof, state capture and an attempt to turn arround a construction company, in spite of state capture and tender fraud? If you experience cash flow problems, will you not first down scale and sell furniture, a car etc to rescue the situation? The banks would not help, RMB wanted money, they did not want to enable the company to continue to trade in an attempt to land on their feet again

I strongly concur with you Gemaskerde Sopbeen,

Ai Siestog … Hans Klopper you have been victimised!!!???

“5. The enquiry was private…” BUT YOU KMNOW WHAT?… IT’S OUT THERE NOW! LOL

“8. The report and article are factually incorrect…” WELL? YOU DON’T POINT OUT IN WHAT WAY THEY ARE INCORRECT? JUST LIKE THE MANY TIMES I QUESTIONED YOU ON YOUR FAILURE TO DELIVER AS A BUSINESS RESCUE PRACTITIONER FOR PICVEST / ORTHOTOUCH – ABSOLUTELY NO ANSWERS WERE FORTH COMING FROM YOU!
IS IT MERE COINCIDENCE THAT THERE ARE MANY PARALLELS WITH THIS REPORT AND WHAT 18 300 INVESTORS EXPERIENCED IN THE PICVEST/ORTHOTOUCH FINANCIAL SLAUGHTER (SELLING OFF OF ASSETS ETC WHILST THE BRP WAS IN PROGRESS????)

#ITHINKNOT

Hans Klopper, the chickens are coming home to roost and you can’t hide behind your legal background and so called Professional Reputation for much longer…

I found you guilty of many things 6 years ago …

Agreed, except ‘this’ may be worse as Business Rescue pretends to be something that can do good when really the opposite is the truth.

Read, in comparison, they way it should be done:

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/sale-of-subsidiary-saves-hundreds-of-jobs-at-group-five/

This is why the process was created; it was not created to formalise or legitimise looting.

Gemaskerde Sopbeen, it sounds to me like you’re a competitor of Klopper’s although I would hope not. If you are a BRP and officer of the court, resorting to smearing your competitors under an alias online is rather unbecoming of your position.

Assets were sold! That is only option if there is a buyer. If Group 5 cannot make it in construction industry, during our tough economic times, it is not a given that a business rescue will be succesful, no matter what!

You cannot give somebody a “history” until found guilty. Business Rescue in the current politica, economic and social environment is not guarenteed. It is good to prevent liquidation where all loose! Suppliers are paid back slowly but surely and employees continue to receive salaries are the best casescenario. The worst casescenario is to sell all assets with SARS being paid first.

Well done Mr. van Niekerk, I concur that the Constitution of South Africa has enshrined freedom of speech and the right to access information as foundations of constitutional democracy which guarantees that South Africa remains an open and just society that promotes the free flow of information; as it ensures that the public is aware of what is happening around them.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. This is the essence of the principle of open justice; and as such, the public has a right to have access to the courts and regulatory boards, to observe how matters will be decided and to obtain documents relating to those cases.

Interesting that the unsavoury character above did not immediately threaten to sue Moneyweb for libel. This means only one thing: he has no desire to have the facts of the case examined in court. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Klopper may very well be guilty (or not) I have no idea. I have however seen with my own eyes how people close to me have been unfairly treated by the press while the public suck up every word. On top of that, any lawyer worth his salt knows about the potential unintended consequences of a defamation action, even if one’s case is watertight. In this case, Moneyweb would be able to raise the defence that they were merely reporting truthfully on the contents of the report, so a libel suit would not work for Klopper in this case.

There are 3 sides to every story: Your side, My side and the TRUTH! 😉

Ryk, thank you for excellent report. It’s a well known fact that an investigative journalist will always seek legal advise when there is the change that a publication might transgress the rule of Law. As to Klopper, me thinks ‘we’ protest too much as Picvest is lurking and the investors of Picvest can only but hope that the Master, LPC, CIPC, Saripa Law Society of S.A and the Hawks will proceed with a full-blown investigation.

Correct, wait for the results of a forensic investigation. A judge with BA Law cannot after an hour “understands”, what took Klopper 10 000 hours x….. to master. Klopper is a specialistin his field. Find him guilty AFTER an expert did a forensic audit. Wait for a proper investigation. Sure Klopper did not receive bribes.

#CANTWAIT

Sars please take note: On his own version he indicated that he earned R20mil as business rescuer – 10,000 x R2000-00 per hour…

I can not see the value of a forensic audit. Klopper consulted with the directors telephonically, was unaware that the cranes over which FNB registered a notarial bond, was sold to pay the counsel, according to the 417 report.

A forensic audit will not address aspects like negligence and failure to to an inspection in loco at all.

While it is true that the public cannot go around making accusations as they please, when evidence is present, and mounting, they are absolutely allowed to declare their belief that the accused is guilty.

The South African Constitution does not guarantee for anyone a right to be presumed innocent by the public until proven guilty in a court of law but some tend to invoke a right, which is not a right at all, when they wish to avoid any discussion of their, sic, “alleged”, wrongdoing.

“Bertelsmann also recommended that the liquidators hold Klopper personally liable for the damage the delay caused and that the Legal Practice Council (LPC) should investigate his conduct.”

I like the attitude seemingly now taken by judges that where found guilty of an offence or wasting the court’s time, the accused will pay costs and damages.

The court of public contempt / disgust formed its opinion on Kloppers and Myburgh years ago.

I don’t see anyone coming up for Hans Klopper and Connie Myburgh in this comments section??

#FUNNYTHAT

so that MUST mean that they’re guilty!

Strange comment. Baiting???

How many articles has Ryk written about this? When will there be a criminal investigation? We had a PIC enquiry about a dodgy R4.3 billion loan to Ayo which does not even affect pensioners. Sharemax and Picvest represent R10 billion of investors money. In Pickvest’s case, R3.4 billion was stolen as investors did not take transfer of the properties they bought. (This should be a slam dunk case!)

It seems as both Messers. Myburgh and Klopper have finally been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. But as Mr Klopper so elegantly pleads… let’s give them their day in court.
There is so much public corruption and state capture going on in SA. Surely Sharemax/Nova and Picvest/Orthotouch are ideal cases for the NPA to investigate.

Somebody commented that Klopper earned R2000 per hour in 2011. Lawyers earned R3500 per hour at Webber Wentzel and senior advocates R4800 per hour. This is not conditional to winning a case. Then Klopperis accused of having his hand in the cookie jar?

@ Grieta Pike, I don’t have the inclination or energy to explain.
I was the one who commented about the hourly rate which is not the problem here.
There is enough evidence out there.
Read up on the Pickvest/Orthotouch saga.
We wait patiently in the meantime for a forensic investigation! (It’s been too long now…)

How do you calculate a fee of R1mil per month for one specific matter under business rescue? . Remember a month has 160 hours.
Methinks someone is struggling with basic calculations?

Klopper and Myburgh can start, by submitting all their legal accounts to the Legal Practice Council for taxation.

Because it was a while back the memory fades, (and maybe what these guys count on with time passing…?) but I recall now!

I recall reading somewhere that Hans Klopper was earning R2000.00/hr from each of the 8 Highveld Syndication companies in 2011.
He was the Business Rescue Practitioner of Orthotouch for ± 3 years.
Do the math…
Business Rescue Practitioner’s that don’t Rescue a Business should not be paid… or pay back the money they earned.
Simple.

Vivien K – This makes no sense, unless it is a peronal vendetta. Investors in HS companies got R2 miljard back since 2011 because Hans Klopper earned R2000 per hour to implement a business rescue plan. I do not think you, the judge or journalist understand HS Companies and Income Plan or the Orthotouch “schemes of arrangement”, refer above comment. I think this judgement by people with no experience in how to rescue a struggling business themselves is based on “a little knowledge which is dangerous” Wait for further investigation by those who understands process and figures.

Grieta Pike (If that is your real name?)
I think you fail to understand that there was money paid by investors (BILLIONS of Rands) of which were never transfered into the Properties that they bought into.
This was never seemingly never questioned by our BRP?
What ever happened to that money??????
The money paid back is a ‘drip’ in the ocean when it’s divided amongst 18 300 investors over 10 years… compared to the amount amount of money that went ‘missing.’ That is not even taking interest and inflation into account over that term either.
What ever happened to that money???????????
It’s a lot more complicated than the ‘spoon fed’ (rhetorical) basic info you have received.
I refuse to get into further debate.
Lekker slaap!

Grieta Pike. Jy is natuurlik nie ‘n belegger in enige van hierdie skemas wat deurloop onder die genoemde BRP nie anders sou jou siening bietjie anders gewees het. Om R2000 X 8 sindikasies (net vir Highveld Sindikasiens) per uur te verdien teen kom ons se 50 uur per maand is ‘n aardige bedrag. Waar is die tyd en kostes dan tov die ander besighede wat beredder moes word? Om daai te verdien en jy doen jou werk kan niemand mee fout vind nie maar dis tog duidelik uit Ryk se artikels en ons HSAG KLASAKSIE saak sedert 2014 dat dinge nie gebeur het soos op skrif geplaas was nie. Tov die rente kwessie waarna u so mildelik na verwys. Op rekord was ‘n 6% rente plus eskalasie oor 4 jaar met volle belegging na die 4 jaar aangebied maar nouja ons as beleggers weet dat binne daai eerste jaar het dit reeds begin val tot 2% en GEEN rente vanaf JULIE 2018 nie!! Rente was ons ekstra en nie ons belegging nie. Moet asseblief nie iets hier uitblaker wat uself nie ondervind het nie. GAAN LEES ASSEBLIEF RYK SE ARTIKELS SOWEL AS ONS KLASAKSIE SAAK OP http://www.hsaction.co.za

The court of public opinion is by nature fraught with emotional, vindictive, vengeful and based largely on ill-informed / one-sided ‘facts’. In this case the fact that, even lawyers, accountants and most journalists , have limited or no knowledge of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act shines through some of the commentaries on this and previous articles.

Even the Courts have given contradictory rulings on critical issue(s) in business rescue arena.

With reference to the above article it is not, as I see it, making excuses, but exercising Klopper’s right to reply or challenge a report that could be flawed relating certain material assertions. Surely other substantiated facts can give a different context to a report. The fact that the report is written by a respected judge does not mean it is factually correct in respect of everything contained therein or that the possibility exist that some material aspects could have been overlooked. To take a report at face value without considering the response of people implicated and make a judgement call is reckless, especially when it comes to people commenting on articles where the writer specifically states that he did not get a response to his questions to people or other third parties.

The fact that the report, which was confidential and not yet subject to scrutiny by those implicated , was leaked or otherwise used by the writer seems a bit opportunistic.

I am a great supporter of investigative journalism and generally they do an excellent job, but they are not immune to making mistakes against which the public must guard and use discretion before jumping to conclusions.

As it is the court of public opinion has not a perfect record in any shape or form and many individuals’ careers have been destroyed by reports that were proved to be flawed or based on so-called fake news.

Methinks that Klopper, whatever your perception and/or opinion of him may be, should be given an opportunity to challenge the report if there are incorrect factual information and omissions of a material nature. It is only fair.

In conclusion, the principle is that everyone should be given a right to reply or challenge the veracity of any report in which he/she/it is implicated. Should it be proven that criminality is evident then the necessary charges must be pressed and justice must take its course.

But for commentators to trash individuals without all the necessary information or just out of vindictiveness is unacceptable.

Well said!

However, I think I can safely say many comments here are based on similar experiences…?
The dots have been connected.
Mr Klopper and many other individuals involved the same Saga’s have been given ample opportunity to answer questions but there have never been any concrete answers forthcoming…??
Anyway, I for one can’t wait for the day truth finally be be told. 😉

Klopper is not going to challenge the report, according to his letter to the Master. He says the report is not an administrative action and can not be taken on review. He also states that counsel advised him there is no prejudice to him.

His only option left is to sue the commissioner?

We all know that our SOE’s are hopelessly insolvent and yet the government allows them to continue. This sets the precedent in my view. Don’t throw stones if you live in glass houses…. it’s easy to criticize when you’ve got nothing to lose. Give him his day in court… I’m sure he would appreciate that..unlike the Zuptas who are nowhere to be seen. Far worse criminals in my opinion…. why is nothing being done or said about them anymore?

Hans and Connie you were partners from the beginning and thought you were above the law but now it is PAY BACK time brothers!!!! Spill the beans or be slain. Hans you knew from the start that PIC/Highveld companies could not be rescued but you persisted even when questions were put to you like what “extensive investigations” were done by you before the BRP was implemented Please provide PROOF of that!!!! PLEASE AUTHORITIES WE BEG YOU FOR A FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND PLEASE START BY THE DISPUTE (IF THERE EVER WAS ONE BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN VERIFIED!!!)

@LOGIC
EXACTLY… your comment is “On the money!”
Questions were repeatedly asked with no satisfactory answers!!!

9 years later and THOUSANDS of Pensioners have been affected.

It’s time for answers!!

AUTHORITIES HAVE TO WAKE UP AND TAKE ACTION NOW!!! (But who is protecting whom??)

@INVESTER 47, you can call the commentators here “Vindictive”…but we are tired of certain individual using and abusing the law system to their advantage. We have most certainly been victimized on a massive scale.
It is a Financial Mass Slaughter of individuals.

It’s a sick society that allows people with law degrees, money and high connections to use their privileged positions for their own gain.

@Macktheknife
I disagree, there is no such thing as a worse CRIMINAL. As far as I’m concerned, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS CRIMINAL.

There is no “criticism” of individuals, questions have been asked for ±8 years and the “Brotherhood” are not forth coming with answers and spending millions in litigation defense instead.

#thatspeaksvolumes

All (we) the people affected want are answers to very simple questions!!!

#FULLSTOP

Ongelukkig is dit so dat regsgeleerdes of selfs joernaliste met BA LLB/joernalistiek, nooit self nog aan die stuur van ‘n besigheid gestaan het nie. Kan hulle in middel van nag wakker gemaak word en eenvoudige pestle, porter of finansiele ratio analise doen. Konstruksie industrie staan te midde van staatskaping, tender bedrog en kennis wat land uit gaan. Enige “change management” neem globaal twee jaar en met ons probleme veel langer. Die lank en kort vzn sukkelende besigheid is dat kontant vloei nodig is vir lone en produk wat verkoop word sodat omset nie ook op droog nie. Privaat persone verkoop ook skilderye, meubels, motors en huise vir kontant vloei as sukkel. Hans Klopper moes in moeilikste drie jaar ooit met Guptas/Bosasa en tender bedrog sedert wêreldbeker kop bo water hou. Dit terwyl banke ongeduldig soos roofvoëls die maatskapoy wil likwideer. Elke advokazt wat voor ‘n regter staan beskerm sy klidnt, maar as Klopper klient sy prioriteit maak is hy korrup? Nee, hy is goeie ou om aan jou kant te kry.
Is egter nie godjie wat politiek, ekonomie, sosiale probleme, konstruksie en regters kan beheer nie. Maatskappye verloor stryd danksy POLITICI se verkwisting met tenders en meer. Bates verkoop sodat personeel en produk aan gand bly is nie bedrog nie, dis desperate poging om besigheid te red! Wat is kanse om te misluk? Vra Thuli Madonsela en Zondo!

Grieta Pike ‘n mens het nie n regsgraad nodig om te sien dat die verkoop van ‘n hyskraan (waaroor n notariële verband ten gunste van die bank geregistreer was) nie deur n Besigheidsredder verkoop kon word om regskostes te betaal nie. Tog is dit toegelaat volgens verslag!

Sunette, nou jok jy mos! Watter bladsy of nommer kry jy hierdie inligting van af in verslag. Klomp leke wat almal eiertjie lê irriteer my erg. Wat verstaan julke in elk geval nie? As ‘n besigheid kontant vloei problemd het, leen die banke nie geld aan hulle nie. Waar dink jy kom die geld vandaan om besigheid se deure te probeer oop hou. Klomp leke wil almal duidelik dadelik likwideer en dan? Dis maatskappy waarvoor julle moet kwaad wees en nie ou wat poging aan wend om te red wat te redde is nie. Jaammer vir beleggers, maar hoe sou hulle geld terug kry as mpy dadelik likwideer is in elk geval. SARS en Verskaffers word betaal vir voorraad en dienste. Ag nee, wat dit word onlogiese en leuenagtige swartsmeerdery. Julle verstaan nie dat al wat beleggers lang termyn kon help is as besigheid wel gedraai kon word en dit neem jare, nie maande nie. NEE moenie vals aantuigings maak oor wat nerens staan in verslag nie. (

Nee, dis leuen. Watter bladsy of paragraaf in verslag kom dit voor. Al sou dit waar wees, hoe stel jy voor hou besigheid deure oop as bank wil likwideer. Wat dink jy kry beleggers na likwidasie as SARS en skuldeisers betaal is? Wat is kans dat beleggers geld sou terug kry as Klopper wel firma draai? Verwys dat BDO uiters bekwame maatskappy is en as hulle nie kan nie, kan niemand nie. TYD is nodig net.

Greta you wrote: Bates verkoop sodat personeel en produk aan gand bly is nie bedrog nie, dis desperate poging om besigheid te red!

Assets were sold in this matter to pay the legal fees (for the insider trading trial?)

Did the BRP inform the creditor that there would be prejudice to them , as they had a registered right over the asset (crane)?

Greta jy skryf: “Sunette, nou jok jy mos! Watter bladsy of nommer kry jy hierdie inligting van af in verslag. Klomp leke wat almal eiertjie lê irriteer my erg. Wat verstaan julke in elk geval nie? ”

Sien paragraaf 63: …. He [the BRP] was completely unaware of the fact that cranes to the value of millions — which were covered by a notarial bond as security for the Bank’s claims — had been disposed of to obtain finance to cover the Company’s running expenses.

Sien paragraaf 70.12… Ellis [the attorney]struggled to obtain payment from the Company, according to his evidence, and had to exert considerable pressure upon Ralston before his fees were covered in part. Ellis knew, or ought to have known, that Ralston procured the necessary funds by the sale of one of the cranes under threat that the counsel who had acted in the litigation referred to above would blacklist Ellis’ firm because of the non-payment of their fees.

A business rescue practitioner operates in an extremely complex legal & commercial environment. More often than not creditors and shareholders have to take a haircut under a recue plan to save a business. In a lot of instances unhappy creditors & shareholders with dented egos and pockets look for a scapegoat. I have known Hans Klopper for many years both in a professional and personal capacity and he is certainly one of the best qualified & experienced members of our legal fraternity, especially insofar as business recue and liquidations are concerened. A section 417 report such as the one of Bertelsman is open to criticism, a fact which I am sure Bertelsman himself is well aware of. His report is not a final judgement and neither has Hans Klopper had an opportunity to defend himself by calling witnesses or cross-examining his accusers. Hans Klopper deserves a lot of respect for his professional contributions to the business rescue industry and he is certainly not a criminal.

@ KLIPPIE007 & GRIETA PIKE

… there is a lot of history attached to the Picvest/Orthotouch BRP that is QUESTIONABLE AND LETS NOT LEAVE Sharemax/Nova out the equation either!
If you have not read up on what has happened over the last 9 years then do yourself a favour.
Knowledge is Power!

Vivian K There is a complete lack of understanding about business rescue. Since 2011 investors in HS Companies got R2 miljard back, but you complain about an hourly rate of R2000, which is less than what attorneys

You do not understand business rescue or the Orthohtouch “schemes of arrangement”. Business Rescue is too complicated to understand for the man on the street. Let a CEO or CA who acts as financial director of a company, judge. Find it low when some do not hesitate to damage a reputation that took years to achieve. These assumptions wrong.

Grieta, it’s a pity you were not following the HS Companies saga from the beginning, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.
I have not damaged Mr Klopper’s reputation, far from it… Why would Big Business take note of anything I have to say?
It’s the ‘connected business people’ that talk amongst themselves.
As the old saying goes, “Your reputation precedes you…”

Load All 54 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

NEWSLETTERS WEB APP SHOP PORTFOLIO TOOL TRENDING CPD HUB

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: