Sharing out the Steinhoff crumbs

For the intricate corporate artistry of it alone, the complex settlement deal announced last week deserves to succeed.
Fortunately for Steinhoff CEO Louis du Preez the proposed settlement does not need 100% acceptance; it can be implemented if some claimants baulk. Image: Dwayne Senior, Bloomberg

No doubt the Steinhoff board spent much of the last 12 or so months getting a feel for exactly how much the company could afford to settle the 90 multi-jurisdictional lawsuits it was facing – and balancing that figure against what it believed the claimants would accept.

In addition, it had to factor in the chances of getting the necessary backing from the group’s creditors, who have agreed to freeze their €9 billion (R180 billion) in claims until end 2021. The complex deal Steinhoff CEO Louis du Preez announced last week might just do the trick.

For the intricate corporate artistry of it alone, it deserves to succeed. But sadly for Du Preez, success is far from certain.

Emotions, principles

Not only is it the strength and size of the individual claims that had to be considered, the board also had to give thought to how the claimants would react to the relative allocations as well as the individual claimants’ propensity to carry on with litigation.

Fortunately for Du Preez the proposed settlement does not need 100% acceptance; it can be implemented if some claimants baulk.

“We would obviously prefer consent, and that is one of the reasons why we have released the details as we did,” said a spokesman for Steinhoff.

The level of rejection that can be tolerated depends on the relevant implementation process, which means what category of claimant (shareholder or vendor) and in what country (South Africa or Netherlands).

Two processes depending on jurisdiction

The process applicable to Dutch-registered Steinhoff International NV is called a ‘Suspension of Payments’ procedure. “The level of claimant support required is 50% of all claimants (including financial creditors) present and voting, representing at least 50% of the total claims against SIHNV,” explained the spokesman.

In South Africa the settlement proposal involves a Section 155 process. “The level of claimant support required is a majority in number, representing at least 75% by value, of claimants present and voting in each class of creditors.”

In a remarkably ambitious proposal like this, the comparative allocation is as important as the absolute.

If all of the claimants accept that €850 million (R1.7 billion) is the maximum Steinhoff can afford to pay out (in cash and Pepkor shares), then half the battle will be won. But if they believe the individual allocations are unfair, they will baulk.

One rejection so far …

At this early stage the only party that has indicated that it is unhappy with the proposed settlement is the ‘Tekkie Town’ team, which is suing for the return of the company it sold to Steinhoff in 2016.

Former Tekkie Town CEO Bernard Mostert has confirmed that it will not be accepting the offer.

In a display of what is probably Du Preez’s worst nightmare, Mostert recent told Daily Maverick: “We are not financially driven and are happy to see the court process out.”

Team Tekkie Town is being offered R116 million, which is way short of its claim of around R2 billion. Not only is it not being offered Tekkie Town shares back, but the R116 million will be a mix of cash and Pepkor shares.

If the Tekkie Town team is the only significant opponent to the settlement, then Du Preez will have scope to come to some sort of arrangement. Inevitably that scope will be limited if there are other significant opponents.

Reluctant acceptance

The major vendor claimants appear to have had some sight of this 12-month process and most seem to believe it is their best possible option.

Former Steinhoff chair and single largest shareholder Christo Wiese, who stands to get more than half the total payout, describes the proposal as “a step in the right direction”. Others have informally indicated it is acceptable.

Dutch association VEB, which launched a class action in 2018, has also come out in support of the settlement plan and is urging shareholders to back it.

So far there’s been no word from BarentsKrans Attorneys, which launched the second of three class action cases in the Netherlands last year. BarentsKrans is acting on behalf of SA institutional investors including Allan Gray, Coronation, Ninety One and Old Mutual.

A third class action, run in the name of Steinhoff shareholder Dorethea de Bruyn, recently failed to get the necessary certification from the North Gauteng High Court.

Steinhoff class action found not triable
Court blow for Steinhoff shareholders

De Bruyn’s case failed because she was looking for compensation for losses suffered as a result of breaches of duties by Steinhoff’s directors and auditors.

BarentsKrans’s claim, which was lodged in the Netherlands, is based on fraud and the fact, acknowledged by Steinhoff, that the company published false financial statements.

Thus the failure of De Bruyn’s class action has no bearing on BarentsKrans’s chances of success.

As they contemplate the proposed settlement, is it possible that some of BarentsKrans’s South African clients will be reluctant to sign off on a deal that allows Wiese to score more than half of the total payout?

Adding insult to injury

“Wiese is suing a company he was chair of for misleading him; his comparative success in the proposed settlement will not go down well with many claimants,” remarked one analyst.

“It doesn’t matter if he loses everything he’s paid in subsequent litigation, the principle that he should receive more than half of what has been claimed will cause unhappiness.”

(Wiese is currently involved in court battles with US-based Conservatorium, which bought the claims of seven banks that lent him $1.6 billion to buy Steinhoff shares in 2016.)

Read: Wiese’s R59bn Steinhoff claim under attack

Adding to the disquiet around Wiese’s comparatively attractive position is the fact that his claims include the underlying value of an oral contract between two unnamed individuals executed one day in December 2011.

Then there’s the curious matter of the €200 million (R4 billion) loan made by Steinhoff to Wiese in early 2018.

BarentsKrans was not available to comment to Moneyweb on any aspect of the proposed settlement.

Du Preez is optimistic that if agreement can be reached within the next few weeks, the company can start distributing the €266 million (R5.3 billion) to shareholders in the first quarter of 2021.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


All this but we still don’t know who did what and will those people be held responsible. What we do know however, is that if someone is caught shoplifting and that person hasn’t got political connections he or she will probably end up in jail.

Sadly shoplifting is a crime.

White collar crime by Business men and Politicians not!

So, if you steal a chocolate of R30, you might end up getting locked up for 5 years

Rather steal the country’s GDP and normal tax paying investors money, it shares easier and disappears into an abyss like all the other theft committed

And the IMF is ready to “sign the cheque”

Good luck to them!

I can already see the corrupt civil servants mouths drooling in anticipation

So the one that caused the shareholders to lose their money, with his disastrous Mattress Firm deal, reckless and negligence, is the one to make the most out of the settlement.

Tekkie town cannot expect preference to others who sold their business to Steinhoff for shares. They could have negotiated for cash, took the risk of shares and have to live with a settlement like everybody else. They are not special and not different.

As for the NPA(as well as that clown Carriem -the ANC MP) s handling of the matter, words escape me! Mr Jooste resigned nearly 3 years ago and the progress has been truly unacceptable-how much longer do those low end law students need?

I’m sure CW thinks this is a step in the right direction…..he has the most to gain from this.
When you reward those for wrong doing, you’re encouraging bad and fraudulent behavior going forward. Just look at our politicians and their behavior …all because Zuma lead the way without penalty!
If crimes are committed by those in control of the crime – there must be prosecutions. No matter the size of the crime. It appears that some crimes are just too big to prosecute?

If Du Preez is right and Euro 266m is distributed to the shareholders, is it anticipated that this will be given to the shareholders in the form of a special dividend? If so, in SA SASRS take 20% of that.

As with all the other similar socalled accounting irregularities that actually amounted to nothing short of theft, we seem to have a systemic problem with the way in which the management of companies are structured and the manner in which the accountancy profession and not only auditors conduct themselves. Ever so often we only hear the well-known excuse that it is but a small section of the profession that is guilty of misconduct, fraud or whatever you wish to call it. How much more of this type of misconduct must the country and world suffer before we will accept that there is no more risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater as the baby is long gone anyhow? We need to radically transform the profession and we need to do it urgently. Or is the Big 4 auditing firms the real government?

“For the intricate corporate artistry of it alone, it deserves to succeed.” What rubbish is this?! So the come up with another complicated scheme to try and get themselves out of a mess created by other complex schemes dreamed up by Markus Jooste?

Steinhoff deserves to fall because of the shenanigans of it’s former CEO alone. In my opinion it is impossible he did what he did without anybody being any the wiser in the group. Jooste should be in a prison cell for the billions that he has cost so many throughout the world, let alone the severe damage done to the PIC!.

Steinhoff should be dissolved, and it’s various entities bought up by other companies that at least operate ethically and transparently.

100k employees and millions who rely on Pepkor products over the world should also “fall” because of one man.

You’re an idiot.

Ex-Tekkie Town, now Mr.Tekkie should take the offer and run…
Especially since they(Mostert & van Huyssteen) are still of the opinion that Markus Jooste is the Messiah and did nothing wrong. Go and get your money from him then. No sympathy…

In my book the buck stops with the boss, Markus apologized to Steinhoff employees, so that was admitting to his nonsense.

While most are getting about 3% of their claims back, or 2% of their actual losses, Wiese (or Conservatorium) are offered about 17% of their claim (Conservatorium is disputing in court).

End of comments.



Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: