The Steinhoff Corporate Scandal and the Protection of Investors Who Purchased Shares on the Secondary Market
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2022/v25i0a14876Keywords:
Shareholder losses, civil liability under the Companies Act, securities fraud, shareholder class actions, market abuse, reflective loss, section 155 compromiseAbstract
The December 2017 revelations of accounting irregularities in the Steinhoff group resulted in the share price dropping more than 95%. Investors, including pension funds, lost millions.
This contribution deals with some of the legal issues arising from the misstatement of the financial position of Steinhoff International Holdings NV and its South African predecessor Steinhoff International Holdings Ltd, which resulted in the inflation of its quoted share price. It considers how retail and institutional investors who had acquired their shares through trades on the regulated secondary market might recover the losses they suffered. The administrative penalty provisions in relation to market abuse are briefly considered but shown to be of very limited application as regards compensation to investors.
Common-law delictual liability and statutory civil liability in terms of section 218(2) and section 20(6) of the Companies Act are considered in the context of the first reported attempt at the certification of a shareholder class action. Unfortunately, both the potential statutory remedies were interpreted so restrictively by the court in the class action certification application that they would hardly serve any purpose. The interpretations are shown to cause anomalies in the context of the Companies Act and to be out of step with established principles of company law. Also, the certification court's application of the reflective loss and proper plaintiff principles is questioned.
Some of these issues might have been solved through further litigation, but for statutory compromise and composition mechanisms that brought a mutually acceptable early end to the uncertainty of protracted litigation.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Chitimira H "Overview of Problems Associated with Ineffective Enforcement of Market Abuse Provisions in South Africa" 2014 Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 47-58 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n4p47
Rose R Steinheist: Markus Jooste, Steinhoff and SA's Biggest Corporate Fraud (Tafelberg Cape Town 2018)
Van der Linde KE "The Steinhoff Global Settlement of Litigation Claims" 2022 First Quarter INSOL World 10-11
Wodehouse PG Very Good, Jeeves (Doubleday Doran New York 1930)
Case law
AJVH Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Steinhoff International Holdings NV (8276/2018) [2021] ZAWCHC 17 (27 January 2021)
De Bruyn v Steinhoff International Holdings NV 2022 1 SA 442 (GJ)
Ex parte Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Ltd: In re All Scheme Creditors of Steinhoff International Holdings (Pty) Ltd (WCC) (unreported) case number 15584/2021 of 24 January 2022
FSCA v Burger (FSCA administrative penalty order) case number unknown of 30 October 2020
FSCA v Jooste (FSCA administrative penalty order) case number unknown of 30 October 2020
FCSA v Steinhoff International Holdings NV (FSCA) case number 10/2019 of 12 September 2019
FSCA v Ocsan Investment (Pty) Ltd (FSCA administrative penalty order) case number unknown of 30 October 2020
FSCA v Swiegelaar (FSCA administrative penalty order) case number unknown of 30 October 2020
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189
Hlumisa Investment Holdings RF Ltd v Kirkinis 2019 4 SA 569 (GP)
Hlumisa Investment Holdings RF Ltd v Kirkinis 2020 5 SA 419 (SCA)
Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Ltd 2016 4 SA 432 (SCA)
Jooste v FSCA; Ocsan Investment Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v FSCA (Financial Services Tribunal) case numbers 64/2020, 65/2020 of 13 December 2021
OLG Frankfurt am Main 30 July 2019 file number 23 Kap 1/19
Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board 2001 3 SA 1247 (SCA)
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] 1 All ER 354 (HL)
Rechtbank Amsterdam 26 September 2018 case number C/13/643124 / HA ZA 18-146 JPR 2019/121
Rechtbank Amsterdam 15 February 2021 case number C/13/21/4-S (unreported)
Rechtbank Amsterdam 23 September 2021 case number C/13/21/4-S ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:5452
Steenkamp v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2006 3 SA 151 (SCA)
Steenkamp v Provincial Tender Board of the Eastern Cape 2007 3 SA 121 (CC)
Legislation
Germany
Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz, 2012
South Africa
Companies Act 71 of 2008
Financial Markets Act 19 of 2012
Internet sources
Cronje J 2022 Markus Jooste Still Hasn't Had to Pay Insider Trading Fine https://www.news24.com/fin24/companies/markus-jooste-still-hasnt-had-to-pay-insider-trading-fine-20220519 accessed 15 July 2022
Financial Sector Conduct Authority 2022 Enforcement Actions https://www.fsca.co.za/Enforcement-Matters/Pages/Enforcement-Actions.aspx accessed 27 September 2022
Steinhoff International 2018 Briefing to Parliament https://pmg.org.za/
committee-meeting/25753 accessed 17 July 2022
Steinhoff International 2019 Overview of Forensic Investigation https://www.steinhoffinternational.com/downloads/2019/overview-of-forensic-investigation.pdf accessed 17 July 2022
Steinhoff International 2022 JSE SENS / Company News https://www.steinhoffinternational.com/sens.php accessed 17 July 2022
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Kathleen E Van der Linde
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.