The Steinhoff Corporate Scandal and the Protection of Investors Who Purchased Shares on the Secondary Market

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2022/v25i0a14876

Keywords:

Shareholder losses, civil liability under the Companies Act, securities fraud, shareholder class actions, market abuse, reflective loss, section 155 compromise

Abstract

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

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Kathleen E Van der Linde, University of Johannesburg

    Professor, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

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

27-10-2022

Issue

Section

Special Edition: Festschrift - Charl Hugo

How to Cite

Van der Linde, K. E. (2022). The Steinhoff Corporate Scandal and the Protection of Investors Who Purchased Shares on the Secondary Market. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 25, (Published 27 October 2022) pp 1 - 23. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2022/v25i0a14876

Similar Articles

131-140 of 1152

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.