Seine recht einfach dargestellte Meinung zu den aktuellen Klagen gegen Steinhoff - finde es ist wohl etwas doch "einfach" und "optimistisch" dargestellt, aber ich habe natürlich nichts dagegen sollte es wirklich so kommen ...
Legal matters:
1. Steinhoff is the victim, it is peculiar to take legal action against the victim.
2. Shareholder class actions are taken by attorneys looking for a payday irrespective of the wishes of shareholders (do they have the instruction and consent of more than 50% of the shareholders for that action?, no the class action auto opt-in shareholders). I have asked one if they have the consent of shareholders and got no answer. Any money that they can squeeze out of any of the defendants will first go towards paying their fees, good luck to the shareholders hoping for anything after that. I for one, am sceptical and critical about what's being done in my name.
3.The shareholders categorised as having class action rights are the very shareholders who voted for and appointed Jooste, La Grange and the rest of the directors of Steinhoff who oversaw the harm done to Steinhoff.
4. Sellers of assets who accepted payment in Steinhoff shares and now initiated legal action to cancel the transactions because they would not have entered into the transaction had they known about whatever it was that they had to know in advance, leave out the fact that they had accepted the shares as payment and had endless opportunity to sell the shares before Dec 2017. The moment when they made the choice to hold the shares rather than to sell the shares and realize the cash, they made an over decision to speculate in the value of the Steinhoff shares, yet now they want to revert back to the point before the transaction.
It is important to question all these legal actions against Steinhoff and to critically assess it for validity, so far all of the actions only meet the criteria for blatant opportunism.
Quelle: seekingalpha.com/author/sarel-oberholster/comments
Zurück
Weiter
