Steinhoff-Untersuchung muss veröffentlicht werden. "Das öffentliche Interesse an der Offenlegung des Untersuchungsberichts wiege in jedem Fall schwerer als ein möglicher Schaden für Steinhoff. Der Bericht würde Beweise für erhebliche Gesetzesverstöße enthalten. Das öffentliche Interesse an der Aufdeckung des vollen Ausmaßes des Steinhoff-Skandals sei angesichts seiner Auswirkungen auf die Finanzmärkte und der erheblichen Verluste, die Investoren, darunter auch Pensionsfonds, erlitten hätten, von höchster Bedeutung."
Legal privilege in investigations: the Steinhoff investigation report
By André Vos & Sabeeha Kathrada on December 7, 2024
This blog was co-authored by Neshalia Nayagar and Eric Geldenhuys, Candidate Attorneys.
Legal professional privilege attaches to communications between a client and their attorney. Where the privilege applies, documents are shielded from disclosure to other parties or in the public domain.
In Ibex v Tiso Blackstar & Others the Supreme Court of Appeal, in its eagerly anticipated judgment, reaffirmed the well-established test for determining whether or not a document is privileged from disclosure.
The matter concerns an investigation report produced in relation to the Steinhoff corporate scandal. When its external auditors refused to sign off on its financial statements, Steinhoff engaged another firm of auditors to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. Media houses and journalists sought access to the investigation report.
The proper test for determining whether a document is privileged from disclosure is as follows. A document created with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction it is created, of using it to obtain legal advice or in the conduct of existing or contemplated litigation is privileged and shielded from inspection and production.
The investigating auditors were appointed by Steinhoff’s attorneys. On the facts, the court found that the work by the investigating auditors was not to communicate with Steinhoff’s attorneys to obtain legal advice, nor in contemplation of some litigation, nor for the purpose of given advice with reference to that litigation. Therefore, the investigation report was not subject to legal advice or litigation privilege and the court ordered that the report be released to those who sought access to the report.
The court mentioned that, in any event, the public interest in disclosing the investigation report outweighed any potential harm to Steinhoff. The report would reveal evidence of substantial contraventions of the law. The public interest in exposing the full extent of the Steinhoff scandal was paramount, given its impact on financial markets and the substantial losses suffered by investors, including pension funds.
Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (case no 862/2022) [2024] ZASCA 166 (4 December 2024)
Quelle: www.openlegalblogarchive.org/2024/12/07/...estigation-report/
Zurück
