1. On 21 September 2010 the Northern Gauteng High Court dismissed the Financial Services Board’s application to have a part of Dynamic Wealth’s business placed under curatorship.
2. The Financial Services Board has decided to apply to Court for leave to take the judgment of Acting Judge De Vos on appeal.
3. The grounds for appeal will be stated in the notice of application for leave and are mainly:
3.1 The judgment did not in any way deal with the merits of the case placed before the Court by the Financial Services Board.
3.2 The Court placed no reliance on the inspection report submitted to it by the FSB, and which was by reference in its entirety incorporated into the Financial Services Board’s founding affidavit.
3.3 The reasons provided by the Court for disregarding the report and faulting the founding affidavit, were all of a technical procedural nature not adopted by any Court in previous similar curatorship applications.
3.4 In the result, investor interests or the public interest played no part in the judgment.
4. Following the FSB’s withdrawal of its trading licences Dynamic Wealth, launched an interdict application in the Northern Gauteng High Court.
5. A second judgment by the Northern Gauteng High Court dealing with Dynamic Wealth issues was accordingly handed down on 27 September 2010 (Acting Judge Ismail).
6. The Court issued an order interdicting the Registrar of Financial Services Providers “from implementing, giving effect to or further publishing its decision to withdraw the financial services provider licences/authorisation of Dynamic Wealth Management (Pty) Ltd and Dynamic Wealth Stockbrokers (Pty) Ltd pending the outcome of an application to be launched by Dynamic Wealth in terms of section 26(3) of the Financial Services Board Act, 97 of 1990, within 15 days”.
7. The latter application referred to in the judgment is one to be addressed to the FSB Appeal Board to suspend the Registrar’s decision to withdraw the said licences, pending the outcome of Dynamic Wealth’s appeal to the Appeal Board.
8. The Financial Services Board has also been ordered, as it now does, to “immediately issue a media statement reflecting the contents” of the Court’s order and to pay Dynamic Wealth’s costs including the costs of two counsels. This statement will also be posted on the FSB’s website as of close of business today 27 September 2010.
9. In its judgment the Court made it clear that the relief which it granted was merely pendente lite and of an interlocutory nature, after weighing the prejudice which Dynamic Wealth might suffer as against the prejudice which the Financial Services Board might suffer.
10. Also this judgment did not deal with the underlying facts or issues which have informed the Financial Services Board on the steps which it has taken. The judgment is not appealable.
11. It is not possible to predict when the application for leave to appeal the judgment of De Vos AJ will be heard, neither when the issue of the licences will be ready to be brought before the FSB Appeal Board. However, in the interest of investor protection, the Financial Services Board will do its best to expedite both matters.
12. Interested parties are requested to await developments as the Financial Services Board has been inundated with enquiries and is simply unable to deal with them individually.
Get the latest issue of FAnews