orangeblock

The Fidentia scandal rolls on into 2008

16 January 2008 | People and Companies | News | Gareth Stokes

The latest issue of the Financial Mail carries an interesting article titled “Curator’s golden egg”. The article focuses on the ongoing cost of running a company in the control of a curator. The article was prompted by the ongoing curatorship of Fidentia and related companies. Curators Dines Gihwala and George Papadakis have been at the company’s helm since the court appointed them early last year. And since there is no transparency on the fees being charged by the curators we can only guess at the real cost. Estimates are that a three year rolling total could easily top R20 million.

Fidentia was placed under curatorship after an FSB investigation which started as far back as July 2006. Initial findings confirmed that “an estimated R689 million of client funds were unaccounted for.” The FSB ventured that “these funds were utilised for disbursements by the Fidentia Group (Brown) and the purchase of other assets not disclosed as part of the client portfolio. As such the funds were misappropriated.”

Brown finds someone else to blame

On the strength of this report, the FSB approached the High Court to place Fidentia in the hands of curators. Subsequently a number of assets have been seized and sold in an attempt to continue meeting various Fidentia obligations, particularly to beneficiaries of the Living Hands Trust.

Fidentia accused J Arthur Brown has not been resting on his laurels over the December period. He has come out with all guns blazing in the New Year, claiming that the curators are responsible for the company collapse. He alleges that company assets have been flogged for a fraction of their market value and that group revenue was diminishing under Gihwala’s supervision. Brown claims that Fidentia was 100% solvent at the time of the court order and that the company was earning R45 million a month.

These claims come as Brown seeks to oppose a provisional sequestration order obtained by the curators. The curators have applied to the high court for the sequestration order in an attempt to secure Brown’s assets to repay an amount of R24 million they believe Brown owes Fidentia. The order was granted on 4 December last year – and Brown’s legal team has now decided to apply for the right to appeal the ruling. The application will be heard on 21 January.

Brave words from a ‘victim’

Brown and his former financial director Graham Maddock were arrested in March last year. Both are out on bail of R1 million each. A third accused in the case was only arrested in August. Piet Bothma is the suspended chief executive of TETA and will be tried with Brown and Maddock. His crime is slightly different in that he is accused of accepting a substantial commission to place TETA money with Fidentia. His bail was set at R200, 000.

Brown has been more vocal this year than last. He believes “The Financial Services Board has not conducted a proper, honest and accurate investigation” and claims that “there are no funds missing at all.” He also stated that when the FSB investigation was concluded Fidentia was completely solvent.

Brown clearly believes that he is the victim in this saga. “I was portrayed as a fraudster and thief who had misappropriated in excess of R600 million of funds belonging to widows and orphans. My life has been a living hell.” Until he gets his day in court, we will have to take his word for it.

Editor’s thoughts:
Professional fees for lawyers and auditors can run into millions of rand. These costs must be a phenomenal burden to a company that is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Is there an argument for the regulation of professional fees on court appointed administrators and professionals? Add your comments below, or send an email to [email protected]

Comments

Added by Lilia, 19 Jan 2008
If Mr Brown claims that no funds are indeed missing from Fidentia, then where pray tell is my money??? disgruntled beneficiary
Report Abuse
Added by DP, 18 Jan 2008
The scenario is similar to a divorce action--the couple are both losers and the lawyer benfits the most.
Report Abuse
Added by GH, 18 Jan 2008
I feel that many of these “curators” are no better than the Browns of this world. It seems to me that most of them are greedy parasites and as usual it is the ordinary man and woman in-the-street that suffer. By the time they have finished there will be very little left to disburse. How can anyone justify fees of this magnitude? The fees should definitely be regulated. Are there so few honest people in the world today?
Report Abuse
Added by WS, 18 Jan 2008
You are right. It is not understandable that auctioneers, estate agents,lawyers,curators can charge exhorbitant fees and brokers are restricted. I specificaaly mentioned auctioneers as farmers are inclined to tell me I am expensive but still are prepared to sell their cattle etc it the mentioned costs.
Report Abuse
Added by AJ, 18 Jan 2008
Dit is seker een van die onderwerpe wat my bloedrooi laat sien, en my oneindig die m#*& in maak. Daar is seker nie n groter aasvoël as n kurator/administrateur nie, hulle sal geen steen onaangeroer los om iemand/besigheid te likwideer nie. Hulle het absoluut geen meegevoel met die beleggers se geld, besware,bekommernisse,of vrae wat gevra word nie. Niks verhoed hulle om swak transaksies "namens die beleggers" te doen nie solank die transaksies net plaasvind dat hulle hul gierige hande op die kommissie ter sprake kan lê. Daar sal dringend na die vergoeding van die mense gekyk moet word. Ek sou voorstel dat hulle vergoed moet word soos die arme beleggers wat niks of net n gedeelte in die rand terugkry. Met ander woorde, as die belegger 10 sent in die rand kry kan die likwidateur ook net 10 sent in die rand van sy rekening kry ,dit sluit die maandelikse fooi ook in want hulle kan oneindig draai veral as die boedels groot is. Hulle sal baie gou die belange van die beleggers op die hart begin dra. Lekker onderwerp.
Report Abuse
Added by CV, 18 Jan 2008
It is a fact that most of these so called curators appointed by courts first take their share and could not really be bothered whether the so called companies are solvent or not - which should be their priority. I know of two companies that were placed under curatorship by the court where the value of the shares on the company's were lying in a folder in the curator's office for two years (from 99 to 01). When he finally decided to sell them, the value of the first had dropped from R169m to R91m. A loss for the clients whom they were suppose to help and.......... then they took their fees. The second lot was valued at R19m and eventually only R5.5 was recuperated when the curator sold after 3 yrs - same as above. Both cases are still unresolved except that both the CEO'S have been locked up for the last 6 yrs - no bail. Then there are the court bonds. What a joke! Just another huge slice of a cake that is already half eaten. This is a requirement by the court and the curators are also the beneficiaries of the commission paid for this or they ensure that they get a big piece of it (works out to a million plus in the case of Fidentia). They should get a company that would do it at a set or a negotiated fee as us guys are expected to do.
Report Abuse
Added by RC, 18 Jan 2008
MISKIEN MOET ONS ALLES LOS,,,DAN WORD KURATORS VAN INSOLVENTE BOEDELS,,,,,,DIE OUENS WEET HOE OM FOOIE TE SKRYF.
Report Abuse
Added by Arie van Wijk, 17 Jan 2008
There definitely must be regulation in this regard. The curators charge a fee on assets under management. Are all the assets "Fidentia's " assets. If a client invested via the Ovation LISP -which was taken over by Fidentia- and the funds were invested in eg a Collective Investment Fund of Funds - does that form part of Fidentia's assets? As far as i know Fidentia was only entitled to the yearly admin fee. Why must this also fall under the assets for curator? The curators just redeem units from clients investment on monthly basis. Do they have the authority to do that. Client did not give instruction for a 3 rd party payment/redemption of his units to finance curator fees. FOF is managed by external fundmanager and not one of the underlying funds used in FOF are with Fidentia or ex Ovation. Some of these investments are compulsary retirement products and is supposed to be protected by the pensionfund act. The discretionary funds are supposed to be protected by the unittrust act and each investment is regulated by trust act and FSB etc.... Does all this legislation give no protection for the client?
Report Abuse
Added by Fillis, 17 Jan 2008
We have also been taken for a ride and not sure whether we have lost all of our money through Ovation (R 383,000.00) or whether this has been invested as stated on our statement? There is nobody that a person can contact to establish what has happened or if there is a change in getting your money back? The money that we invested was for our retirement to try make things easier for when we retire. Is there anything that you can assist us with?
Report Abuse
Added by Robbie, 16 Jan 2008
Curators fees are a black box, open to abuse and should no doubt be subject to some form of regulation or scrutiny.
Report Abuse

Comment on this Post

Name*

Email Address*

Comment*

quick poll
Question

If you had to hazard a guess, when do you reckon the COFI Bill will be signed into law?

Answer