(Group) 5(0) ways to leave your lover. Perhaps this is the beginning of me seeing through bolshie (March 2013)

The arrogance of the fucking awful anc government.  It's a deal that went south.  And bolshie gets involved.  In his defence, I think bolsh was a man of principle.  I don't think he was corrupt.  He probably didn't do this without a lot of thought.

Here's a little from Gemini.  It was a commercial issue that iLima defaulted on.  The old race card.  

Dispute and Litigation:

The partnership faced problems when iLima failed to raise the necessary capital for the next stage of the deal. Group Five subsequently pursued legal action, with court rulings eventually favouring the company and ordering the return of its shares from iLima. 

 

Outcome:

The iLima Consortium eventually exited the partnership, and the relationship between iLima and Group Five was formally dissolved. 

This is nothing, I know of an extremely unwanted black shareholder who had the worst, justified reputation.  He was told to fuck off.  He went to court.  He was told to fuck off.  He went to SANAS and said the BEE certificate was a fraud.  SANAS suspended the verification agency immediately.  

That's what we are dealing with.  And that threat still exists.

 

 

Got this from Business Day this morning

ILIMA Group, a black economic empowerment (BEE) partner to construction giant Group Five , yesterday argued in the high court in Johannesburg that the courts could treat BEE transactions differently from those not underpinned by public policy.

ILima’s counsel, Vuyani Ngalwana, drawing from constitutional case law, said the government had a constitutional mandate to transform the economy, and BEE was one of the ways it had chosen to do so.

He said if strict enforcement of a clause in a contract could result in unfairness or unreasonableness to the BEE partner, a court should not enforce it — even where neither party was an organ of state.

What our esteemed advocate is suggesting is that a BEE partner should have more rights than the other party in the transaction because it is contributing to the transformation of the country.

Does this sound like rubbish to you?  Do you not think that this little pronouncement is a complete and utter waste of the court's time?

ILima has even gone to Rob Davies to moan about this.  And Rob has asked Group 5 to respond within 30 days as to why the DTI should not get involved in this case. What a crock.  Running to the DTI and crying because you can't get your way. 

I remember in the early days of BEE when I was offering BEE courses that didn't prescribe ownership I asked a delegate in Cape Town (Henry Shields of the Marimba restaurant fame) whether a contract could be canceled because it came to light later that empowerment status was significant to the other party.  Henry's answer was in the negative and he spoke of the "sanctity of contract". 

Surely the court will reject this argument because of the implications - viz

1. Messes with the sanctity of contract
2. It's a waste of the court's time
3. It will end all BEE deals because companies won't conclude them because of the potential prejudice
4. It's a monumental waste of the court's time

I suppose because this is a high profile case we'll be hearing more about it.  I'll add it to my Google alerts