Steinhoff leaks

.....Jooste and 5 other CA directors don't see the difference between 50% and 100%.....just a little fudging....:whistle:

Muhtiman wrote: .....Jooste and 5 other CA directors don't see the difference between 50% and 100%.....just a little fudging....:whistle:

If I heard correctly, MJ stated that when Seifert didn't pay up for their 50% therefore Steinhoff owned 100% of Poco hence the full consolidation...

......that is called ......over reaching.....and like I said half a dozen CA's and they can account properly for anything.....the matter by the 2016(financial year end) was already in litigation ....and as Jooste says he ended the relationship with Seifert 2015... which brought about litigation so therefore they did not have the right to consolidate the full share holding in that matter.....:oops:

St Markus had a good day. what he has failed to take into account is the anger of normal people who lost money when the share price collapsed.
round 1 goes to St Markus.

.....yeah.....even that quote....where one of the white male questioners referred to a Steinhof employee quoting..... "said that.... you're a fucking psychopath".....did not even rattle Jooste.....:blush:

Muhtiman wrote: ......that is called ......over reaching.....and like I said half a dozen CA's and they can account properly for anything.....the matter by the 2016(financial year end) was already in litigation ....and as Jooste says he ended the relationship with Seifert 2015... which brought about litigation so therefore they did not have the right to consolidate the full share holding in that matter.....:oops:

I stand corrected...MJ said that Seifert relationship was ended in 2015 as he gathered that there was no intention to pay for any of the acquisitions so Steinhoff then had 100% of company hence full consolidation...would be best to see 2015 and 2016 AFS to see if any change in treatment of Poco from accounting for 50% in 2015 to 100% in 2016...

.....no matter how one tried to slice it.....even a court of law.....found this transaction irregular and told Steinhoff to reverse it from the 2016 financials.....now that Steinhoff has lost this action against Seifert they have to now pay back their 50% stake in this acquisition.....:S ....the lesson here is that sometimes the bulldozer approach just does not work...:blink:

I agree
Round one to jooste
Very weak questions too. None of them understand the underlying issues
Intrigued by jooste comment that if the Germans have been investigating for 3 years and still can't lay charges then one might have to consider that there is nothing to find
Fascinating watching. This guy is the sharpest c a in town and he's got top legal advisors so whoever prosecutes him better be right on top of their game. Going to be a case for the ages

I must say I can't decide if this is a case of properly fancy footwork tripping up or criminal intent.

.....they said he was sailing too close to the wind......by skirting past what was deemed to be highly irregular.... there are a few more transactions of a dubious nature....but to prove criminal intent is not going to be that easy....

alec hogg reckons he lied and is a sociopath.
still wondering why 3 years on there is no case against him in germany. unless its so big it will take years to unravel.

.....he sounded so hard done by.....poured his entire life into a job to build a company that paid him billions..... and he had to travel all over the world....in business/first class and then in a company jet then had to stay in the best hotels.....shame....:sick: