Letters | Tongaat Hulett

The opinion piece, “Corporate hijacking — the violation of Tongaat Hulett during the business rescue process” (The Witness, February 24), which prominently features allegations by rival bidder RGS, omits critical context that readers deserve to know. In late 2023, RGS proposed its own business rescue plan. When required by the lender group to demonstrate that it had the funding to implement that proposal, including a R2 billion deposit in South Africa, RGS submitted a letter from Absa Mozambique that was subsequently confirmed to be fraudulent, a fact confirmed by RGS under oath in court proceedings.

The matter has given rise to criminal charges and a related subpoena. Shortly thereafter, RGS withdrew its proposed plan before creditors could vote on it. As a result, Vision Group consortium’s proposal was the only business rescue plan before creditors in January 2024, which RGS are now complaining about.

As it was the only plan before the creditors, it was approved by the requisite majority and, in terms of the Companies Act, became binding on all affected parties, including RGS. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the business rescue practitioners (BRPs) “selected” Vision or sidelined alternatives. Creditors voted on the only proposal placed before them after RGS elected not to proceed.

[paywall]

The BRPs were legally obliged to implement the adopted plan and had no authority to revive a withdrawn proposal or substitute another transaction. Joint Business Rescue Practitioners Tongaat Hulett Limited

[/paywall]