Business Hijacking

[desA]

You claim your thread is about helping people...

I'm sure, that once the thread is completed, a few folks (local & international) will have learned a few lessons from a combination of my own mistakes & a business scenario which actively supports unscrupulous business practices. SA always did have a fairly rough-&-tough business environment, but things have definitely become worse as the legal systems have degraded.

A fair amount of difficulty can be attributed to a cowboy/pioneering attitude, operating within an ever-changing socio-economic climate, with degrading legal protection mechanisms.

I grew up understanding that a person's word was their bond. An agreement was honoured & upheld. It is no longer like this in SA, I'm sad to say. In many ways, my trusting attitude & faith in human nature, led to me downfall in SA. Ironically, my wife, who is a foreign national, was a lot less trusting in the early stages & in fact pegged the fraud/hijack fairly early. In the end, she was spot on.

[Dave A]

For me, personally, the most frightening part of the whole sad affair has been the blatant abuse & gaming of what remains of the SA criminal & legal system. Were adequate, or certainly more robust systems in place, SA would stand a better chance of making the cultural & ideological conversion into the African paradigm.

Based on what you have given so far in terms of actual information (as opposed to opinion), the most disturbing thing I've seen so far is that you missed at least one pretty strong signal that the people you were dealing with weren't trustworthy.

You're now also piling on the evidence that your opinion is less than reliable too.

We're sympathetic.
We're interested.
If there are lessons to be learned, we want to learn them.

But we're not naïve.
And based on some of the messages I'm receiving, it's clear there's a limit to our patience in respect of your self-indulgent opining which you are testing sorely.

So Des, please stop wallowing in your misery and get on with the story. At the moment I'm losing my faith in the objectivity of your opinions, and it would seem some other members are also losing their patience.

[desA]

Alright, Dave, I do see your point. Let's leave it at that then. Wouldn't want to rock any further boats, or waste more of my own time. Thank you for your patience, thus far. Aplogies for any difficulties caused thus far.

The rest of the tale would have covered systemic failures within the SA business system to protect minority shareholders, & instead, allow total & utter disregard for company law. I suspect that these may generate further difficulties. Sometimes it is better to be happy with what we believe to be real & true - even if total fiction. Life then goes blissfully forwards.

The tale will be repeated, by AN Other, further on down the line - I predict.

Would you be so kind as to now close this thread? Many thanks.

[Dave A]

Would you be so kind as to now close this thread? Many thanks.

Right - like that's going to help solve anything

You've had a problem. This is your opportunity to be part of the solution.
Go on, Des. Finish what you started.

Finish the story.

[CLIVE-TRIANGLE]

Agree with Dave wholeheartedly!

I do not necessarily share desA's opinions, but I have seen some situations, and assisted some clients in them, where it is difficult not to come away with any view other than desA's.

That said, I would dearly like to know the nitty gritty of what happened, what avenues did not work, and which did work.

[desA]

I've had a re-think about this thread & agree with Clive, in that the experiences - both good & bad - can be useful for our business community.

We've had progress on the case & things seem to once again be moving forwards. It had ended as sine die in June 2014, but, by various means we have precipitated action - now due in court in around 2 month's time. The hijackers' mere stand-off position is of no interest to me - I require action - any action is better than no action. Stand-off allows them to accumulate more from their hijacking, although it does prevent them from ever selling off their present company, as it is involved in a court matter. Double-edged sword.

The present position is that the hijackers still sit with the business they stole & all of its proceeds, since inception. They continue with blatant use of a brand name they do not own, nor have legal right to use. Whenever persons either directly, or indirectly affected by the matter communicate, the hijackers activate their fleecer to cut off all avenues of communication - this time via my legal team, raising concerns that it will prejudice the case. This is their ongoing tactic.

I've been mulling over the following approach & when to take action relative to the High Court Case in progress:
1. Asking the Public Protector to have a look at the matter - in its entirety.
2. Lodging a case with the Law Society to have the hijackers' fleecer disbarred (the Law Society have been pressing me for an affidavit).

[desA]

The difficulty comes when the hijackers attempt to sell off their 'mother' business. The selling price - if a sale can indeed be realised - will be greatly affected by the outcome of the court case & its end timing.

The particular industry segment involved is a fairly small & incestuous, collusive group - who generally know each others' business. Providing 'cover quotes' is considered normal business practice. Potential business buyers would generally come from the present community, or fraternal gathering.

So, in effect, the hijackers have placed an end time-frame on themselves. It is common knowledge that this bunch are looking to sell off & retire in the not-too-distant future.

In my case, emotion has now been removed from the matter & I'm treating it as a game of chess. Let's see how it plays out.

[Dave A]

In my case, emotion has now been removed from the matter & I'm treating it as a game of chess.

Really great to hear that, Des.

[desA]

Thanks, Dave. What I decided to do (as you rightly advised) was to sit down & work though the matter in my head-space. I'll review a little of the process below, as it may assist others who are faced by the trauma of events like this.

Matter at hand
1. Heat-transfer is my stock-in-trade
With the hijacking, I had been actively precluded from being able to make a living in the heat-transfer business, due to the incestuous relationships in the SA industry. This was a fact-of-life. Any time I went too close to what the hijackers perceived to be 'their friends', their fleecer would have a go at me. In the end, I was being pushed out of an industry where I'd been active for some 25 years. In other words, it was more than just the hijacking of the business - it was the hijacking of a large part of my career.

This brought with it a number of things: Loss of income (business & consulting); severe trauma & stress; onset of depression (which I fought & didn't let it win); friends feeling 'sorry' for me; my wife undergoing immense stress as finances became tougher.

2. SA criminal & civil legal systems
As outlined in earlier posts, justice in SA nowadays, is going the way of the golden unicorn & leprechauns. The process I underwent had me repeating my story some 15-20 times - to different people, ranging from attorneys, advocates, senior public prosecutors, SA's leading prosecutor. Each time the story is told, is is relived. It is like being raped some 15-20 times. It is not a nice experience. In the end, the sense of utter helplessness & frustration with the gross inequity of the whole matter, is sad. Throw R1 million at the case & life is definitely very different.

3. SA business registration & governance systems
CIPRO, CIPC. These are sadly, a joke, when it comes to investigation of reports of malpractice, or enforcement thereof. They are more interested in ensuring that they have received their annual fees than anything else.

4. SARS
As per (3) - oddly-enough. Even when sufficient proof of major irregularities is presented. One gets the impression their system is overwhelmed.

5. Attorneys & Advocates, in SA, have a promiscuous relationship
An interesting thing I learned about attorneys & advocates is that advocates act as consultants to attorneys - they are the prize fighters, while the attorneys are the corner-men/assistants. This means that an advocate may have a relationship with many attorneys. Imagine now, evidence is shown of the attorney (the fleecer's one in this case), having committed clear fraud. So much so that four other legal minds ranging from attorneys, advocate, silk - actively suggest that a case be opened against this fleecer at the Law Society. So - question - Is there a clear ethical distance between your advocate & the opposing fleecer?

6. Hijackers actively wanting to sell off
The hijackers are actively trying to sell off their own mother operation, as well as their ill-gotten gains. Their potential market for the sale is very limited. Their potential buyers have gained wind of the ill-gotten part of the sale. In fact, one of their potential buyers, that they've been coaching towards purchase, works for their opposition. He knows the brand name he's after is not available unless I come to the party. I have no intention of ever coming to their party! Time has a way of working towards an end game. (Germany invades Russia - until - winter advances). The hijackers are engineering their own demise, I suspect.

My response
I have put myself in a mental helicopter & hover over the scene - on advice from a wise, kind Swedish colleague. This has allowed me to see things in greater perspective. I have re-ordered the game in such a way that the technology is now actively moving in another space, where the hijackers cannot easily move. The technology is now advancing rapidly in such a way that it is likely to begin undercutting the hijackers & their allies, within the next few months. So short term loss, for long-term gain.

In other words, I have taken command of my head-space, thoughts & logic. What happens in the SA sphere is now treated with mild interest only - it no longer drives my response/s.

[Justloadit]

I have been involved in a similar situation. No one can imagine the traumatic experience of following this up to the point of reaching court. Unfortunately you have to experience the first one, to be able to learn to deal with disruptive and chaos that it brings. Once you can remove the emotional attachment then it is far easier to make the right decisions, which are then business related, as opposed to emotion related.

Removing the emotional attachment, simply makes the handling of the situation clearer and far easier to deal with. Another important point, you must still learn to be able to meet these people face to face and continue doing business.

In my case, I still do business with the original parties involved, and it simply shows you that at the end of the day, business is about making a profit, irrespective with who you deal with, and as long as it is legal.

[Greig Whitton]

Apologies for resurrecting a dead thread, but I thought that this recent High Court judgment might be of interest. It proves conclusively that our justice system can and does work with respect to thwarting business hijackers and helping legitimate owners protect their interests.