JSE-listed Royal Bafokeng Platinum (RBPlat) has suggested of an investigation that’s beneath technique to decide whether or not RBPlat issuing shares to its CEO and COO earlier this 12 months was illegal.
This comes amid a battle between fellow-listed miners Northam Platinum and Impala Platinum (Implats), with every wanting to accumulate all of the shares it doesn’t already personal in RBPlat.
Northam made the newest all-share supply of R172 apiece, in contrast with Implats’ takeover supply of R150 apiece.
Implats’ present stake in RBPlat is 40.66%, whereas Northam Platinum holds a 35% stake.
RBPlat on April 26 introduced the retirement of its CEO and COO, in addition to the conclusion of recent fixed-term contracts with the 2 executives. RBPlat needed to retain Steve Phiri’s companies as CEO and an government director for 12 extra months or till certainty was attained relating to the proposed buyouts by Implats and Northam.
RBPlat entered into an analogous contract with COO Neil Carr, who was additionally set to retire in April.
The agreements resulted in a pro-rated accelerated vesting of 560 176 RBPlat shares being awarded to the executives, when it comes to the RBPlat share incentive scheme.
The share issuance was permitted by the Takeover Regulation Panel (TRP) previous to being applied. Subsequently, Northam lodged a criticism with the TRP, alleging that the share issuance and the contractual agreements entered into with the executives contravened Part 126 of the Firms Act.
In flip, RBPlat disputed this and the criticism was dismissed by the TRP.
Northam then appealed the TRP’s choice to the Takeover Particular Committee (TSC), which discovered that the share issuance did certainly contravene the Firms Act. The TSC ordered that RBPlat right the contravention in a way supplied for within the Firms Act and rules.
The TSC additionally ordered the TRP or an investigator appointed by the TRP to research Northam’s criticism in its entirety beneath Part 169 of the Firms Act as expeditiously as doable.
RBPlat believes the ruling given by the TSC is legally and factually flawed, and is partaking with its advisers and the regulators as to the suitable subsequent steps.
