Some critics are furious that Steinhoff published such an anaemic "overview" of PwC’s full 3,000-page report — especially since the company’s shareholders reportedly paid PwC R250m for the document.
At Steinhoff’s AGM last April, the company promised to publish the full report "once it has been completed". It then began back-pedalling, first saying it would publish only an "overview" and now claiming the document is "legally privileged". Asked about this, Steinhoff this week provided a mouthful of incomprehensible jargon.
"The report is legally privileged because of the legal advice inherent in its contents and its assembly. PwC was briefed by Werksmans in contemplation of litigation, and the report traverses, inter alia, matters which are directly relevant to proceedings, both actual and threatened. The report is of direct assistance to Steinhoff in defence of these proceedings," it said.
This is news to everyone, since until now Steinhoff has told nobody of Werksmans’ involvement. In all earlier announcements the board said that it, in consultation with Deloitte, "approached PwC".
However, one source tells the FM that Steinhoff terminated its engagement with PwC after its executives appeared before parliament last August, and then rehired the company using Werksmans Attorneys.
It’s curious, not least because CEO Louis du Preez joined Steinhoff as its general counsel in 2017 from Werksmans, where he worked as a lawyer. The source said Du Preez asked that the PwC contract be structured to include Werksmans, to ensure the report could be legally privileged.
Asked about this, Steinhoff said it was Werksmans which originally hired PwC on December 13 2017.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.