adminthe placement of the firm into final judicial management. This takes the company back into provisional judicial management.
Provisional judicial manager Mr Winsley Militala filed an urgent chamber application challenging the appointment of Mr Hofisi as final judicial manager. In the court papers, Mr Militala argued that the appointment of Mr Hofisi was unprocedural.
Their heads of arguments were heard on Thursday last week and the judgment was handed down on Friday.
The High Court had appointed Mr Hofisi of Aurifin Capital as the final judicial manager of the collapsed textile giant after shareholders and creditors rejected liquidation. Mr Militala had recommended the company be placed under liquidation after failing to raise working capital.
Mr Hofisi’s rescue plan received substantial support from the majority of creditors and shareholders who then voted for the final judicial management.
Creditors owed about US$6,5 million voted for final judicial management which represented 56 percent of the vote, while 46 percent with total claims of about US$5,5 million voted for liquidation.
Shareholders with 590 million shares or 75 percent of the issued share capital voted for final judicial management. The firm was, for the second time, placed under judicial management in December 2010, having gone through the same reconstruction between 2005 and 2008 under Dr Cecil Madondo of Tudor House Consultancy.
In his report, Mr Militala said various capital-raising initiatives were pursued to rescue the company, in recognition of its national significance, but none had borne fruit.
He noted the DWT problems worsened at the peak of hyperinflation in 2008, when the former ZSE-listed company was seeking to raise capital.
Online Reporter