THE High Court has struck off the roll an urgent application by Tetrad Investment Bank (TIB) director, Dimitrios Divaris who was seeking to block the bank’s extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to change the institution’s line of business.
Divaris is the executor of the estate of the late Vassilliki Divaris who owned 454 890 shares in Tetrad. The bank on June 28 this year published a notice for an EGM scheduled to take place on July 20.
Tetrad’s directors had resolved to surrender the bank`s licence and venture into property and real estate, but Divaris opposed the plan.
He argued that the purported transformation of Tetrad from a bank with an asset portfolio of about US$13 million to a realtor, was unpalatably irrational.
He then approached the High Court on an urgent basis and an interdict was granted in his favour pending finalisation of the main matter.
Divaris prayed for a prohibitory interdict staying the holding of the EGM.
In addition, he attacked the same directors on other allegations of corporate misconduct.
Divaris argued that the EGM improperly pre-empted the finalisation of another pending case, filed on February 3, 2023 seeking the placement of Tetrad under corporate rescue.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
He filed that application as an “affected person”, in terms of section 124 (1) of the Insolvency Act.
However, High Court judge Justice Joseph Chilimbe dismissed his application, ruling that it was fraught with defects.
“I am satisfied that corporate rescue proceedings for Tetrad commenced on 3 February 2023 upon the filing of HCHC 82-23. This takes us to the residual issues on effect of rescue proceedings,” he said.
The judge said during corporate rescue proceedings, no legal proceeding, including enforcement action, against the company, or in relation to any property belonging to the company, or lawfully in its possession, may be commenced or proceeded with in any forum.
“This provision is similarly clear. No legal proceedings may be instituted or sustained against an entity under rescue. This is an old, established rule. But that bar is not absolute…
“I do not have a proper application before me. What stands before me (and to borrow the observation in Chiwenga v Mubaiwa SC 86-20) is a matter burdened by “misapprehensions of the law”. It will be struck off the roll.
“It is, therefore, ordered that the application be and is hereby struck off the roll with each party bearing their own costs,” he ruled.
Shareholders want a new board appointed because they claim they have not received a return on investment for eight years and financials for three years.