You are hereby given notice of a court application by specified investors, which is to be heard on 19 May 2015 at 10h00 in the Johannesburg High Court, to set aside, alternatively appeal against, a court order granted in favour of Orthotouch Ltd whereby the court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in relation to Orthotouch Ltd and Highveld Syndications 15 to 22, purportedly adopted at a meeting on 12 November 2014.
A summary of the relief sought appears below, but a Full copy of the application papers are available on the website www.hsaction.co.za under “Documents”. The Applicants are Jurie Johannes Geldenhuys and Two Others, whilst the Respondents are Orthotouch Ltd and 26 Others.
If any party wishes to oppose the said court application, he/she has to file the necessary court papers as indicated in the relevant Notice of Motion, being an opposing affidavit within 15 court days of filing a notice of Opposition, which in turn has to be filed 5 courtdays after date of this notice. The application will be brought in the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, under case number
A summary of the relief (order) sought is as follows: (a) Setting aside the order granted on 26 November 2014 (“the order”) in the ex parte application in terms of Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court, alternatively the common law, on one or more of the grounds set out [in the Notice of Motion]; alternatively, (b) granting leave to appeal the order granted in the ex parte application on the grounds as set out in the Notice of Motion. An order for costs will be sought against any party opposing the application. A summary of some of the grounds for the setting aside, alternatively the appeal, are, amongst others, that (1) “The Highveld Syndication Investors” as described are not, and have never been, creditors of Orthotouch for purposes of section 155(2) of the Companies Act of 2008; (2) Orthotouch is in default and therefore has no claim against the Highveld companies, (3) the proposed scheme of arrangement Seeks to compromise the claims of third parties to the compromise (4) the arrangement is unintelligible in material respects, and (5) material facts were not placed before the court.
Theron & Partners Attorneys
18 Alexander Street
(Ref. JB Theron)
Sunday Times Classified – 15 March 2015 – Sunday Times