Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 4 of 5

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million.

Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

All these “fake mergers” were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.RMB336x280

According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

Wikipedia states that “Return on Invested Capital (ROIC). This valuation technique measures how much money the company makes each year per dollar of invested capital. Invested Capital is the amount of money invested in the company by both stockholders and debtors. The ratio is expressed as a percent and you should look for a percent that approximates the level of growth that you expect. In its simplest definition, this ratio measures the investment return that management is able to get for its capital. The higher the number, the better the return.
To compute the ratio, take the pro forma net income (same one used in the EPS figure mentioned above) and divide it by the invested capital. Invested capital can be estimated by adding together the stockholders equity, the total long and short term debt and accounts payable, and then subtracting accounts receivable and cash (all of these numbers can be found on the company’s latest quarterly balance sheet). This ratio is much more useful when you compare it to other companies that you are valuing.
Return on Assets (ROA). Similar to ROIC, ROA, expressed as a percent, measures the company’s ability to make money from its assets. To measure the ROA, take the pro forma net income divided by the total assets. However, because of very common irregularities in balance sheets (due to things like Goodwill, write-offs, discontinuations, etc.) this ratio is not always a good indicator of the company’s potential. If the ratio is higher or lower than you expected, be sure to look closely at the assets to see what could be over or understating the figure.

Price to Sales (P/S). This figure is useful because it compares the current stock price to the annual sales. In other words, it tells you how much the stock costs per dollar of sales earned. To compute it, take the current stock price divided by the annual sales per share.

The annual sales per share should be calculated by taking the net sales for the last four quarters divided by the fully diluted shares outstanding (both of these figures can be found by looking at the press releases or quarterly reports).

The price to sales ratio is useful, but it does not take into account any debt the company has. For example, if a company is heavily financed by debt instead of equity, then the sales per share will seem high (the P/S will be lower). All things equal, a lower P/S ratio is better. However, this ratio is best looked at when comparing more than one company.

Market Cap. Market Cap, which is short for Market Capitalization, is the value of all of the company’s stock. To measure it, multiply the current stock price by the fully diluted shares outstanding. Remember, the market cap is only the value of the stock. To get a more complete picture, you’ll want to look at the Enterprise Value.
Enterprise Value (EV). Enterprise Value is equal to the total value of the company, as it is trading for on the stock market. To compute it, add the market cap (see above) and the total net debt of the company.

The total net debt is equal to total long and short term debt plus accounts payable, minus accounts receivable, minus cash. The Enterprise Value is the best approximation of what a company is worth at any point in time because it takes into account the actual stock price instead of balance sheet prices” according to Wikepedia

Adopted from Wikipedia to illustrate how and why the Interfin Banking Corporation share price and market value should be adjusted to reflect the ENG Capital indisputable claim of US $ 15.4 million being the stolen 309 million shares multiplied by the share value of $ 0.05 per share givng the total claim total of $ 15.4 million which Interfin Bank owes to me and my Company ENG Capital – Relentless Innovation.
This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; and
Email: [email protected] . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ;
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Interfin Bank Holdings share price should reflect ENG Capital claim Part 5 of 5

Interfin Banking Corporation Zimbabwe is a product of a fraudulent merger between Century Bank and CFX Bank which was subsequently renamed Interfin Banking Corporation after another irregular merger between Century/CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

All these “fake mergers” were designed with the intention of concealing the initial fraudulent transfer of 309 million Century shares illegally and irregularly transfered into Century/CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation. This illegal transfer is being challenged through High court case HC-6244-04.

ENG Capital and myself are claiming US$ 15.4 million being the 309 million shares multiplied by the share price of $ 0.05 which give the claim total of US $ 15.4 million. Accordingly the share price and market value of Interfin Bank Holdings should be adjusted to take into account of this indisputable claim of $ 15.4 million which Interfin has to settle.

According to Wikipedia below are some of the factors which the share price and value of a company must factor into. One should consider Interfin Bank’s Management poor judgement in “merging” with Century/CFX Bank which has litigation under High Court Case HC-6244-04

“Management issues
Management issues: This involves examining perceptions about management and perceptions by management. It includes various qualitative judgments regarding the competence of current and prospective company management, as well as issues related to insider buying, future strategies to increase operations and market share. Most large companies compensate executives through a combination of cash, restricted stock and options. It is a positive sign when members of management are also shareholders.

When management makes large purchases of their own stock with private funds, it may indicate that management insiders feel the company is undervalued, or that a favorable company event will occur soon.

Another way to get a feel for management capability is to examine how executives performed at other companies in the past. Warren Buffett has several recommendations for investors who want to evaluate a company’s management as a precursor to possible investment in that company’s stock. For example, he advises that one way to determine if management is doing a good job is to evaluate the company’s return on equity, instead of their earnings per share (the portion of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock).
“The primary test of managerial economic performance is achievement of a high earnings rate on equity capital employed (without undue leverage, accounting gimmickry, etc.) and not the achievement of consistent gains in earnings per share.”

Buffett notes that because companies usually retain a portion of their earnings, the assets a profitable company owns, should increase annually. This additional cash allows the company to report increased earnings per share even if their performance is deteriorating.

He also emphasizes investing in companies with a management team that is committed to controlling costs. Cost-control is reflected by a profit margin exceeding those of competitors. Superior managers “attack costs as vigorously when profits are at record levels as when they are under pressure”.

Therefore, be wary of companies that have opulent corporate offices, unusually large corporate staffs and other signs of bloat. Additionally, Buffett suggests investing in companies with honest and candid management, and avoiding companies that have a history of using accounting gimmicks to inflate profits or have mislead investors in the past”
Adopted from Wikipedia
This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; and
Email: [email protected] . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ;
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Zimbabweans must, as far as possible, exercise right to self-defence

Zimbabwean law excuses acts of aggression committed in defence of oneself provided one can show that an attack was imminent and that they acted with rationality in averting it.

Apparently President Robert Mugabe’s call for ‘acceleration of pace’ has been understood by some within his party to mean, correctly or incorrectly, acceleration of violence- and they are not wasting any time.

Our team visited Epworth yesterday afternoon and spoke to hundreds of residents there. Their narration of prevailing disturbances was overwhelmingly one-sided. A visibly shocked woman in her late 70s explained that groups of ‘scary thugs have savagely and indiscriminately been ordering residents to acquire ZANU PF membership cards in anticipation of possible elections next year.

Perceived opposition supporters have allegedly been brutally assaulted for refusing to heed the thugs’ persistent calls. According to an Epworth resident who asked not to be named for fear of victimisation, sanctions ranged from severe beatings with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, summary evictions to abductions. As it stands, the whereabouts of at least five residents of Epworth, all of them last seen over a week ago, remain unascertainable.

And this is just 8 months before possible elections. In all probability the trend will worsen with each passing day. In all likelihood the perpetrators will enjoy impunity yet again.

In circumstances such as these we ordinarily plead with the inclusive government to keep watch and to take decisive action in the hope that doing so will serve as a crucial disincentive to would-be perpetrators. But then there is no unity in the unity government. ZANU PF still very much controls the machinery of violence.

Consequently, the Union for Sustainable Democracy calls not just on the inclusive government to do everything possible to deal unsparingly and decisively with those responsible for sowing seeds of intolerance and violence in this country- but also on the citizens of Zimbabwe to be vigilant enough and indeed to defend themselves against violators of their rights.

Zimbabweans have a legal entitlement to defend themselves from all forms of aggression and it is high time they exercised it to the greatest extent possible. Going forward, ZANU PF thugs need to appreciate that when they visit people at their homes with the intention to attack them they will find them ready to defend themselves. It is only fair. Indeed it is entirely legal.

Issued by the Information & Publicity Department
Union for Sustainable Democracy

Mutumwa Mawere’s return critical for Zimbabwe investor confidence Part 1 of 5

Mutumwa Mawere one of Zimbabwe’s business icon “touched down at Harare International Airport at 1355 hours yesterday aboard a British Airways flight from Johannesburg after spending six years “in the wilderness”. This has to be one of the most visible achievement by the Government of National Unity in terms of being progressive and being “business friendly” Mawere’s safe return sends an encouraging signal to investors that indeed Zimbabwe is now on the progressive path to recovery and tolerance.

I personally met Mawere on different occasions in Harare, London and Toronto under different circumstances. When I met him in London one thing me struck most is how relaxed but focused he was on setting the record straight and also impart his vast business knowledge to others.

Below is how he is his early business life is described
“Mutumwa Dziva Mawere (born January 11, 1960 in Bindura, Zimbabwe), is an African business executive, pioneer, financier, banker and entrepreneur best known as the founder and Chairman of Africa Resources Limited (”ARL”). He is known for having built one of the most powerful and influential corporations in Zimbabwe’s history called Africa Resources Limited

He was educated in Zimbabwe, Swaziland, United Kingdom and United States. He holds B.Sc (Economics), M.Sc (Management), MBA (Finance & Investments) degrees as well as other professional qualifications.

He began his professional career as an Acturial Student in 1984. He then joined the Industrial Development Corporation of Zimbabwe in late 1984 as a Research Economist and rose through the ranks to become a Senior Research Economist in 1987 before joining the Merchant Bank of Central Africa in the same year as a Corporate Finance Executive.

In 1988, he joined the World Bank as a Young Professional. After completing the program in 1989, he was appointed as an Investment Officer for the International Finance Corporation, the private sector lending arm of the World Bank. He rose through the ranks to become a Senior Investment Officer in 1994. In 1995, he resigned from the World Bank and immigrated to South Africa where he has been based since.

In 1995, he founded Africa Resources Limited (ARL), an investment holding company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Island, before moving to South Africa. In August 1995, he approached T & N Plc the UK domiciled parent company of Shabanie & Mashaba Mines Private Limited (SMM) with a proposal to acquire the company’s Zimbabwean subsidiaries i.e. the asbestos mines, two Zimbabwean industrial companies and a Zambian manufacturing company. Negotiations began in September 1995.

In November 1995, Mawere formed a partnership with Investec Bank Limited, a South African investment bank, to structure and mobilize financing for a mining private equity fund.

While working on the private equity fund, he continued his negotiations with T & N that culminated in an agreement in March 1996 pursuant to which ARL, a company in which he is the sole shareholder, acquired the remaining mining and industrial assets of T & N in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Since the acquisition of T & N’s two UK based companies that were the sole beneficial owners of the Zimbabwean and Zambian companies, the ARL group of companies grew organically and through acquisitions to become one of the largest and diversified black controlled conglomerates with operations in South Africa, UK, Zambia, Namibia, and Malawi employing about 20,000 people and generating a turnover of about US$400 million.

In 1997, the group established a warehousing and forwarding business, Shipping Consolidated Holdings (”SCH”) with operations in Zimbabwe (container depot) and Durban, South Africa (warehouse). Acquired a 100% stake in a cellular service provider, CST Cellular Private Limited, later renamed Firstel Cellular Zimbabwe.

Mawere was the promoter, sponsor and investor in a greenfield commercial bank, FBC Bank (”FBC”). FBC was registered as a commercial bank in February 1997 in accordance with the Zimbabwe Banking Act. FBC is one of the first three commercial banks to be provided with an operating license by the Registrar of Banks and Financial Institutions since 1981. Since opening its first branch in August 1997, FBC has established 14 branch locations countrywide.”
Mawere’s return to Zimbabwe opens a new chapter in Zimbabwe’s business environment as the country seeks to cement its image as an attractive emerging market. If individuals such as Sir Richard Branson are keen to invest in Zimbabwe ,it goes without saying that Zimbabwe’s own leading business people like Mawere must be at the forefront exploiting business opportunities that are so abundant in Zimbabwe.

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; and
Email: [email protected] . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ;
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 3 of 5

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 3 of 5

After going through the legal opinion provided by Mr Sternford Moyo to Interfin regarding the disputed takeover over Century/ CFX Bank and its subsequate rebranding into Interfin Banking Corporation it becomes clear that Mr Moyo is a victim of deception and manipulation.

He was deceived into believing that there was never a legal challenge to the fraudulent and illegal transfer of the 309 million Century Shares into CFX Bank then into Interfin Banking Corporation. All records will show this illegal transaction was challenged through various letters and High Court application HC 6244-04 filed at Harare on May 2004.

This challenge was widely reported in the Herald Newspaper, The Independent and the Daily Mirror. Records at the National archives will confirm this .It remains a mystery why Mr Moyo would claim that there was never a challenge when publicly available records confirm the existence of a challenge which is currently before the courts.

“Prima facie, therefore, any disposal by the liquidator which is confirmed by the High Court or the Master of the High Court is a lawful disposal. A party alleging that the liquidation procedures were influenced by an unlawful act or unlawful activities has to make the claim formally in court and establish the basis for any allegation he or she may make.

It has been suggested in another opinion on the matter that Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Chapter 9:16] divests Muponda of any locus standi. This is not correct. The issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of MUTUMWA DZIVA MAWERE v THE MINISTER OFJUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, S.C. NO. 158 OF 2005. In that matter, an objection to locus standi was raised on the basis that Mutumwa Mawere was a specified person and could not, therefore, institute legal proceedings to challenge his specification or at all without the authority of the investigator. It was common cause that the prohibition was not absolute and could be cured by the authority of the investigator. Likewise, the obstacle faced by the directors of ENG can be cured by the authority of the investigator. ……….”

It is clear from the above that Mr Moyo was misinformed and his opinion was possibly fraudulently obtained. It is noteworthy to find out who misled him and what was the intention and motive for such misinformation. What was being hidden by the false impression that there was never a court case to challenge the transfer of shares? It is clear he gave an opinion which he would not have otherwise given had he been furnished with the full facts especially my founding affidavit for High Court Case HC -6244-04

Mr Moyo continues “……Consequently, Mr Muponda or Mr Watyoka, wherever they may be, can institute legal proceedings notwithstanding the specification. Decisions to the High Court to the contrary made before 11th September 2008 when the Supreme Court made its above finding are applicable only where the specified person proposes to use the resources of his estate in Zimbabwe. An additional basis raised by the Supreme Court is given on page 6 of the judgment where the Supreme Court pointed out that: “In addition, it is a moot issue whether he can be deprived of his constitutional right to challenge an administrative decision such as the above in a court of law to test its correctness. For example if such authority was refused by the investigator the appellant would have a right to appeal if it was unreasonably refused.”

Contrary to the above excerpts the illegal sale of the 309 million shares was challenged through various channels. Letters of complaint were sent to -
(1) the Register of the High court
(2) Liquidator
(3) Zimbabwe Stock Exchange
(4) Fidelity Stock Brokers
(5) Century Holdings Limited
This was followed up by a High Court application HC -6244-04 blocking the sale and or transfer of the 309 million Century/CFX Bank Shares. Its mind boggling that a Bank such as Interfin with the assistance of a lawyer of Mr Moyo’s standing would conduct a due diligence and fail to uncover the existence of such publicly available records which can even be obtained from the National Archives.

This behavior only serves to confirm that Mr Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Banking Corporation have something to hide that’s why they misled a leading lawyer without letting him review details of High Court Case HC-6244-04

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; and
Email: [email protected] . Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ;
Phone: 1-416-841-5542

Chanakira battles for Kingdom as Meikles now want US$6.45m ahead of tomorrow’s EGM.

HARARE - The long standing business feud between South Africa based businessman, John Moxon and Zimbabwean banker, Nigel Chanakira - touted as one of the country’s first pioneers of black entrepreneurs may be coming to an end.

An extraordinary general meeting is due to take place tomorrow, October 13, provided Chanakira pays US$6.45m and meets other conditions.

Chanakira, whose Kingdom Financial Holdings Limited (KFHL) merged with Moxon’s Meikles Africa Limited in December 2007, has been locked in a bitter battle to wrest control of the financial services concern from Meikles following a merger deal that has turned sour. KFHL posted a US$1.7m profit before taxation for the half year ended June 30 2010 and is one of Zimbabwe’s largest financial and banking institutions.

Upon their merger in 2007, the two companies incorporated Tanganda Tea Company and little known Cotton Printers, to form a blue chip company, Kingdom Meikles Africa. The merged entity had plans for a London offshore listing. But barely two years later, serious differences over strategy and the vision for the merged entity emerged between Chairman Chanakira and Moxon.

Initially, the feud centered on Moxon’s plan to sell Cape Town’s Cape Grace Hotel to Mentor Africa, which is alleged to have strong links to Moxon. Chanakira was opposed to this development, especially as it came on the eve of the 2010 Fifa World Cup.

What incensed Chanakira, was the fact that Moxon allegedly waded into his responsibilities as he signed the agreement of sale with Stephen Levenberg’s Mentor Africa. As chairman of the merged entity, which owned Cape Grace Hotel, Chanakira believed that this was his call to make.

And so started the acrimonious battle that would escalate and encompass accusations of racism and money-laundering. These allegations resulted in the specification of Moxon and some of the companies falling under Meikles Africa’s ambit, Meikles Stores and TM Supermarkets. The specification was later lifted this year.

These differences, in addition to reports that Moxon wanted to oust Chanakira and two other aligned non-executive directors and replace them with his family members and close associates, culminated in a decision to have the two entities break their association by way of a demerger.

Subsequent to that resolution, there have been behind the scenes developments and lobbying by both parties. The bitter battle saw President Robert Mugabe, Finance Minister Tendai Biti and Reserve Bank Governor Dr Gideon Gono getting involved.

Reports indicate that Mugabe at one point openly declared his support for Chanakira. Biti is on record saying he wanted a “win- win solution” to the “vicious and unkind corporate war” in a letter to Gono.

Eventually Chanakira and Moxon’s Meikles struck an agreement that would have seen Chanakira acquire the contentious 43% shareholding in his company which is held by Meikles. Chanakira was to pay US$15m for the transfer of these shares but he didn’t.

This development stalled the demerger. Another issue that has been contentious between the two parties involves a US$22.5m facility that was advanced to the central bank on behalf of KFHL by Meikles in 2004. This amount was used for KFHL to meet adequate capital requirements for the banking concern. The money was distributed and used as follows; Kingdom Bank Limited, US$12.5m; Discount Company of Zimbabwe, US$7.5m; and Kingdom Asset Management, US$2.5m.

KFHL says in its unaudited financial results for the half year ended June 30 2010 that: “On 11 June 2010, in pursuance of the condition precedent, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe reversed cession of the US$22.5m back to Meikles group..”. This, says Kingdom in the commentary accompanying the results, has created a “temporary capitalisation gap of US$11m for Kingdom Bank Limited”.

While indications in recent weeks have suggested that the feud is now almost settled, Meikles board Chairman Farai Rwodzi revealed a different story in an abridged statement to shareholders: “To date, the demerger has not been implemented both due to issues Meikles faced at the end of 2009 and early 2010 and the non-fulfilment of all of the demerger’s conditions precedent.”

The statement indicates that Meikles has now rescinded on its initial fee for the shares of US$15m.

However, the statement does suggest a demerger is possible if Chanakira and Kingdom swop their shareholding in Meikles Africa Limited. This effectively means that Chanakira will now have to pay US$6.45m for the 43% shareholding.

“Shareholders are advised that in the event that an offer acceptable to the board for the purchase of the Meikles shares in KFHL is received prior to the date of the EGM [October 13]…. Shareholders can vote on the offer,” says Rwodzi.

Rwodzi adds the “implementation of the demerger transaction” is “conditional” on: “KFHL meeting the requirements of both KFHL’s memorandum and articles of association and the Companies Act for the reduction of KFHL’s share capital by the amount of US$22.5m”. He also says that another condition is “the successful implementation of the aforementioned reduction of KFHL’s share capital so as to regularise the transfer from KFHL to Meikles of the KFHL debt’.

Chanakira finally has the chance to settle this: “This is a lifeline for Chanakira and he just has to meet these conditions as this is his only hope at a time when Moxon has shown commitment to resolving this feud once and for all,” said Jeffrey Katumba, an investment analyst with a local bank.

Scepticism greets new diamond deposit discovery

By Alex Bell

There has been a mixed reaction to news that three more large deposits of diamonds have been discovered, with widespread scepticism that the find will benefit Zimbabweans.

Early studies by the Mines Ministry indicate that there are at least three significant diamond deposits, separate from the rich alluvial fields at Chiadzwa, where rights abuses at the hands of the military have been rampant. The new discoveries are said to be located in Binga, Tsholotsho and in parts of Masvingo province along the road to South Africa. Mines Minister Obert Mpofu told the state-controlled Sunday Mail newspaper that the government is setting up a body called the Zimbabwe Minerals Exploration Corporation, to hasten the pace of exploration in order to determine the extent of the deposits. Candidates are now being considered to head the proposed entity.

The wealth of the new discoveries is widely expected to be high, given the extent of diamonds already being mined at Chiadzwa. But concern is now being raised that the involvement of the government from the very beginning could spell out more abuses. Some commentators have already voiced their concerns saying that the discovery of new diamond deposits is not likely to benefit ordinary Zimbabweans.

The government’s take over of the Chiadzwa fields was marred by the death of hundreds of illegal panners, and the brutal military control of the field has continued ever since. The government made assurances that all abuses would end, and eventually came to an agreement with the international trade watchdog, the Kimberley Process, that saw diamonds sales from Chiadzwa resume.

But reliable sources, who have recently visited the Chiadzwa area, have told SW Radio Africa that absolutely nothing has changed. The source said that “rampant and systematic abuses are still occurring,” with multiple cases of violence at the hands of the military. The military is also said to be behind widespread smuggling syndicates that are responsible for millions of dollars worth of diamond leaving the country illegally. The source said: “This is just scratching the surface of what is still happening there.”

Dewa Mavhinga from the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition told SW Radio Africa on Tuesday that lack of political will is essentially the only thing preventing the proper management of the country’s rich mineral resources.
“The problem is not that the rules are not there, the problem is there is no implementation of the rules,” Mavhinga said. “Until we see this, then Zimbabweans won’t benefit from the mineral wealth of the country.”

Graft probe at ZMDC points to Interfin Bank involvement

The Anti-Corruption Commission has raided the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) to investigate suspected corrupt activities, including $600000 in legal fees paid to the company’s lawyer.

Government insiders said the raid, which occurred two weeks ago, sparked a fierce confrontation between the c ommission’s investigators and the state-owned entity’s armed security officers. C lashes threatened to break out during the operation in which investigators seized documents and computerised data.

The swoop on the company came as four senior ZMDC officials were suspended over alleged corruption involving the siphoning-off of $40-million in gold and diamonds proceeds. Their arrests are expected after Minister of Mines Obert Mpofu returns from India next week.
Though police were not available for comment, a senior government official said: “ZMDC has been investigating corruption and forensic auditors were called in to probe the issue, so we expect some people to be arrested over missing funds.”

ZMDC has suspended its chief executive and general manager, Dominic Mubayiwa, over the issue. Mubayiwa was sent on forced leave, together with his group financial director, Robert Karemba, group technical services manager Albert Chitambo and the corporate secretary and legal adviser, Tichaona Muhonde. This was to facilitate the probe into how top management used ZMDC’s gold and diamond revenues.

ZMDC board chairman Goodwills Masimirembwa suspended the four just a month after coming into office.

ZMDC also began to specifically probe Mubayiwa over a mansion he is building in the posh suburb of Borrowdale in Harare.Insiders alleged that the property was being funded from kickbacks paid by Banks such as Interfin Banking Corporation who were desperate to obtain these deposits whilst mines were being closed due to lack of capital.

Repeated efforts to contact Mubayiwa on Friday were unsuccessful.

ZMDC is also investigating why the suspended managers invested $9-million in money markets while its mines were closing down due to poor capitalisation. It is suspected that the money was invested at selected banks as part of mutually beneficial deals.
Interfin Banking Corporation which is at the centre of a bitter ownership wrangle with Investment Banker is one of the Banks fingered in the probe. The Interfin Managing Director Mr Raymond Njab=nike is quoted by Newsday confirming that Interfin was indeed a custodian of at least $ 2 million of the controversial funds
Mr Njanike told Newsday Newspaper “The truth is the money that we hold is a $2 million money market investment by the Zimbabwe Mining Development Company (ZMDC). Our strategy is to court cash-rich companies such as insurance companies and diamond companies. I wonder where Muponda is getting all that from.”

The current ZMDC management is also complaining that Mubayiwa and his team failed to pay government dividends, although they had money available in fixed-return securities.

ZMDC said Mubayiwa’s management paid a dividend of only $4-million this year, despite the fact that the company generates millions of US dollars.
The Zimbabwe Telegraph additional reporting by The Times live

Sternford Moyo misled & manipulated by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin on ENG Capital – Part 2 of 5

Respected lawyer Mr Sternford Moyo was duped by Interfin Banking Corporation into issuing a legal opinion which ignored material facts. In his opinion Mr Moyo suggests I never opposed the illegal sale and transfer of Century Bank to CFX Bank and Interfin Bank Zimbabwe.

In May 2004 through MY then lawyers Mr Oscar Ziweni I filed a court motion opposition the sale of Century Bank or any further disposal of ENG Capital shares. Instead of responding through normal court procedure the Authorities responded by specifying me, my lawyer and my Co-Director Nyasha Watyoka.

Clearly this was illegal and unacceptable because a person can not be specified without a hearing offering them a chance to present their side of facts.

I was only specified as means to tie my “legal” hands and deny me any legal standing. However the specification does not legitimize the otherwise illegal and fraudulent seizure of Century Bank which was then renamed CFX Bank then Interfin Banking Corporation to hide the illegal and irregular seizure.

I have always maintained my 309 million Century Bank Holdings shares were fraudulently, illegally and irregularly converted into CFX shares (and) then into Interfin Bank Holdings shares.

This is why I initiated High Court Case HC-6244-04 to nullify and void any attempts to sanitize this illegal and fraudulent actions.

The various rebranding attempts from Century Bank to CFX Bank to CFX/Interfin Banking Corporation clearly show there is a problem and are evidence of attempts to conceal and deceive on the initial fraudulent transfer of the Century Shares into CFX Bank then Intern Bank.

For that reason we have demanded to know the full identity of the individual or entity who initially “bought” the 309 million shares for which I am demanding US$15,4 million made up of the US$0.05 per share multiplied by 309 million shares.

Our legitimate claim to compensation of US$15,4 million for the 309 million shares is indisputable.
Farai Rwodzi and Interfin’s refusal to pay compensation is groundless and is absolutely not acceptable.Their legal opinion I can only assume was fraudulently obtained without letting Mr Sternford Moyo assess all the effects especially HC – 6244-04

My attorney, the late Mr Oscar Ziweni (RIP), was harassed, intimidated and arrested for defending me and specified for taking my brief and in the end I had no legal representation .At one point he was forced into hiding when threatened with detention on fabricated charges which were just meant to stop him from pushing HC-6244-04

I do not think Mr Sternford Moyo will accept that Lawyer should be specified,detained,arrested and harassed for assisting and defending clients.This behavior of intimidating lawyers is unacceptable anywhere in the world. I am shocked that Mr Moyo who is a former Chairman of the Zimbabwe Law Society does not actually come out to denounce such actions which were carried out by the people who were determined to loot ENG assets including Century Bank.

This is wrong and Mr Moyo with all due respect is being misled and his reputation may be exposed if he writes a Legal Opinion for individuals and entities like Interfin Banking Corporation who do not disclose all material facts.

At that time the tumultuous atmosphere that had gripped the nation and the political interference in the ENG saga, presented a clear and present danger to me and my family which left me with no choice but to leave the country in confidence to clear my name since we had already filed our court case HC 6244-04.

ENG Capital vs Farai Rwodzi & Interfin Bank Zimbabwe Dispute unpacked (Part 3 of 10)

The current dispute between ENG Capital and Farai Rwodzi and his Interfin Banking Coropration is mainly a result of incompetence and greedy on Rwodzi and his team in failing to carry out a proper due diligence before their reverse takeover of Century/CFX Bank.

A proper due diligence would have clearly shown that Interfin Bank as the successor Institution by take over of Century /CFX Bank it would be liable for all claims and liabilities related to Century/CFX Bank
Due diligence is no more complicated than looking at the facts of a deal from all angles to make sure they add up and ensure there are no hidden expenses or costs .

In short, due diligence assesses the risks and opportunities of a proposed transaction; be it buying a business or entering some other arrangement.

Getting engaged and taking the time to know someone before getting married is a form of due diligence (occasionally supplemented today by looking up a potential partner’s details on Google, or searching their Twitter ,MySpace and Facebook profile).

Most people who buy a second-hand car insist on first taking it for a test drive, conducting a title check, having a mechanic look over the vehicle and asking questions of other people who have owned the same type of car. This is considered natural when buying a car and forms part of our pre-purchase due diligence.

This is a simple process which Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank failed to do when they decided to get involved with Century/CFX Bank.Had they done this the current ownership dispute would not have been this intense.They would have discovered that already there is a court case to block any sale and or transfer of the 309 million Century/CFX Bank shares.

In particular the following areas should have been analyzed more intensely by Farai Rwodzi and Interfin Bank ;
B. Organizational Information
C. Detailed organization chart
1. List of all directors and officers
2. Biographies of senior management and any outside directors
3. Schedule showing number of employees for each year and interim periods
4. List and description of current operations of each key business unit showing:
a. Business purpose
b. Key manager
c. Key markets served
d. Key facilities
A. Litigation
1. List of all pending or threatened litigation, arbitration, administrative or other proceedings involving the Company, any subsidiary or any joint venture involving the Company or any subsidiary, or any officer or director (including parties, remedies sought and nature of action)
2. List and description of all pending or threatened government or other investigations involving the Company, any subsidiary or any officer or director
3. Pleadings and other material documents in material litigation, arbitration and investigations and other proceedings

4. Consent decrees, judgments, etc., under which there are continuing or contingent obligations
5. Letters from lawyers to auditors concerning litigation and other legal proceedings
B. Regulatory Compliance
1. Description of any violations of governmental laws or regulations
2. Material reports to governmental agencies
3. Reports, notices or other correspondence concerning any known or alleged violation of Federal or state antitrust, environmental, nuclear regulatory, public utility or public service or securities laws and regulations
4. Agreements or commitments with governmental entities or other persons relating to clean-up obligations or other environmental liabilities
5. Copies of correspondence between Federal or state government agencies and the Company
6. List of all governmental filings and consents required for a purchase of the stock of the Company
A. Not in the Ordinary Course of Business
1. Partnership agreements
2. Joint venture agreements
3. Contracts relating to material business acquisitions or dispositions (by transfer of capital stock or assets), including any separate tax or environmental agreements
4. Stand-still agreements
5. Confidentiality and trade secret agreements
6. Agreements limiting the ability to compete with any other person or to engage in any line of business
7. Corporate transactions with management or directors or affiliatesRMB300x250
8. Agreements to provide goods or services at below cost (other than promotional arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business)
9. Indemnification agreements for directors and officers
10. Any other existing or pending material contracts not in the ordinary course of business
11. Any material correspondence related to the above
12. Closing record books with respect to each transaction

B. In the Ordinary Course of Business
1. Listing and description of key customer contracts
2. Listing and description of key supply contracts
3. Material sales representative, marketing, agency or distributorship agreements
4. Material advertising agreements
5. Material government contracts
6. Agreements entered into or expected to be entered into for material capital expenditures
7. Guarantee agreements
8. Any agreement which contain change-of-control provisions
9. Any contracts or agreements similar to the above which are presently under negotiation
10. Any material correspondence related to the above

This article appears courtesy of GMRI CAPITAL – . It is generated for 3MG MEDIA – .

Gilbert Muponda is an Investment Banker and Founder of GMRI CAPITAL . He can be reached at; and
Email: [email protected] .
Skype ID: gilbert.Muponda
Twitter ; 1-416-841-5542


Log in - BlogNews Theme by Gabfire themes