La-La Land and the sleeping doltations

Well, well. You didn't think I would be back then, did you? I'm still around but the Edwafin thing became a real dull subject too spent too much time on. But then, the abuse, oh - the abuse that came from the anonymouses was at time hilarious. It seems that the snippets of information I provided now and then was really addictive and that the withdrawl symptoms was really too much to bear for some of you.

A major withdrawler was old Patrick Stapleton himself. It became so bad that he started a kind of blog-thingy for himself. A few weeks ago when I discovered his new/old site www.edwafin.co.za I though it was a historical remnant - a  fluke of hyperspace, hanging around like a ghost not wanting to give up - well - the ghost. You see at the time I could have sworn that the articles were written in present tense - as if Edwafin was an ongoing, flourishing enterprise.

This morning an anonymous submitted the link to the site again and, by Jove,  the tense has been changed to reflect the past. Here it is again: www.edwafin.co.za.

In typical patricksonian prattle, our friend makes the profound statement that most of the commentators on this blog (I presume), are unknown to them - Patrick and friends one presumes. Now isn't that a coincidence, as almost all the commentators to this blog have been anonymous.

Then he goes on and on and on about how stable Edwafin was, on how steady the financial footing was before we all discovered that the cash box had been emptied. Anyway, one need not repeat the whole sickness here as everyone so inclined to go and read Patrick's version on the site give above.

Then ...

Of course for the sake of balance and fairness we must also read about the other side of the story. And that is acutely summarized in an article in IOL of 24 June 2010. Go and read it here, but please let me have the pleasure of quoting the judges opinion following the judicial inquiry. Here we go:

The judge concluded:

That the company was running a Ponzi scheme, "in itself a fraudulent transaction rendering every director who was a party to it liable for the losses suffered".

That certain non-disclosures by Stapleton rendered him liable to be prosecuted criminally.

That Stapleton had committed tax fraud in that Edwafin regularly paid into a close corporation in his name more than R100 000 that was not reflected in the company's balance sheet.

That Hutchinson and former director Myrtle Winchester were liable to repay directors' fees unlawfully paid to a trust and close corporation.

Attempts to "right size" Edwafin's balance sheet to make it more attractive to investors were fraudulent.

That the directors had committed a "most serious fraud" by making false statements in the prospectuses, among them that one of its subsidiaries, Rainbow Paints, was in "good health" when it was "hopelessly insolvent".

That Edwafin's bankers had a "prima facie" case to meet and could be liable for the entire R230m loss.

That Edwafin's auditors and attorneys, by lending their names to the prospectuses, could also be liable for investors' losses.

Patrick, man it has been such a long time since you actually contributed to these pages. This is an open invitation, if you have anything to defend, to state your case to those that you owe so much. Please, present your case here instead of making wild statements of high-powered lawyers and civil actions against poor old anonymous. Let us be honest, Edwafin has been liquidated under circumstances that the judge found most irregular - do you still have a case to present under the logo of Edwafin, while it no longer has life?

Huff - Puff. My woolies over thine eyes

PS. Patrick you spelled my name wrong in your search keywords