Nissan turnaround plan under spotlight at shareholder meeting
Nissan Motor will face scrutiny over its deepening crisis at an annual general meeting on Tuesday, where investors will also vote on an activist proposal urging it to take action on listed subsidiary Nissan Shatai.
It is anyone's guess whether new boss Ivan Espinosa will be able to halt the sharp decline at the carmaker, where shares have fallen 36% over the past year and dividend payments have been suspended. Nissan reported a $4.5bn (R80,235,495,000) net loss in the last financial year and there is no guarantee it will return to profit this year. So far it has declined to give a full-year earnings forecast.
Espinosa has laid out plans for big cuts, including closing seven plants and shedding a total of 20,000 jobs, or around 15% of Nissan's workforce. One Tokyo-based activist investor, Strategic Capital, thinks the overhaul should include Nissan taking action on its listed subsidiary.
Japanese companies are under increasing pressure from the Tokyo Stock Exchange and regulators to clear up "parent-child listings", which are seen as unfair to minority shareholders and a drag on governance.
In one prominent example, Toyota Motor this month unveiled plans to take private its listed subsidiary, Toyota Industries, in a complex, $33bn (R588,305,764,200) transaction that some shareholders have said undervalues the forklift operator.
Toyota likely took action because "it felt pressure from shareholders and thought it had to change", Tsuyoshi Maruki, CEO of Strategic Capital, said in an interview with Reuters on Monday. He said he hoped Nissan's management could also give the issue similar consideration.
Nissan owns 50% of Nissan Shatai, which manufactures cars for the carmaker. Strategic Capital owns 3.5% of Nissan Shatai. It has also acquired a small stake in Nissan, allowing it to submit proposals to the general meeting.
It has proposed Nissan change its articles of incorporation so it would be required to annually examine its relationship with listed subsidiaries and disclose what action, if any, it planned to take.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Pension Plain: the hidden costs of withdrawing from your Savings Pot
Explore the significant tax implications of withdrawing from your Savings Pot and understand how these decisions can impact your retirement savings. Image: File picture. During a recent speech, Edward Kieswetter, the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (Sars), stated that the total amount of tax collected from retirement fund members who made Savings Pot withdrawals amounted to around R15 billion. Put differently, Sars on average received about R25 of each R100 withdrawn, and members only received R75 or less of their own money. Our collective retirement savings pool has been robbed of R57 billion that will never grow tax-free to provide a future tax-free lump sum benefit or a higher monthly pension amount after retirement. In the whole Two Pots debate, the negative effect that income tax has on early withdrawals from our Savings Pots does not seem to be high on the agenda. As a result, fund members make ill-informed decisions by not taking the tax effect of their withdrawals into account and then complaining about how they were robbed when they received much less than they anticipated. Firstly, any withdrawals from your Savings Pot will immediately reverse part of the tax deduction that you received when you contributed to your fund. If you contributed R3,000 to your fund, of which R1,000 went into your Savings Pot, you received a tax deduction on the full R3,000 contribution to the fund. If you now withdraw R1,000 from your fund, the R1,000 will be taxable at your marginal income tax rate. If your withdrawal is in a different tax year than the year you contributed, you will not be able to replace that contribution and obtain the tax deduction in the same contribution year. If you therefore contribute 27.5% of your income, for example, R90 000, to a fund and get the full tax deduction and you then withdraw the R30,000 that you have in the Savings Pot, you are not allowed to then contribute an additional tax-deductible contribution of R30 000 in addition to the 27.5% to your fund as the Savings Pot withdrawals are not deducted from your contributions made for tax purposes. Secondly, you will reduce the tax-free amount that you can take as a lump sum payment from the Savings Pot of your fund at retirement. Currently, you are allowed to take R550,000 as a tax-free lump sum amount at retirement. If you started to contribute to a fund after September 1, 2024, and you keep on making withdrawals from your Savings Pot, chances are that you will end up having significantly less than R550,000 in your Savings Pot at retirement. Although the tax issue is concerning enough, the fact that you might end up with significantly less money to retire should be your major concern. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ If you started your fund membership after September 1, 2024 and you contribute R10 000 per month (R3 333 going into your Savings Pot and R6 667 going into your Retirement Pot) to your retirement fund for a period of 30 years and you attain an investment return of 10% per annum, you will have about R7 million in your Savings Pot and about R14 million in our Retirement Pot. If you, however, withdraw all the money in your Savings Pot on an annual basis, you will end up having only R44 000 in your Savings Pot that you can take as a tax-free lump sum at retirement. This is significantly less than the R550 000 that you can take as a tax-free lump sum amount at retirement. As fund members, we have a responsibility to take control of our financial education regarding our retirement savings. Without discipline and short-term sacrifice, we will not be able to attain the long-term benefits of saving enough money for a retirement that is free from financial-related stress, even if we try to blame Sars for our ill-informed decisions. * Ladouce is a pension funds lawyer and the author of the book 'Pensions for Palookas'. PERSONAL FINANCE Explore the significant tax implications of withdrawing from your Savings Pot and understand how these decisions can impact your retirement savings. Image: File picture.
TimesLIVE
10 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Orbit in the money after promotion to Premiership
After making history by earning promotion to the Betway Premiership on Wednesday, Orbit College can bet on a better financial state next season. The Rustenburg-based club beat Cape Town City 1-0 in their last PSL promotional playoff clash to raise their points at the top of the table to an unassailable eight. Orbit's playoffs rivals Casric Stars and City, who are both on two points apiece, meet next for the irrelevant last match of the round-robin contest. For Orbit, being in the elite league means the club will receive a monthly grant of R2.5m from the league. The amount is a far cry from the R500,000 the Motsepe Foundation Championship (MFC) clubs get per month. That means Orbit will go from receiving R6m per annum to R30m. Orbit are also guaranteed appearance fees in the Carling Knockout (R250,000) and Nedbank Cup (R250,000) competitions. And depending on how far they go in each competition, they stand to make a lot of money. The first prizes for the two cup competitions are R6,6m and R7m, respectively. Even better, and potentially a marketing hook for sponsorship, Orbit's promotion means they have finally gave North West a club in the Premiership after a seven-year wait. The province is home to valuable minerals, including gold and platinum, and the mining industry is thriving with several companies operating. After a decade in the ABC Motsepe League, the third tier, Orbit only earned promotion to the MFC two seasons ago. The Mswenko Boys finished second behind Durban City in the MCF to qualify for the playoffs, while Durban earned automatic promotion to the Premiership. Captain Atisang Batsi said they knew their time had come to win promotion. "We said at the beginning of the season that this is our time and we made it," Batsi told SuperSport TV after the game at Olympia Park in Rustenburg. "It means a lot to us, when we started the season, it was a little bit bad but when the season continued we became better. We are looking forward to playing in the Betway Premiership next season." With the promotion done, Orbit will start their preparations for the Premiership where they will have to strengthen the team with experienced players.
Daily Maverick
14 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
MTN faces legal reckoning: Turkcell's $4.2 billion claim exposes alleged corruption and bribery
A $4.2-billion corruption claim, including allegations of bribery and geopolitical interference: MTN's long-running Irancell saga is finally knocking at the doors of South Africa's highest court. More than two decades since Iran issued its first private mobile network licence, a tangled web of geopolitics, bribery allegations and courtroom battles has landed squarely at the feet of South Africa's Constitutional Court. First, some background. The stakes? A $4.2-billion claim. The claimant? Turkish mobile giant Turkcell. The accused? The MTN Group, South Africa's telecommunications crown jewel. At the heart of the matter lies the 2005 award of Iran's mobile licence to MTN – after Turkcell had already been named the winner. Now, after years of legal ping-pong, Turkcell's claim of corruption and foul play is finally inching towards a South African trial. MTN is trying to stop that from happening. The smoking gun Turkcell's legal counsel, New York-based King & Spalding's Cedric Soule, doesn't mince his words. 'MTN sought to obtain illegally what it could not win through honest competition,' he told Daily Maverick. The allegations, which are laid out in filings and interviews, read like an international spy thriller: Bribing foreign officials, including Javid Ghorbanoghli, then Iranian deputy foreign minister for the Africa Bureau, and South Africa's then ambassador to Tehran, Yusuf Saloojee; Trading influence at the United Nations nuclear watchdog, promising to help Iran avoid sanctions; Promising prohibited defence equipment, including Rooivalk attack helicopters and frequency-hopping radios, to sweeten the deal (Turkcell claims it has evidence, as yet undisclosed, that MTN communicated with Denel and Iranian officials). According to Turkcell, all this happened so that MTN could elbow its way into a $31-billion mobile market and walk away with the licence that should have gone to Turkcell. The deal was sealed days after South Africa abstained from a crucial vote related to Iran's nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late 2005. The vote concerned whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council for failing to comply with its IAEA Safeguards Agreement. But the abstention was seen as a deliberate act, motivated by concerns about the procedural fairness of the resolution and a desire to maintain the IAEA's authority. Specifically, South Africa's representative to the IAEA, Abdul Samad Minty, argued that the resolution was flawed and premature, as it bypassed the IAEA board of governors' role in the verification process. Minty said at the time that 'South Africa's commitment is to the IAEA's integrity and impartiality and is reluctant to undermine the agency's authority'. South Africa has also enjoyed good relations with Iran. Crucially, this abstention was not an isolated incident. South Africa also abstained on similar resolutions in 2006, highlighting a consistent stance on the matter. Soule says Turkcell 'won the licence fair and square' and that MTN's conduct undermined the integrity of international business. 'This case is about accountability,' he says. 'And it belongs in a South African courtroom.' A strong rebuttal MTN, for its part, has always dismissed Turkcell's claims as 'a fabric of lies' and a 'frivolous shakedown'. Its legal team, speaking about background exclusively to Daily Maverick, continues to lean heavily on the Hoffmann Report – a 2013 internal investigation led by British judge Lord Leonard Hoffmann. This report found 'no conspiracy,' labelled Turkcell's key witness a 'fantasist' and said MTN executives were in the clear. It even found that although a $400,000 payment had been made to an Iranian intermediary, the money's purpose couldn't be determined – and was irrelevant to Turkcell's central claims. MTN also argues that Turkcell failed to comply with Iranian laws after a shift in government policy. 'They failed to adjust their shareholding in time,' MTN argues, 'and were lawfully excluded from the process.' As for the most salacious allegations – military gear and political favours – MTN says it would be impossible for its actions to have altered Iranian legislation or international diplomacy. The Hoffmann Report indicates that a general election took place in Iran on 20 February 2004, which resulted in a new parliament taking office in May 2004. This new Iranian parliament was overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives who opposed the government's policy of privatisation and foreign inward investment, particularly in relation to the cellphone service. The Single Article Act, designed to strengthen financial discipline, stemmed from this shift in parliamentary power. Snookered in ownership Following the Single Article Act, the parliament passed another significant piece of legislation in February 2005, known as the Irancell Act. This act imposed further conditions, requiring that 51% of the shares in the operating company be held by Iranian entities and that all board decisions require the approval of at least 50% of the shareholders. This was understood to be due to concerns about foreign entities becoming heavily involved in what was considered critical infrastructure in Iran. These legislative changes created significant obstacles for Turkcell, which had initially won the tender with a plan to control 70% of the shares. 'Turkcell was given multiple opportunities to negotiate with its existing partners to reach a compliant deal, but they didn't do that or they were not able to do that,' MTN's legal team argues. The team points to a specific deadline – 4 September 2004 – when the Ministry of Telecommunications demanded a compliant deal from Turkcell, which the Turkish company failed to deliver. 'Turkcell has never explained how MTN's [alleged] corrupt practices would have led to a change in national legislation,' MTN's lawyers emphasise, arguing that their client was simply better positioned to navigate Iran's evolving regulatory landscape. After Turkcell's 2012 US complaint, MTN commissioned the independent investigation led by Lord Hoffmann, a retired British Supreme Court judge. But Turkcell has 'strongly rejected MTN's repeated reliance on the Hoffmann Report', with Soule calling it 'unreliable and irrelevant' to current proceedings. The Turkish company has criticised the investigation, claiming: Conflicts of interest: Lord Hoffmann's daughter, Jennifer, worked for MTN Mobile Money during the relevant 2004-2006 period and also in the MTN Banking joint venture with Standard Bank, which was involved in the financial transfers. 'Lord Hoffmann had a huge conflict of interest,' Soule argues. Lack of independence: The committee was composed of MTN non-executive directors and used MTN's own external lawyers (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) instead of independent counsel. The committee even thanked the Islamic Republic of Iran for support – problematic given Iran's alleged involvement in the wrongdoing. Insufficient rigour: The committee didn't actually interview key witnesses like former MTN director in Iran Chris Kilowan, then commercial director Irene Charnley (to whom Jenny Hoffmann reported) or former MTN CEO Phuthuma Nhleko to determine credibility, relying only on written statements prepared with lawyers' help. The committee did not independently seek documents, relying instead on what MTN's lawyers provided. Turkcell characterises the report as essentially 'a PR exercise' to review curated evidence and reach predetermined conclusions. The company declined to participate owing to concerns about the committee's structure and independence. Where we are now In April this year, the Supreme Court of Appeal handed Turkcell what it called a 'procedural win' – confirming that South African courts do have jurisdiction to hear the matter. It dismissed MTN's argument that South Africa cannot police corporate misconduct committed abroad. 'Not on our watch' was how the court framed its message to South African firms doing business in murky waters. MTN is now seeking leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court in a last-ditch effort to stop the case from going to trial. Turkcell has filed its opposition. 'The report never seriously asked: what if we did do some of these things?' says Soule. 'It only asked: is Turkcell's story perfect?' MTN has argued that Iranian courts would offer a fair alternative venue for the dispute, but Turkcell has strongly rejected that suggestion. The Turkish company cites 'well-documented concerns regarding judicial independence and due process' in what it describes as a 'religious dictatorship where dissent is not tolerated'. More practically, Turkcell argues that Iranian courts wouldn't be able to compel MTN executives, who reside in South Africa, to appear and testify – a crucial limitation given the nature of the allegations. But the fact remains that Turkcell also refused to participate in the Hoffmann inquiry, claiming its witnesses would not be safe and due process could not be guaranteed in Iran. Although the Supreme Court of Appeal agreed that Iranian law would apply to aspects of the case, Turkcell sees this as its 'only and probably final opportunity' to get a substantive ruling on MTN's alleged misconduct. If it proceeds, this would become one of South Africa's most explosive corporate trials. MTN also faces what amounts to a 'reputational trial in the court of public opinion', regardless of the legal outcome. The company holds a 49% minority stake in Irancell, which it says is not under MTN Group's operational control. The case also highlights claims of a complex interplay between corporate interests and state foreign policy. President Cyril Ramaphosa served as MTN Group chairperson (a non-executive role) more than 12 years ago, resigning from the position in May 2013. But MTN asserts that any suggestion of improper benefit from his time at the company is 'false and misleading', and emphasises that it does not conduct business in alignment with government foreign policy. The Constitutional Court is expected to announce its decision on MTN's leave to appeal within the next three months. MTN's other Iran headache MTN just can't catch a break in the Middle East, with new scrutiny coming from the US. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has written a letter urging Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) to investigate its ties with MTN. Her letter highlights concerns about MTN's links to Iran, Hamas and President Cyril Ramaphosa's finances. She calls for BNY Mellon to halt its role as the bank handling MTN's shares in the US, cooperate with US authorities, and disclose its involvement with MTN and its Iranian affiliates. A pending lawsuit, Zobay v MTN, accuses MTN of financing terrorism, as defined by the US Anti-Terrorism Act. Stefanik claims significant legal precedent exists, which MTN denies. Senior MTN executive Nompilo Morafo rejected Stefanik's claims in an interview with Daily Maverick, stating that the allegations have not been tested in court. Morafo also dismissed accusations against Ramaphosa, who chaired MTN 12 years ago, and insisted MTN has no operational control in Iran, holding only a minority share in Irancell. MTN says it 'remains committed to human rights', and its directors have pushed for a pivot to the company's pan-African strategy, despite litigation and pressure from US legislators. DM
