Jacques Magliolo
IN an era of increasing “transparency” it is curious that Gencor chairman Brian Gilbertson has not held a press conference to answer questions about the sudden dismissal of senior executive Trevor Rees after allegations that he had tried to blackmail Gencor.
The matters raised in the press already, after all, could seriously affect the reputation of the company, and the speculation that has already surfaced could have been quickly dispelled.
“Gilbertson does not talk to the media on matters relating to personnel,” the company’s public affairs consultant Lesley Lambert said. She added that he will, however, “be making a statement regarding the dismissal of Rees.”
Media disclosure on the sudden dismissal of Rees — after being appointed as new business general manager — came as a complete surprise to investors and the public alike. While it may be Rees’ prerogative to “take early retirement”, which would indeed be of negligible interest to the media, fraud and blackmail amounting to R2-million are.
The press statement reads: “Rees pleaded guilty to a disciplinary complaint that during January 1995 he attempted to secure, in addition to his contractual entitlement at the time of his proposed early retirement, a payment by the company of R2-million in return for his agreement not to disclose confidential, sensitive and potentially damaging information.”
But why would Rees accept a new position as business general manager then summarily retire. Secondly, why did Gencor raid Rees’s home if there is indeed no foundation for his claims that Gencor had committed frauds on the Commissioner of Inland Revenue?
Gencor’s reply is through a press statement which reads: “The company has reported this allegation to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and has instructed its joint auditors, Coopers & Lybrand and KPMG Aiken & Peat, to investigate.” The statement also admits that the “company’s attorneys recovered confidential company documents which Rees had taken to his home.”
Lambert refused to divulge what these statements are and Rees could not be contacted for comment.
Company directors have a fiduciary duty towards shareholders, and should commmunicate with them.
Tom Bramwell-Jones, a stockbroker at EW Balderson says: “A director is not obliged to talk to the press. He is, however, obliged to communicate with shareholders.”
All very well, but won’t it take too long before the next AGM takes place, or will a formal announcement in the form of a press advertisement provide investors with satisfactory answers? Or does the company expect shareholders to call a meeting before they respond?
“It is a delicate matter,” says Bramwell-Jones, “and speculation is bound to be rife.” Exactly. There is no need for speculation at all, when the directors can simply call a press meeting, make a statement and answer questions.