In conclusion, this Court has reached the following determinations: A holding company that is not registered as a bank, lacks authorization to engage in foreign currency trading, and is only linked to a subsidiary that trades in foreign currency cannot be included in the referral affidavit based solely on this connection. As a result, the twenty-fourth respondent (Nedbank Group), the twenty-sixth respondent (FirstRand Limited), the eleventh respondent (Credit Suisse Group), and the twenty-first respondent (BANA) were improperly included in the referral affidavit, and their opposition to the Commission's efforts to add them to these proceedings should succeed.
Paraphrase:
In summary this Court has come to the following set of conclusions: A holding
company which is not registered as a bank, not authorized to trade in foreign currency
and whose role is simply shown to be that one of the subsidiaries traded in foreign
currency cannot on this alone be included in the referral affidavit. Accordingly, the
twenty fourth respondent, (Nedbank Group) the twenty sixth respondent, (FirstRand
Limited), the eleventh respondent (Credit Suisse Group), the twenty first respondent,
(BANA), were incorrectly joined in the referral affidavit and their opposition to the
Commission’s attempt to join them in these proceedings must succeed
1 answer