Cape Town - The case in which JSE-listed AYO Technology Solutions (AYO) is defending itself against claims by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) arising from a subscription agreement concluded between them in 2017 resumes in the Western Cape High Court today.
The PIC, which is also the guardian of 82% of the Government Employees Pension Fund’s portfolio, wants the court to set aside its subscription agreement and recover the R4.3 billion it invested in December 2017 for a 29% stake in AYO when the company listed.
When the court adjourned on Thursday last week, the second witness in the case, British Telecom SA (BTSA) managing director Bertrandt Delport, who was the company’s internal legal counsel in 2017, had just begun giving his evidence. He was being led by PIC counsel Duncan Wild.
Delport told the court about the 30% effective shareholding in BTSA that was held at the time by African Equity Empowerment Investment Ltd (AEEI) and which AYO would subscribe for upon AYO’s listing, along with a partnership between the entities.
This was known as the “key strategic relationship with BT” and “alliance agreement” (the BT transaction) and internally at BTSA as “Project Zebra”.
In terms of the arrangement, and as per the pre-listing document and the BT Alliance, AYO would “take over and provide the BT transition services in South Africa, including the BT service desk, technical engineering capacity, maintenance and support services post the listing and will provide such services to BT and its clients in South Africa and to companies within the AYO Technology Group”.
Delport testified on how the deal, following the inception of the new updated ICT codes in terms of B-BBEE, would allow AYO (and de facto BTSA), to engage with a greater number of large multinationals operating in South Africa and abroad.
After his testimony, it is expected that Delport will remain on the stand to be cross-examined by AYO’s counsel.
There was, however, drama as Delport began his testimony on Thursday afternoon when the judge advised him to report to the police a threatening phone call he claimed to have received.
The call was allegedly related to his testimony and was made from an unknown number by an unknown person.