In 2010 Lew Geffen was dragged to Court when he tried to sell his auction company, Savile Row to Rael Levitt’s Auction Alliance Company.

Geffen’s partner’s in Savile Row took the matter to the High Court. Here is a synponsis of the case.

Lew Geffen

Rael Levitt

 

 

 

In the High Court matter between Geffen/Akoojee and Savile Row in 2010, Geffen contrived a scheme to sell Savile Row Auctions to the Alliance Group, without the approval of the Savile Row directors and shareholders.

Geffen had told Auction Alliance he could quickly get rid of the Savile Row MD and simultaneously withdraw his financial guarantees “so that the business will collapse in weeks”

Geffen promised Alliance a comprehensive due dilligence into the Savile’s affairs without any of Savile’s shareholders and directors knnowing about it. The court ordered that the due dilligence be halted and that Geffen and Auction Alliance be prevented from using any confidential information.

Stephen Thomson, Geffen’s trusted Attorney, contrived court papers in a manner, which were frequently unsubstantiated. By way of example, in the extract from the court papers in the aforementioned case, the opposing party revealed in their replying affidavit how Thomson, on behalf of Geffen, “made allegation that are unsubstantiated and unfounded without providing a shred of evidence, in a vindictive campaign, using sworn affidavits in support of their unsubstantiated allegations”

Geffen, via Thomson too uses the “urgency” aspect of a High Court application to expedite his cause, introducing elements that are aimed to convince the Judge that Geffen is a  victim of an urgent gross injustice, whereas in fact Geffen is frequently the real perpetrators.

The extract below from the court papers, summarised Thompson’s tactics succinctly:

“It is further submitted that clear and undoubted proof of the applicants’ (Lew Geffen and Akoojee) scurrilous, false and unsubstantiated allegations is the applicants’ reckless behaviour in bringing an application where:

•    they know evidence to be false;

•    they know certain allegations to be without any justification or substantiation; and

•    they ought to have foreseen a real dispute of fact.”

Neither Geffen nor Thomson have no morals or ethics when it comes to doing battle, and Thomson will draft affidavits for his clients without regard to substantiated facts or evidence and frequently entices his clients to make statements that are clearly false. Rouge clients and attorney exist in every walk of life; Thomson though pushes the boundaries further than most.

The following court statements, made in defence of the trumped up charges, in the same case cited above, substantiate the above:

• Geffen’s behaviour was unacceptable and disgraceful; to such an extent that it caused the gradual corrosion of the relationship, trust and goodwill between all the parties at Savile Row. Geffen’s treachery was the symbolic ‘straw’ that broke the camel’s back, and resulted in the respondents (and others) concluding that a continued relationship and association with Geffen was unsustainable, and would be tantamount to professional suicide;
• Geffen’s conduct was so deplorable and unacceptable to the respondents, that internal steps were taken against Geffen, including his retraction “from operational issues” and to act only as non executive chairman and director
• Another facet of Geffen’s cleverly laid out plans to collapse Holdings and Savile Row, became evident in April 2010, when Geffen sought to effect the departure of the CEO of Savile Row, Townes. Clearly, if Geffen could get his hands on this shareholding, he would be able to control the group of companies (with the help of “his accountant”, Bloch), and answer to no-one. This was ultimately prevented from happening.
• Geffen’s June 2010 offensive communication to staff: Geffen has sent, on a number of occasions, demoralising, insulting, offensive and inappropriate communications to members of staff within Savile Row, purely with the objective of demoralising them, and destabilising the business.
• Geffen’s September 2010 approaches to competitors: Geffen’s campaign to collapse and bring down Savile Row continued, when he approached competitors in the auction industry, with a view to establishing a new auction business. Geffen’s intent was to set up his own, new competing interest, to the detriment of Savile Row (the same company he now professes to “protect”).
• The harm caused by Geffen’s conduct: the constant fighting of internal battles within Savile Row, which battles were fomented by Geffen in his effort to destabilise the business, was another factor that significantly affected the respondents’ abilities to focus their efforts and attentions solely on rendering efficient and profitable service to Savile Row and their clients.

Thomson, frequently undermines the integrity of his opposition, labelling them dishonourable, unethical, scum, pests and the like, and if he does not get his way, he threatens them with various charges, High Court injunctions, contempt of court and the like. This pattern repeats itself time and time again.

Defeat for Lew Geffen Sotheby's as the Atlantic Sea Board Franchise is restored to rightful owners.

NOVEMBER 17, 2011

In a judgement against Lew Geffen Sotheby’s, Geffen was stripped of his new franchise he setup with Gail Gavril at Better Homes after he unlawfully seized the Atlantic Sea Board franchise on 17th October 2011. The High Court Judge restored the franchise to its rightful owner Rob Stefanutto on Wednesday. Geffen was interdicted from trading his new franchise in the name of Better Homes and from contacting the franchisee’s agents and clients.

Seven accounts of abuse of the ex parte by Geffen and Rohde
1.    The order was served on the wrong address, 3 Marine House, Sea Point instead of 375 Main Road Sea Point;
2.    The Sheriff of the Court failed to verify the correct address, Geffen accompanied by his troops took the Sheriff to the wrong address purposefully;
3.    The order placed Geffen in immediate control of the franchise business and premises; this contravenes Common Law (including Franchise Law), and the Franchise Agreement;
4.    The order gave Geffen, management control of the business; there is no common law, or clause in the franchise agreement that allows this. Geffen is not a shareholder or investor or Director of the franchise;
5.    The order interdicted the managers/directors of the franchise from contacting their staff; There is no common law, or clause in the franchise agreement that allows the franchisor to prevent the Directors of the franchise from contacting their staff and clients;
6.    Geffen and troops entered the premises of two other offices, not mentioned in the order;
7.    Geffen and troops seized books, records, bank accounts from the franchisee’s premises, simultaneously moving trade to his Johannesburg office.

Clinton Braude becomes Lew Geffen’s “Rent Boy”

NOVEMBER 13, 2011

Clinton Braude, an ex-manager of the Sotheby’s franchise on the Atlantic Sea Board, and Lew Geffen were arch enemies nine months ago, after Lew ordered his exit from Lew Geffen Sotheby’s saying he was a disgrace to the brand’s prestigious name. In March 2011, Clinton spotted Lew in the Virgin Active gym in Green Point, “working out”, he then deliberately disgorged phlegm surreptitiously from his colossal steroid body, into the sweat towel of Geffen, watching with delight as Geffen later mopped his brow.

Earlier this week, Geffen who claims he is 100% in control of the franchise dispute, won Clinton across as a key witness in his legal battle. Clinton was involved in a huge legal scam in New Zealand, some years back, (Google “Clinton Braude New Zealand” to find out more), he then fled to South Africa after draining the firm's bank account of more than £150,000. He later claimed he was fleeing from his bodybuilder boyfriend after a serious assault involving coconut oil, bondage and beating.

Clinton too has his named linked to the Ovation Global Investment Services (Pty) Ltdscam, where he was head of “Legal Risk and Compliance” in May 2007. The directors and management were accused of stealing funds. Cruickshank, one of accused, took his life in September 2007, while Brown is currently serving a prison sentence.

Clinton too has a fetish for rent boys; “his” boys would show up at in front of his office demanding their fee, at one point, a body guard needed to be placed outside his office to keep the boys away, and now Lew has gotten into bed with Clinton!

A house divided

Joan Muller Thursday, 15 Sep 2011

It seems that political in fighting between the new and old guard s at the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB) is threatening to derail efforts to restore the credibility of SA’s beleaguered real estate industry.

The surprise two-month suspension and subsequent resignation of board chairman Thami Bolani for alleged irregularities — followed by the suspension of board spokesman Portia Mofikoe — appears to stem from unpopular decisions Bolani made in his efforts to turn the board around.

The acrimonious sacking of former CEO Nomonde Mapetla earlier this year was clearly one of them. At the time, Bolani maintained that Mapetla was fired because of gross mismanagement. Though Mapetla denied this, with suggestions that her suspension was linked to blowing the whistle on the Wendy Machanik trust fund scandal, a forensic report by Deloitte Risk Advisory leaked to the media last week appears to back Bolani’s claims.

Bolani, who also chairs the National Consumer Forum, denied any wrongdoing in his resignation letter to minister of trade & industry Rob Davies, of which the FM has a copy.

He hinted in the letter that allegations against him were prompted by the critical decisions he took during his tenure at the EAAB, and which made him a “number of enemies’’. Bolani said the way events unfolded in prior months made his position “untenable”.

In his resignation letter Bolani undertook to give his full co-operation to the two investigations against him — one by the department and another by the office of the public protector.

These relate to allegations that he did not disclose his financial interests in a private business venture. His interest in NCF Consulting Enterprises may have constituted a conflict of interest with his position at the EAAB .

Industry players fear that Bolani’s departure will further hamper the board’s operational efficiency. It’s no secret that the EAAB has in recent years bungled the capturing of industry data, which led to thousands of registered estate agents not receiving their fidelity fund certificates on time. Without these it is illegal for an estate agent to sell a property.

Estate agents say they were hopeful that the board’s administrative processes would be vastly improved under Bolani’s seemingly decisive leadership. Andrew Golding, president of the Institute of Estate Agents of SA, says it appeared that the board was making progress in this regard under Bolani . “This new development is a setback for the industry.’’

Though new appointments have been made at the EAAB in recent weeks, including that of former chief financial officer Bryan Chaplog as CEO and that of Tryphina Dube, former deputy chair, as acting chair , this has apparently created further friction among board members. Industry insiders say the board is divided into pro-Bolani and pro-Mapetla camps.

While the shenanigans at the EAAB appear never-ending, the real estate industry’s credibility continues to be eroded. Sean McCauley, a director of Rawson Properties, says the industry now needs stability more than ever.

One way to achieve this, he believes, is for the industry to start lobbying for self- regulation. The general view is that if the statutory body cannot even regulate itself, how can it be entrusted to regulate an industry that turns over around R120bn/year?

But self- regulation would mean, among other things , an overhaul of the Estate Agency Affairs Act, which dates back to 1976, and would no doubt be a long and laborious affair.