JOHN DANIEL HOLDINGS LIMITED - RESULTS OF GENERAL MEETING AND RESPONSE
TO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
JOHN DANIEL HOLDINGS LIMITED
(Incorporated in the Republic of South Africa)
(Registration number 1998/013215/06)
Share code: JDH ISIN: ZAE000044343
(`JDH` or the company`)
RESULTS OF GENERAL MEETING AND RESPONSE
TO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
RESULTS OF GENERAL MEETING
LPC Manhattan Sponsors (Proprietary) Limited is authorised to announce that, at
the general meeting of the company held on 13 July 2004, shareholders
unanimously passed both special resolutions to approve the specific issue of
shares for cash by Vinguard Limited (`Vinguard`).
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE PRESS
In the light of certain allegations reportedly made by Mr Peter van der Merwe
(`Van der Merwe`), of Grapetec Pty Limited (`Grapetec`) and reported in various
major daily newspapers, the company wishes to inform shareholders as follows:
* Neither the company nor its subsidiary Vinguard Limited (`Vinguard`) are
currently party to any litigation as reportedly alleged by Van der Merwe. Mr
Van Der Merwe`s reported statements to the press are incorrect and in the
opinion of the board wilfully aimed at damaging the good reputation of JDH and
Vinguard.
* As disclosed to shareholders in the circular dated 24 June 2004 and in the
Vinguard Prospectus litigation not involving either JDH or Vinguard is currently
in progress.
The previously disclosed facts are as follows:
JDH is not involved in any legal or arbitration proceedings, nor are the
directors aware of any proceedings which are pending or threatened which may
have or have had in the 12 months preceding the date of issue of this circular,
a material effect upon the financial position of the company. However, there
are certain litigation proceedings, to which the company is not a party, between
SO2 (the vendor of the Vinguard business and the sub-licensor of the technology
which is used by Vinguard in the manufacture of its products) and a certain
Dennis Charles Clemes (`Clemes` or the plaintiff`). The facts of the foregoing
are as follows:
* On the 25 November 2003, Clemes filed a claim in The Court of the Commissioner
of Patents for the Republic of South Africa alleging, inter alia, infringement
of South African patent / 89/0691 (`the Clemes patent`) by SO2.
* On the 12 February 2004 SO2. filed a Defendants Plea together with Claim in
Recovention on the grounds that in fact:
(i) Clemes the patentee was not entitled to apply for the Clemes patent.
(ii) That the Clemes patent was not new on the grounds of a lack of novelty.
(iii) That the Clemes patent is liable to be revoked on the grounds of lack of
clarity.
On 20 May 2004 the company received written confirmation from Spoor & Fisher -
Patent, Trade Mark and Copyright Attorneys, legal council for SO2 confirming
their opinion that the products licensed to the company do not infringe, neither
have they infringed the Clemes patent, which patent in suit, in their further
opinion is invalid on, inter alia, the grounds stated above. A second opinion
was sought by the company from an independent patent attorney and leading
academic who supports the opinion of Spoor & Fisher.
Both JDH and Vinguard have today instructed legal council to institute all
necessary action in order to restrain Van der Merwe and Grapetec.
These instructions include a formulation of a claim for damages.
Mossel Bay
13 July 2004
Sponsor
LPC Manhattan Sponsors (Pty) Ltd
Date: 15/07/2004 07:00:09 AM
Produced by the JSE SENS Department
Profile Group (Pty) Ltd. has taken care in preparing all information on this website, but does not accept any liability for errors or out-of-date information.
