The collapse of business rescue proceedings involving parts of the MyWealth group has led to litigation over control of the affected entities, the termination of the rescues, and the potential recovery of investor funds.
What began in mid-2024 as an attempt to stabilise financially distressed entities has since resulted in the termination of multiple business rescue processes, disputes between directors and parties described in court papers as affected persons and/or creditors, and court proceedings involving former business rescue practitioner (BRP) Stephen Roper.
Court papers, affidavits, and a circular issued to affected persons set out differing accounts of how the process unfolded, including references, in those documents, to funding constraints, disputes over access to financial records, and challenges in progressing the rescues.
The issues now before the High Court in Pretoria include whether the business rescue proceedings were lawfully terminated, whether the consequences of that termination can be set aside, and whether liquidation of the companies should follow.
All these matters are the subject of ongoing litigation, and the allegations and positions reflected in court papers have not yet been tested by the court.
Regulatory backdrop
In March 2024, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority imposed administrative penalties on MyWealth Method (Pty) Ltd and MyWealth DIAS (Pty) Ltd. These included a R58.8-million penalty against Method and R15.1m against DIAS, as well as the debarment of Charl Francois Coetzee for 20 years.
According to the FSCA, the entities had issued, marketed, and sold shares to the public without authorisation, offered returns of up to 400%, and failed to honour withdrawal requests. The regulator concluded that, “in essence”, Method operated a Ponzi scheme.
In June 2024, the FSCA issued a public warning regarding MyWealth Legatus (Pty) Ltd, stating it suspected the company of conducting unregistered financial services and/or the business of a bank by taking deposits. It further indicated that Legatus may have been carrying on the activities of Method and DIAS and confirmed that an investigation into the company and its directors, including Coetzee and Schalk Botha, was under way.
According to the latest update provided to Moonstone:
- the Method penalty remains in force but is unpaid;
- the DIAS penalty is under reconsideration and suspended pending proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal;
- Coetzee’s debarment remains in place pending reconsideration; and
- the Legatus investigation is ongoing, with no final findings yet published.
Mid-2024: companies enter – and later exit – rescue
The business rescue process began with MyWealth Legatus. On 12 June 2024, its directors resolved to place the company into business rescue, citing financial distress linked to an inability to access funds held by third parties.
The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission confirmed the appointment of Roper as BRP for Legatus and Method on 19 June 2024, with Method placed under supervision on 17 June 2024. Court papers indicate that he was also appointed as BRP for MyWealth Services, MyWealth Financial Services, and MyGrid Power.
MyWealth DIAS was not part of this initial group. It was placed into business rescue at a later stage under a separate practitioner – a distinction that subsequently became relevant to disputes concerning access to information, control of transactions, and the status of certain claimants.
In a founding affidavit, Coetzee stated that Legatus had sufficient funds to meet its obligations but was unable to access those funds. Business rescue was presented as a mechanism to investigate fund flows, assert control where possible, and work towards repaying investors.
In a circular issued to affected persons in December 2025, Roper indicated that, in his assessment, the position had changed materially. He set out concerns regarding the conduct of the business and the viability of continuing the rescue process.
He stated that these considerations informed his decision to terminate the business rescue proceedings on 8 December 2025.
Breakdown of the rescue process
In his answering affidavit, Roper describes a business rescue process that, in his account, became increasingly difficult to sustain.
The rescue was conducted on a contingent basis, with professional services rendered upfront and payment dependent on the successful recovery of funds. By late 2025, legal and forensic costs had reached several million rand, while recoveries had not materialised.
According to documents referenced in his affidavit, the legal framework supporting the rescue was affected when SmitSew Attorneys withdrew on 11 November 2025, stating: “we cannot undertake further legal proceedings without provision for our fees”.
The court battle
Following the termination of the business rescue proceedings, a group of applicants, described in court papers as affected persons and/or creditors, instituted legal proceedings against Roper.
In his answering affidavit, Roper records that the applicants seek, among other relief, his removal as BRP and an accounting of the companies’ affairs. He states the application raises concerns about how the rescue process was conducted and the steps taken to pursue potential recoveries.
Roper disputes the basis of the application. He questions whether certain applicants have standing as creditors, particularly where their claims appear to relate to what Roper describes as alleged movements, or “migration”, of funds from DIAS into other entities – which, he states, are not substantiated on the records available to him. On that basis, he contends that their status as creditors of the entities in rescue has not been established.
He further states that, in his view, the application is based on an incomplete account of the events leading to the termination of the rescues, and maintains the proceedings were lawfully ended. He also raises concerns about whether the application is aligned with the interests of the broader body of creditors.
The applicants’ version is set out in their own court filings, which are before the court.
The applicants seek relief that would, among other things, set aside the consequences of the termination and compel disclosure of financial information.
Roper, for his part, asks the court to dismiss the application, grant a punitive costs order, and place the companies into voluntary liquidation, alternatively requiring them to show why liquidation should not follow.
Coetzee and Botha were approached for comment. No response had been received by the time of publication.
A request for comment was also sent to the committee of creditors. A representative indicated they were not in a position to comment because the matter is sub judice and referred queries to the appointed legal team and the BRP.
The BRP for DIAS similarly declined to comment, citing the pending court proceedings and referring queries to the company’s legal representatives.
EDJ Attorneys Inc, representing the applicants, also declined to comment, stating the matter is before court, and it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage. The firm requested that reporting take into account the pending status of the proceedings.
What happens next
The matter has not yet been set down for hearing.
Key issues identified in the proceedings include:
- whether the business rescue proceedings were lawfully terminated;
- whether the applicants have standing;
- the role of DIAS and the status of claims relating to what Roper describes as movements of funds between entities; and
- the location and control of underlying assets.
Roper estimates that about 3 500 investors may be affected. For those investors, the outcome of the litigation is likely to influence whether, and to what extent, any recovery may be possible.
