“The company has availed [sic] absolutely no evidence of alleged funding support. It has also not disclosed the financier, the amount expected or the terms of financing. The issue of financing is vague, ambiguous, and totally lacks credibility,” Hotpoint noted in court documents.
Hotpoint is one of 60 creditors in the suit. While refusing to disclose terms of the loan, Tuskys maintained that the investor’s entrance would allow the firm to find its footing again and position itself for acquisition. Reports indicated that the investor offering the Ksh2 billion loan sought to secure it using all of Tusky’s shares – putting shareholder’s stakes at risk in case of default.
“That as is custom in similar transactions, the applicant is unable to disclose the identity of its investor or specifics surrounding the terms and conditions of the transactional documents before financial closing owing to a non-disclosure agreement.
“A disclosure despite these terms would be in bad faith and would jeopardise the entire transaction,” a reply from Tuskys acting CEO Shadwick Okumu read in part.
More hurdles stand in the way of the deal, including the decision of two Tuskys shareholders to sell their combined stake of 27.5 percent in the chain, unlike other shareholders in the family-owned company who voted to take the Ksh2.1 billion loan.
Tuskys has in court sought to stop the cases seeking its liquidation for a year, arguing that it could turn things around commercially.
At the same time, however, many of its shelves remain empty and it has been forced to vacate several key spaces it once occupied. Employees continue to leave with some publicly expressing frustrations, and suppliers slug it out in Court seeking their dues.