Verdict on South Africa: denial and delay – Hubert Freidl and Radovan Vitoshevich
The case of the liquidation of Lyconet South Africa (Pty) Ltd is not only a story of financial mismanagement, but once again reveals the questionable behaviour of Hubert Freidl and Co. Both Freidl and Vitoshevich tried to deny responsibility for the debts incurred here as well.
The Lin lawsuit: the precedent that uncovered everything
A key figure in the entire case is Jianliu Lin, a senior marketer who had already filed a lawsuit against Lyoness/Lyconet in 2022. Her claims related to the outstanding payments in connection with Project X. Despite the promises, Lin also did not receive the agreed bonus.
Lin sued for the payment of 76 million rand (about 3.76 million euros), which she was demonstrably entitled to through Project X. The fact that Lyconet SA finally settled this claim is decisive proof that the Marketers’ claims in connection with Project X are legitimate. Nevertheless, Radovan Vitoshevich tried to deny these claims in the current liquidation proceedings. He claimed that the outstanding payments either did not exist or were not justified. However, the settlement of Lin’s claim in 2022 clearly refutes these claims.
In the context of the current proceedings, Lyconet Austria, which was also a defendant, was uncooperative in several respects. The provisional liquidators had enormous difficulties in obtaining access to the necessary documents that were crucial to clarifying the financial situation of Lyconet SA. It seems as if there was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the liquidation process and to conceal the truth about the debt situation.
denial and delay –
Hubert Freidl and Radovan Vitoshevich
Hubert Freidl’s absence from these proceedings is particularly striking. While he was personally involved in resolving the Lin lawsuit in 2022, he did not respond to inquiries in the current cases. This lack of cooperation made the work of the provisional liquidators considerably more difficult and makes it clear that Freidl is deliberately and habitually shirking responsibility.
A similar tactic was employed by Radovan Vitoshevich, who represented Lyconet Austria in the South African proceedings. Vitoshevich actively sought to distance himself from the operational management of Lyconet SA, claiming that he was not involved in the company’s day-to-day business. Instead, he shifted the responsibility to the South African directors John Allan and Wim Grobler, who, according to him, were responsible for any mismanagement. Ironically, one might think that Hubert Freidl had personally instructed him in his behavioural strategies.
Although he claimed to have known nothing about the Lin lawsuit, it was possible to prove that he was fully informed about the entire course of the lawsuit by presenting several messages and letters. This makes it clear that Vitoshevich actively tried to withhold information.
Another aspect that played a role in the proceedings was Lyconet Austria’s attempt to evade responsibility for the liabilities assumed by Lyoness. It is well known that Lyconet, as successor to Lyoness, took over many of the financial obligations, but Vitoshevich tried hard to deny these connections. Instead of clearly admitting liability, he relied on speculation and conjecture to further delay the liquidation process.
In addition, Lyconet Austria brought the statute of limitations argument into play to fend off the plaintiffs’ claims. But here, too, the attempt failed because the court found that the claims were demonstrably justified and still within the time limit. The Lin lawsuit is a crucial precedent here, as the settlement of the claims clearly shows that Lyconet Austria was operating with knowledge of the existing debts.
What this case reveals is a clear pattern of responsibility avoidance on the part of both Hubert Freidls and Radovan Vitoshevich. While Freidl stayed out of the current proceedings altogether, Vitoshevich tried to shield himself from reality by employing tactics such as refusing to provide information and denying facts. But the documents and evidence that came to light in the course of the proceedings tell a different story.
Their behaviour clearly shows that neither Freidl nor Vitoshevich are willing to take responsibility for the financial chaos they have caused with Project X. Instead, they are using delaying tactics and legal manoeuvres to avoid accountability.
The court was not deceived and the final liquidation of Lyconet South Africa was ordered despite all efforts.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!