The End Of Sarral Options

[ColinS]

Re: the matter of Shapiro and Galeta vs SARRAL:

In a judgement delivered at the Johannesburg High Court on Friday 6 November 2009, the judge ruled that SARRAL was to be wound up.

This brings to an end a lengthy legal battle over composers' royalties.

[fly*]

Nicely done Colin

[Dj nk0khi]

Well... they SARRAL sing a different tune on this matter…….

Re: the matter of Shapiro and Galeta vs SARRAL:

In a judgement delivered at the Johannesburg High Court on Friday 6 November 2009, the judge ruled that SARRAL was to be wound up.

This brings to an end a lengthy legal battle over composers' royalties.

[ColinS]

A few extracts from the judgement:

- SARRAL was factually insolvent many years ago and changed their accounting policy as a response to the liquidation action.

- SARRAL acts an an agent and had no right to use royalties as income.

- SARRAL's change in its accounting policy was in conflict with its constitutive documents.

- SARRAL's board and controllers conducted "systematic mismanagement" of the company.

- SARRAL's financial statements from 2003 onwards clearly mis-state the affairs of the company by treating royalties as income.

- SARRAL wrongfully appropriated royalty money and kept members in a state of ignorance as to the true state of affairs of the company.

[Patel]

I was at the high court for three days of the hearing on this matter, and SARRAL were honestly unable to defend the allegations raised by Shapiro and Galeta's legal team.

I hope that the judgement that SARRAL be wound up would mean that this will be the last music composers have to hear from this disgraceful organization.

[ColinS]

All those following this story should understand something very important, which was noted by the judge. He said that SARRAL mis-represents itself on its website.

On SARRAL's FAQs page http://www.sarral.org.za/faq_tips/

7. How does SARRAL meet its expenses?
Being a non-profit organization, SARRAL's only objective is to cover expenses. This is done in two ways:

Any income that is earned by investing money awaiting distribution is offset against expenses.
The balance of the expenses is covered by charging a commission on the royalties collected.

This is blatantly untrue.
SARRAL's advocate admitted in court that the company first deducted commission off the total of royalties collected. It then further deducted all of its expenses.

This is in breach of all its member agreements.

Since the beginning of this case, SARRAL has tried to argue that it is entitled to deduct all of its expenses. The judge ruled that this was NOT correct and that SARRAL had abused and mis-appropriated royalty money for many years.

Even if SARRAL had been correct, how could they justify using over 50% of composers' royalties? This completely contradicts their latest statement that "SARRAL is still very much alive and operating – and will continue to fight in the interest of our members. "

They are merely fighting to keep themselves alive - by further abusing royalty money.

[ColinS]

For the record and for clarity:
Sunday World published an article which suggested that a judgement was given last Friday 27 November liquidating SARRAL.

In fact, this judgement was given 3 weeks earlier, on November 6th.

SARRAL have since published a statement on their website which claims it is "business as usual." This is in direct conflict with the liquidation order and demonstrates total denial on their part. Apparently they are even still trying to recruit new members!

SARRAL have lodged their intention to ask for leave to appeal the judgement, but this does not mean that such permission will even be granted. I will update these forums as matters progress. Until the appeal process is sorted out, SARRAL is obliged to comply with the liquidation order.