Crowdfarming platform Livestock Wealth fighting liquidation

Investors in Livestock Wealth’s cattle, pregnant cows, macadamia nuts and small portions of farmland are faced with new concerns as one of the large shareholders and creditors has obtained a court order to liquidate the crowdfarming platform.

The liquidation order was brought by MIC Khulisani Ventures (Pty) Ltd, an investment arm of the Mineworkers Investment Company (MIC), and was granted by the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court in an order dated 8 May 2026.

A liquidator was appointed by the court per an order dated 7 July 2026.

Livestock Wealth filed an application for leave to appeal the liquidation order a few weeks later, but the appeal was dismissed in a judgment dated 26 August 2026.

As things stand now, Livestock Wealth is facing liquidation.

However, founder and chief executive Ntuthuko Shezi remains defiant.

He says the disagreement with MIC amounts to a dispute and that the dispute is not grounds for liquidation, despite admitting in court proceedings that Livestock Wealth is “financially distressed”.

“We addressed this matter in our investor newsletter earlier this year.”

Explanation to investors

“The Livestock Wealth brand has four operating companies and this matter pertains to only one of them,” he said at the time.

“We remain engaged in an ongoing legal dispute with one of our shareholders, the Mineworkers Investment Company. This matter relates to MIC’s investment into Livestock Wealth in 2022, when they acquired a 5% equity stake in the platform operating company, Livestock Wealth (Pty) Ltd.

“Part of the term sheet involved them advancing a R3 million shareholder loan that was intended to be converted into equity in July 2025. Following the widely publicised FSCA [Financial Sector Conduct Authority] investigation in January 2024 – which has since concluded in our favour – the relationship between the parties deteriorated.”

He said in the investor newsletter: “In July 2024, MIC instituted legal proceedings relating to the shareholder loan. The High Court ruled in their favour.

“While we respect the court’s decision, we believe there are important legal issues that warrant further consideration, so we have lodged an appeal.”

He said the legal team was confident of a favourable ruling, but that did not materialise.

His latest response is: “Our new attorneys have filed an appeal with the SCA [Supreme Court of Appeal] which we are confident will succeed.”

Dispute

The high court ruled earlier that the disagreement between Livestock Wealth and MIC did not constitute a dispute in the legal sense, but rather a default of a loan agreement.

Shezi argued in court that the disagreement with the MIC was a dispute and that MIC was not within its rights to ask for repayment of a loan for R3 million – which, with interest added, had increased to R4.2 million at the time – before repayment was due at the end of the loan term.

MIC testified that Livestock Wealth was in default because it did not adhere to conditions to supply regular financial statements and management reports as set out in the loan agreement, and did not rectify the default when prompted to do so.

The court agreed with MIC.

“Clause 10.3 of the loan agreement imposed recurring financial reporting obligations on Livestock. The existence and content of those obligations, MIC’s requests for the information and Livestock’s undertaking on 21 February 2024 to provide financial information within 30 days, yet failed to do so, were not seriously disputed,” the judge said.

“MIC alleged that Livestock did not comply and sought acceleration of the outstanding amount. Livestock disputed MIC’s entitlement to accelerate but did not advance a positive and particularised factual case identifying what clause 10.3 information it supplied, when it supplied it, to whom it was sent or how delivery occurred.

“The issue is therefore both whether a real factual dispute about compliance was raised and whether the alleged failure was sufficiently identified in the acceleration notice. MIC’s acceleration notice of 24 June 2024 declared the outstanding amount immediately due and payable.

“The decisive issue is not whether Livestock raised a dispute. Rather, it is whether the papers disclosed a genuine, sufficiently particularised and objectively reasonable dispute and whether the Court went beyond permissible scrutiny of that dispute by finally resolving contested primary facts,” the judge ruled during the hearing of appeal.

The court also ruled against Shezi’s argument that the loan was not a standard loan, but rather a shareholders’ loan similar to preference shares, and that the parties agreed that the loan would be converted to shares rather than settled in cash.

The judge quoted several paragraphs in the loan agreement which all referred to a “loan” and standard loan repayment conditions.

The court noted that the terms of the loan required settlement in cash with the option to convert the loan to equity.

Another loan

MIC further argued that Livestock Wealth should be liquidated as it was unable to honour its commitments, as was obvious when Shezi applied for a second loan from MIC.

He wanted another R6 million – to repay money due to the underlying Livestock Wealth investors.

The court ruling states that Livestock Wealth might be insolvent.

“The financial statements reflect its liabilities as R26 million. Considering the loans by Mr Shezi and MIC (the total of which should be in excess of R36.6 million) it appears that the liabilities were substantially understated and, if so, that Livestock may well be factually insolvent,” according to court documents.

The court also refused an earlier application to place Livestock Wealth in business rescue, hinting that the application for business rescue looked like a ploy to postpone liquidation.

It ruled that the application for business rescue lacked the basics of a credible plan.

Shezi replied to Moneyweb enquiries that he was negotiating a settlement between MIC and Livestock Wealth in parallel with the court process.

“Importantly, this matter does not affect the day-to-day operations of Livestock Wealth,” he says.

“Our farming activities, citrus farming, investment products, housed in separate legal entities, are not affected.

“Our services to investors continue as normal, and we remain fully focused on executing our long-term growth strategy.”

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.