Maurice David Lepar, a financial advisor, was found to have been grossly negligent by the Commission of Enquiry and found to have been one of those responsible for the R20m lost by the members.
It was found that David Lepar was grossly negligent in his assessment of the situation and by authorising Deloitte to do the work at the rate that they did. Further he provided no persuasive reasons for the rebuild which he positioned as fixing a problem that he did not prove was a problem at all.
It was found that the evidence showed that the records discarded by David Lepar may have been correct.
It was found that the Deloitte Report provides no corroboration for David Lepar’s various assertions that the respective fund’s values were inaccurate during the course of Dynamique’s tenure as administrator.
It was found that it is not improbable that if there were problems with the Aon records that these occurred after the sale of the business had been concluded.
It was found that David Lepar made no attempt to examine Aon’s role in the accuracy of member records and were quite content to lay the blame at Dynamique’s and Kamionsky’s door.
It was found that it was highly irresponsible of David Lepar to ask Deloitte to undertake the Rebuild without establishing some justification for spending Members’ money.
It was found that it is almost certain that had David Lepar observed the age-old practice of obtaining three quotes, that they could have obtained a cheaper quote for the rebuild.
It was found that the unnecessary charges could have been completely avoided had adequate insurance been in place to cover the contingencies that the trustees faced. David Lepar’s argument that an insurance claim would, in any event have been repudiated was rejected and his insinuation that administrator Aon were negligent in keeping the policy up to date was also rejected. It was found that this is a smoke screen to cover up his negligence in failing to maintain adequate insurance cover.
It was found that David Lepar by failing to disclose his non-payment of the insurance premiums to the members once again failed in his fiduciary duty to act in Members best interests by keeping them informed of developments. Further, by David Lepar also not disclosing the non-payment to the High Court he withheld vital information from the High Court in his pleadings and heads of argument.
David Lepar was also found liable by the Pension Funds Adjudicator. So in reality two independent adjudicators have already ruled on the matter and both found David Lepar to be liable and his actions to have been negligent.
Regarding this Pension Funds Adjudicator determination that ordered David Lepar to repay the money, it was found that he had this determination set aside by the High Court on a pure technicality given none of the cited members had the resources to defend the appeal. This case is a prime example of how the legal system almost unwittingly denies the ordinary man in the street true justice. Better-resourced individuals are able to gain a perceived victory over less resourced individuals. The perception of victory is created although none is actually achieved. The system permits perceptions of victory to manifest on occasion instead of ensuring that a final resolution on the merits is convincingly achieved one way or another. This is a fault in the legal procedure system.
What Consumer Watchdog SA had to say about the actions of David Lepar can be found here.
The information on David Lepar from Trustee Failures website can be found here.
The Tangilism view of the behaviour of David Lepar can be found here.
The information on David Lepar from Negligent Actions website can be found here.
Details on false accusations made by David Lepar can be found here.
Details on abuse of power by David Lepar can be found here.
Details on non-disclosure by David Lepar can be found here.
Details on worst decisions ever by David Lepar can be found here.
Details on running from responsibility by David Lepar can be found here.
