Tiger Brands might have survived a humiliating public flogging at the Competition Tribunal, but this doesn’t mean the heat is off CEO Nick Dennis.

Calls for Dennis’ resignation have risen in recent weeks, and this sentiment was boosted by Tribunal chairman David Lewis’ comments that some of Tiger Brands’ staff would be behind bars this Christmas, had this price-fixing taken place in another jurisdiction, like the US.

Dennis himself took a pounding at the Tribunal from groups such as the Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu), the Black Sash and the Human Rights Commission. Cosatu described it as “appaling” that companies enrich themselves “at the expense of the poor”.

Despite the general feeling that the fine was too low for a company that reported R2,4bn in profits last year, the Tribunal simply approved the R98m fine, which now must be paid within 30-days (see the attached consent order).

One got the impression that Lewis wasn’t entirely happy with this sanction. Shareholders, too, might consider the fine to be less harsh than they could have expected.

After all, Nick Dennis himself earned more than a tenth of that fine last year, when he was paid R11,1m, which included a bonus of R4,8m. The year before, he scooped another R11,1m, including an even larger bonus of R5,3m.

Last year, Tiger Brands made a R2,4bn pre-tax profit, which means this fine represents barely 4,1% of its profits for a single year. When you consider this in terms of the total money it made, this fine represents less than 1% of its R16,4bn turnover last year.

In this context, the damage to Tiger Brands’ reputation (and that of Dennis) far exceeds the slap on the wrist of the R98m fine.

Dennis was described by Business Report as “visibly shaken” during the Tribunal proceedings, and he continued to stress during the day that he hadn’t known of the price fixing.

Now, whether that is true or not is the subject of an investigation by Edward Nathan Sonnenburg. An anonymous letter sent to Tiger Brands’ chairman Lex van Vught earlier this week by senior staff suggests Dennis is anything but innocent.

However, there is a growing sentiment that Dennis should quit, even if he isn’t forced out by shareholders after the probe is finished. (Well aware of this pressure, Tiger Brands has already consulted with their major shareholders).

Tiger Brands could help its own case if it were to release the full forensic report, which it provided to the commission, but Van Vught has already refused to do so, claiming it is an “internal report”. Nor will it release the anonymous letter.

Under seige from the public, Tiger Brands’ initial reluctance to assume responsibility for this mess (and blame certain managers instead) didn’t do it any favours. Its lack of committment to transparency now isn’t helping either.

tiger-consent-order.pdf

—