Apavou Affair: 70% Stake Sale Sparks Controversy, Swan Defends Rivalland

The Swan Group has come forth to defend its Chief Executive Officer, Louis Rivalland, against what it deems to be “anonymous and unfounded allegations” currently circulating in the media. This response comes in light of an investigation by the Mauritius Investment Corporation (MIC) concerning the contentious sale of a 70% stake in East Coast Hotel Investment Ltd, the owner of the Ambre Hotel under the Apavou Group, for a staggering sum of €48 million, equivalent to Rs 2.4 billion.

In a statement submitted to the stock exchange, the board of directors refrained from naming the publication in question—widely believed to be the Corporate Integrity and Anti-Corruption report by One Veritas, titled “A Timeline of Illegal Conflicts, Fraud & Collusion in a Tax Haven,” implicating two former MIC directors, including Rivalland himself.

The board condemned the content as “malicious, unfounded, and a serious and unjustified attack on the professional integrity of Mr Rivalland and the Swan Group.”

They further asserted that these publications appear to be a deliberate attempt to distract the public from ongoing investigations by the Financial Crimes Commission into alleged irregularities within the MIC.

The statement continued, emphasising that as a former board member, Mr Rivalland is fully cooperating with the relevant authorities and remaining committed to providing support and assistance throughout the investigations.

The board urged both the press and the public to exercise caution regarding the credibility of these anonymous and misleading allegations.

However, an independent director closely monitoring this unfolding saga has expressed scepticism regarding the company’s response.

He remarked that the communiqué from this publicly listed company “resembles more of a jumble than a clear answer to the myriad questions shareholders and the public are asking.”

He pointedly noted, “It fails to clarify that the CEO still enjoys the full confidence of the directors.

It is certainly not by targeting the media that these directors justify their CEO’s presence on the MIC board for four years!

It is not the role of a board of directors to instruct internet users and journalists on how to behave. In short, this is nothing but smoke and mirrors,” he declared.

Source: l’Express