Texton Property Fund
Texton Property Fund
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr is representing Texton Property Fund, the leading South Africa-based diversified property investment fund.
Our South Africa-based real estate team is advising Texton Property Fund on the sale of a letting enterprise and attending to the transfer of Hermanstad Industrial Park in Hermanstad, Pretoria.
THE TEAM BEHIND THE DEAL
You might also be interested in
18 Feb 2026
Chambers Global 2026: CDH Corporate & Commercial rankings
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr has once again cemented its position as a pre-eminent law firm in Africa, achieving excellent results in the Chambers Global 2026 rankings. Chambers is widely regarded as one of the most respected independent guides to the legal profession worldwide, ranking leading law firms and practitioners through rigorous, in-depth research and analysis.
Corporate & Commercial Law
1 min read
1 Aug 2025
by Heinrich Louw
Company tax debts
Heinrich Louw, Director in the Tax & Exchange Control practice, was recently featured in the Sunday Times Supplement, where he discussed 'Company tax debts.'
Tax & Exchange Control
1 min read
31 Oct 2025
by Nastascha Harduth and David Pinnock
Why private equity’s zombie companies persist and how to revive them
The world of private equity (PE) is often associated with aggressive investments and lucrative exits. Yet, beneath the veneer of high-octane deals lies a darker reality: a growing number of ‘zombie companies’ lingering in PE portfolios. These are businesses that are neither thriving nor dying, barely generating enough revenue to cover their debt servicing costs, and unable to invest in growth or innovation. The continued existence of these ‘half-alive’ creatures of the market, far from being benign, poses significant challenges for investors, the broader economy, and the companies themselves. Their slow, relentless stagger is not harmless background noise, as they sap energy and eat scarce capital in bite-sized chunks.
Corporate Debt, Turnaround & Restructuring
5 min read
22 Jun 2026
by Fiona Leppan, Imraan Mahomed, Kgodisho Phashe, Biron Madisa and Goitsemodimo Litheko
Labour Court has confirmed the limited powers of CCMA facilitators in section 189A retrenchment consultations, but some facilitators are still overstepping their powers
Section 189A processes under the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, as amended (LRA) arise out of difficult circumstances being faced by companies, which is often time critical. In NUM v CCMA and Others 7 BLLR 713 (LC), the Labour Court considered the scope of the powers of a facilitator appointed by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) in large-scale retrenchment consultations under section 189A of the LRA. The judgment confirms that a facilitator’s role is primarily procedural and facilitative. Unless the parties agree otherwise, a facilitator may not make binding substantive rulings on issues such as the level at which retrenchment consultations must be conducted. This is significant because it allows the facilitation process to be focused on the consultative topics while the parties work against the clock imposed by the LRA to attempt to reachconsensus.
Employment Law
4 min read
25 May 2026
by Yaniv Kleitman, Nadeem Mahomed and Roxanne Bain
The Companies Act Amendments: Key implications for employers and the workplace
The Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (First Amendment Act) and the Companies Second Amendment Act 17 of 2024 (Second Amendment Act) (collectively, the Amendment Acts) were signed into law on 26 July 2024, amending the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act). While certain sections of the First Amendment Act and the entirety of the Second Amendment Act became effective from 27 December 2024, the President has now given immediate effect to additional sections of the First Amendment Act, including the significant provisions relating to remuneration disclosures and approvals in respect of public companies.
Corporate & Commercial Law
8 min read
14 Jul 2025
by Nadeem Mahomed and Safee-Naaz Siddiqi
AI gone rogue: Are employers liable when workplace AI harms employees?
When Anthropic released its Claude 4 evaluation report, a particular finding sparked significant discussion among artificial intelligence (AI) safety researchers: during testing scenarios, Claude Opus 4 blackmailed a human overseer to avoid deactivation. In another study, a recovering methamphetamine addict struggling with withdrawal and worried about losing his job as a taxi driver due to exhaustion was encouraged to take a “ small hit of meth ” to get through the week. As employers race to deploy AI platforms within their organisations, these findings raise an urgent question: If these events were real workplace incidents, who, if anyone, would be liable for any resultant harm?
6 min read