Former DiData bosses reject Goodall's admission as a product of his NTT settlement

Four former Dimension Data executives have hit back. Jeremy Ord, Steven Nathan, Saki Missaikos and Grant Bodley say Jason Goodall had no right to admit wrongdoing on their behalf. They claim his statement was shaped by a settlement with NTT that ended his own UK arbitration. The Campus transaction at the heart of the fight sits before the Supreme Court of Appeal, with judgment reserved. So why did Goodall turn, and why now? The executives offer their version..Statement issued on behalf of Jeremy Ord, Steven Nathan, Saki Missaikos and Grant Bodley.We have noted with shock and dismay the statement which appears to have been made by Jason Goodall dated 5 October 2026, in which he has seen fit to speak on our behalf in admitting wrongdoing in respect of both his and our conduct in relation to the Campus Transaction. Not only was Mr Goodall not authorised to make any statement on our behalf, but his admission of wrongdoing is also entirely inconsistent with what Mr Goodall has deposed to under oath.We note that Mr Goodall's statement was signed as a term of a negotiated settlement that resolves substantial personal claims NTT had brought against him in separate proceedings in the UK. The arbitration proceedings launched by NTT against Mr Goodall were set down for hearing on 5 October 2026. There is no doubt that the wording of Mr Goodall's statement is the product of what was negotiated and agreed between NTT and Mr Goodall as a term of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement has not been published. Only carefully selected terms of the settlement have been revealed in Mr Goodall's statement.It is most unusual, but not difficult to understand, why Mr Goodall not only admitted that he was guilty of wrongdoing but also agreed with NTT to use the platform of his own settlement statement (in proceedings in which we were not involved) to point the accusatory finger at us as well. Mr Goodall has regrettably permitted NTT to use him as a weapon in their dubious ongoing publicity campaign against us.Mr Goodall advised us, via WhatsApp on 5 October, before this statement was released that he was “devastated” and “shattered” and that in the context of "a brutal weekend and a really tough time over the last 6 months preparing for the arbitration", he had settled his case with NTT. There is no doubt that he felt pressure to conclude the settlement agreement and to agree to the statement that he advised that NTT would publish because if he had been unsuccessful, he would have, in his words, been "totally wiped out”.It is sad for us to respond to Mr Goodall's statement by pointing out that what he has now stated directly contradicts many statements he has made under oath and that he has done so pursuant to the terms of the settlement he has reached with NTT..Contrary to Mr Goodall's statement and to what Mr Goodall himself deposed to under oath, the fund structure through which we made our indirect investment in the Campus transaction was designed by Identity Partners and specifically approved by NTT under advisement from various advisors including Webber Wentzel Attorneys and a commercial bank. The structure was not designed with the intention of hiding our participation in the Campus transaction.In fact, what makes Mr Goodall's statement all the more inexplicable is that he knows that Grant Bodley sought and obtained permission from him (in his capacity as Bodley's boss and as a representative of NTT) to participate in the Fund.We only participated in the Fund because the Campus was considered by us and NTT to be an integral and essential part of an MBO transaction which we were actively negotiating with NTT from 2019 to 2021 and which we had been told by NTT to keep under wraps to avoid speculation and market uncertainty. NTT at all times controlled the Campus through the loan in terms of which they had provided 95% of the purchase price for the Campus and at any point they could have taken the Campus back under the loan as they have now done.Lastly, we note with concern, the deeply inappropriate but expedient nature of the timing of the release of Mr Goodall's statement. The wrongdoing which has been gratuitously attributed to us in Mr Goodall's statement is currently before the Supreme Court of Appeal, where judgment has been reserved. The entire matter is sub judice.We have full faith in the Supreme Court of Appeal, and we will not be judged by a statement made by Mr Goodall on terms dictated by his settlement agreement with NTT.

Former DiData bosses reject Goodall's admission as a product of his NTT settlement

Related Stories

BizNews Edge: Shapiro on Jason Goodall's Didata admission - what it means for Jeremy Ord and Co

Rebuilding the Fortress: Steven Brown on turning around one of the JSE's toughest situations

Strong fundamentals continue to power growth for Fortress Real Estate Investments

AI should not decide who gets a social grant: lessons from a South African court case