Nedbank pays R600m to make Transnet ‘State Capture’ nightmare go away

Key topics:Nedbank pays Transnet R600m in interest swap dispute, admits no guiltSettlement avoids costly litigation, preserves key Transnet business tiesDisputed profits: Nedbank claims R43m, SIU alleges R2.7bn excess profit.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..BizNews Reporter.In a move clearly designed to close a painful chapter of State Capture-era litigation, Nedbank Group has agreed to pay Transnet R600 million in a "full and final" settlement regarding the controversial interest rate swap transactions concluded between the two entities in 2015 and 2016.The settlement, announced via a voluntary update to shareholders, comes with a critical disclaimer: Nedbank admits to no liability. Instead, the banking giant frames the payment as a "commercial settlement" intended to avoid the exorbitant costs and reputational attrition of a drawn-out legal battle with the state-owned logistics utility and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU).For Transnet, which has been aggressively pursuing recoveries from the "1064 locomotives" procurement disaster, the cash injection is a tangible win. For Nedbank, it is a calculated price to pay to protect its reputation and preserve a "long-standing business relationship" with one of South Africa’s most critical (albeit troubled) state-owned enterprises.Nedbank’s agreement to pay Transnet R600 million to settle its "1064 locomotives" interest rate swap dispute is significant, but when viewed against the broader tapestry of State Capture restitutions, it reveals a starkly different strategy..Read more:.Invest globally with ease: Nedbank’s new stockbroking feature.While global giants like ABB, SAP, and McKinsey paid billions and entered into Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or admitted to "irregularities" to avoid the wrath of the US Department of Justice (DoJ), Nedbank has managed to cut a check while maintaining a defiant stance of "no liability.".The most striking differentiator in the Nedbank deal is the refusal to admit guilt.ABB and SAP were cornered by the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). When the Americans get involved, the game changes. To avoid losing their ability to operate globally, these firms had to "come clean," leading to explicit admissions of bribery and massive punitive fines.Nedbank, being a South African domiciled bank, did not face the immediate barrel of the US DoJ in the same way. This allowed them to treat the matter as a commercial dispute rather than a criminal crisis. Their statement explicitly frames the R600m as a "settlement of litigation" to protect a business relationship, rather than reparation for looting.In the cases of McKinsey and KPMG, the focus was largely on returning fees earned from tainted contracts.McKinsey famously paid back R1 billion in fees to Eskom and Transnet even before the final settlements, arguing they wanted to give back money they hadn't "earned" fairly, though they initially fought the corruption label.Nedbank’s case is unique because the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) wasn't just chasing fees; they were chasing profit. The SIU claimed Nedbank made R2.7 billion in "excess profit" from the interest rate swaps. Nedbank claims their actual margin was only R43 million.A R600 million settlement is roughly 14x the profit Nedbank claims it made (R43m), but only 22% of the profit the SIU claims they made (R2.7bn). This suggests a compromise where Nedbank is paying a "peace premium" far higher than their earnings on the deal, likely to avoid the risk of a court finding that the R2.7bn figure was accurate.The "State Capture" DiscountCompared to ABB’s R2.5 billion punitive payment—which was explicitly labelled as "reparations" for criminal conduct—Nedbank’s R600 million looks like a bargain.ABB was essentially forced to pay for the damage they caused, not just the money they took. Nedbank has managed to avoid the "reparations" label entirely. By settling before the case hit open court, they avoided the possibility of a judge declaring the transaction "corrupt" or "fraudulent," which would have opened the door to much larger civil claims.Nedbank has effectively purchased an insurance policy for R600 million. It is a high premium, but it buys them immunity from the "State Capture" label that has permanently stained the brands of KPMG and SAP. For Transnet, cash-strapped and struggling to keep trains moving, R600 million in the bank today is worth far more than a theoretical R2.7 billion judgment five years from now.The Heart of the DisputeThe litigation traces its roots back to the height of the State Capture era. In July 2024, the SIU and Transnet jointly launched proceedings to set aside the interest rate swap transactions. Their central allegation was explosive: that the swaps were not only void and unenforceable under the Public Finance Management Act but that Nedbank had "unduly profited" from them to the tune of over R2.7 billion.The swaps were originally executed to hedge interest rate risk on a R12 billion club loan Transnet raised to finance its massive acquisition of 1,064 locomotives—a procurement deal now infamous for its irregularities and cost escalations.The SIU’s case relied heavily on the narrative that these financial instruments were part of a broader scheme to divert public funds to Gupta-linked entities. Specifically, the controversy centred on the role of Regiments Capital, a boutique financial advisory firm deeply embedded in the State Capture network. Regiments acted as Transnet’s transaction advisor while allegedly maintaining a cozy relationship with the bank. Critics and investigators have long argued that the switch from a floating to a fixed interest rate—facilitated by these swaps—was ruinous for Transnet but highly lucrative for the fee-takers and the bank.The "Profit" DiscrepancyOne of the most contentious points of the dispute has been the "profit" number. The SIU and Transnet’s court papers cited an "excess profit" of R2.7 billion amassed by Nedbank.Nedbank has vehemently and consistently disputed this figure. In its defence, the bank argued that its actual sales margin on the transactions was "market-related" and amounted to less than R43 million. They further stated that the Return on Equity (ROE) earned on the deal was a reasonable 15.5%. The gap between R43 million (margin) and R2.7 billion (alleged excess profit) likely comes down to how one calculates the "fair value" of the swaps over their lifetime versus the immediate fees booked by the bank.By settling for R600 million, the parties have essentially met somewhere in the murky middle—far less than the SIU’s headline-grabbing R2.7 billion claim, but significantly more than the R43 million Nedbank says it earned in margins.The "Commercial" RationaleWhy would a bank pay R600 million if it believes it did nothing wrong?In the cold calculus of corporate litigation, the settlement likely makes sense for Nedbank shareholders. A trial involving the SIU would have been a public spectacle, dragging on for years and keeping the bank’s name in headlines alongside "State Capture," "Guptas," and "Corruption." The legal fees alone for a defence of this magnitude could have run into the tens of millions.Furthermore, Nedbank’s statement alludes to the "ongoing relationship" with Transnet. As South Africa’s logistics crisis continues to choke economic growth, Transnet requires massive private sector support and capital to rehabilitate its rail and port infrastructure. Nedbank, as a major lender, cannot afford to be in a permanent state of war with a key client that is "strategic in the South African national interest."Governance and "No Evidence"Despite the payout, Nedbank is holding the line on its governance record. The bank reiterated that internal and independent external reviews found "no evidence of any Nedbank staff dishonesty, corruption or collusion.".Read more:.Nedbank Group exceeds guidance with strong 6% HE growth and increased dividends amidst challenges.This stands in contrast to the findings of the Zondo Commission, which, while not making definitive findings of criminal liability against the bank, recommended further investigation into the "disturbing" relationship between certain bank traders and Regiments directors. Nedbank maintains that any corruption was the doing of Transnet staff and Regiments, not its own employees.Shareholder ImpactFor investors, the immediate pain is a R600 million expense line item. However, Nedbank has moved quickly to soothe market nerves, stating that even with this one-off hit, its financial performance for the 10 months to October 2025 remains on track. The bank has confirmed it will still meet its 2025 guidance, excluding this expense.The market is likely to view this as a "clearing of the decks." Uncertainty is the enemy of valuation, and removing a massive, open-ended litigation risk—even at a high price—often leads to a relief rally.The VerdictThe settlement is a pragmatic, if expensive, conclusion to a messy saga. It allows Transnet to recoup meaningful cash without the risk of losing in court, and it allows Nedbank to sanitise its order book of a "State Capture" legacy issue.However, for the South African public, the "no admission of liability" clause may sting. It leaves the moral questions unanswered. Was this simply a commercial dispute, or was the bank complicit in the looting of the state? We will likely never get a court’s ruling on that. But as the R600 million moves from Nedbank’s reserves to Transnet’s coffers, both parties seem content to call it even and move on.

Nedbank pays R600m to make Transnet ‘State Capture’ nightmare go away

Key topics:

Related Stories