Skip to content
EN
Contact

dossiers · Naspers

Naspers: Nasbel, Keerom and Wheatfields ownership claims

The company discloses indirect Wheatfields interests; dated regulatory and merger records explain the voting pool. Minority holdings and shared addresses do not settle every ultimate-control claim.

published
14 oct 2026
updated
15 oct 2026
records as of
21 sep 2026
entities
374
sources
180
cite entities.csv

1Nasbel, Keerom and the limits of a minority holding

analysisNasbel and Keerom are investment-holding vehicles central to the high-vote A-share structure. Historical filings and competition records describe their voting pool and a combined majority of Naspers votes. Heemstede, wholly owned by Naspers, held 49% of Nasbel. The 2023 Companies Tribunal record describes Keerom’s limited activities as administering shareholders, preparing accounts and voting its Naspers and Prosus shares; it had no employees.

Sources (4)

1 2 3 4

qualification
The precise historical vote percentages vary with the date and share denominator. A shared address or a minority stake does not establish an additional controlling owner. The Companies Tribunal granted Keerom a five-year social-and-ethics-committee exemption on 2 May 2023 after considering its narrow activities. That is an authorised exemption, not a finding of misconduct or a group-wide exemption.
response
In the 2017 merger dispute, the Competition Commission’s analysis treated Nasbel and Keerom as the controlling pool and did not regard Wheatfields’ minority holdings as conferring control. Caxton disputed that analysis, citing Wheatfields, the Heemstede loop and related interests.

2Dated indirect interests disclosed by the company

analysisThe company’s 2014 and 2024 remuneration disclosures both identify Koos Bekker and Cobus Stofberg as holding an indirect 25% interest each in Wheatfields 221 Proprietary Limited. At March 2024, Wheatfields controlled 168,605 Nasbel ordinary shares, 16,860,500 Keerom ordinary shares, 179,988 Naspers A shares and 1,207,198 Prosus A1 shares. The older 2014 Naspers A holding was 133,350 shares. 5 6 7

qualification
These are dated indirect holdings and share counts, before the October 2025 Naspers subdivision. The disclosed 25% interests support the historical economic connection but do not by themselves determine who controlled every Naspers vote. Caxton’s asserted Sanlam–Sholto–Goedgedacht chain is retained as its attributed account, distinct from the company’s own indirect-interest disclosure. A later retirement does not establish disposal of a person’s investments.

3The 2006 arrangement and the stated control rationale

analysisThe 2006 account of Wheatfields describes Sanlam placing its high-vote Naspers holdings into the vehicle, then selling half the vehicle to entities acting for Bekker and Stofberg. The stated consideration was R67.5 million for each of their interests, with the two assuming equal financial risk. The resulting structure retained a Sanlam economic interest while protecting the high-vote shares from a hostile bidder. 8 9

qualification
The 2006 statement’s description of control and voting rights is a dated company account. Later Commission analysis and Caxton’s competing interpretation should not be silently replaced by it. Payments made in an acquisition are historical transactions, not continuing executive mandates.
response
Bekker said the arrangement was intended to preserve Naspers’ independence and ability to operate internationally. The reported hostile PSG-led proposal illustrated the disparity between a tiny economic percentage and a much larger voting interest.

4A historical entity-specific social-and-ethics exemption

analysisNasbel’s own Companies Tribunal decision dated 26 October 2015 describes an investment holding company that held shares for its shareholders rather than trading in them. It recorded no employees or third-party obligations and turnover below R1 million in each of 2014 and 2015. Its shareholder count nevertheless triggered the public-interest threshold for a social and ethics committee. 10

qualification
The Tribunal did not regard the company as truly dormant. It held that requiring this committee would not serve the regulatory purpose given the limited operations, and granted a five-year exemption. This historical, entity-specific order neither proves a present exemption nor covers Naspers or all its operating subsidiaries.
Sources (10)
  1. Company statement source · s-d13 identified by category only · Company statement
  2. Court record source · s-d46 identified by category only · Court record
  3. Other source · s-d102 identified by category only · Other
  4. Media source · s-d103 identified by category only · Media
  5. Company statement source · s-d117 identified by category only · Company statement
  6. Company statement source · s-d120 identified by category only · Company statement
  7. Other source · s-d133 identified by category only · Other
  8. Media source · s-d137 identified by category only · Media
  9. Media source · s-d346 identified by category only · Media
  10. Court record source · s-d59 identified by category only · Court record

Recorded connections

cite this dossier

DossierTwist, “Naspers: voting control, Prosus, portfolio exits and disputed conduct”, dt.016, 14 October 2026 (updated 15 October 2026), https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/naspers/

Free to read, cite and republish with credit under CC BY 4.0: credit “DossierTwist” and link to the dossier.

Data: JSON, CSV and the network graph.

share

We listen to all sides: responses are shown next to the claims they answer. To send a correction or a reply, write to dossiertwist@proton.me.