Is Michael Stiassny a deceitful liar?

[biker]

The following from 'Rudman's City' in the Herald motivated me to ask this topic's question.

16.07.2004
COMMENT
If Vector chairman Michael Stiassny and company chief executive Mark Franklin have such an inferiority complex about working for a publicly owned company, why don't they do us all a favour and find careers that give them more job satisfaction?
How else to explain their guerrilla war to persuade their employers, the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust, to privatise some or all of the $3 billion electric lines company now owned by the power users of Auckland and Manukau cities and most of Papakura?

(They are conducting a telephone survey and asking 'what percentage do you think should be left in public hands?' but they dont offer the 100% status quo option!)

The point, surely, is what was Vector doing instigating a survey about privatisation? That's surely an issue for the owners - the trust - to decide.
It's a bit like Transit New Zealand deciding to ask Aucklanders, without reference to the Government, if they want shares in the harbour bridge.
If you don't think it matters, just look at how Ports of Auckland brushed aside public outrage and sold off Westhaven Marina, despite the company being 80 per cent publicly owned.
This episode proved it takes only a one per cent private shareholding to allow directors to march to a very different beat, one which emphasises maximisation of profits regardless of the effect on the public good.
Vector management and board want to play real life Monopoly with our assets.
I'm not opposed to Vector growing. Its takeover of United Networks has apparently been a success.
But let's have growth that is to the advantage of the present owners, the electricity users of Auckland and Manukau, rather than growth for the sake of the managers' and directors' CVs and their trophy boards.


Now to Stiassny and RMG
At the Oct AGM he said this-

Turning now to the future, your board believes that the outlook for RMG is a positive one. Over
the next two years, our challenge is to transform RMG into an acceptably
profitable company. The next stage of our recovery will be based, to a far
greater extent, on growing our revenue and customer base. Your board will,
however, continue to demand restructuring and the associated cost
efficiencies, together with other business improvements. The board has
instigated a thorough review of existing contracts and acquired debt ledgers.
[u]Based on this review we currently forecast an operating profit for the
2003/04 year of at least $5 million.</u> Presently, we are trading at a modest
monthly operating profit with the position continuing to improve as
contributions come on stream from our recent acquisitions and new clients.
The impact of this growing contribution will be most evident in the second
half results. Our diversification strategies are beginning to take effect.
The Board will continue to oversee the selective diversification into
acquiring distressed debt portfolios from major Australasian banks and
utilities. Worldwide, debt acquisition is the fastest growing sector in the
receivables management industry. We will ensure that the Company employs
conservative selection and valuation criteria in order to leverage RMG's core
collection competencies. Your board believes that these investments will show
increasingly attractive returns. We are confident that the Company is well
positioned to finally begin to realise the intrinsic value of the
consolidated businesses which formed RMG. With even stronger staff commitment
and the continued focus on the interests of all stakeholders, we believe that
we are building a solid platform for recovery. Might I also briefly share a
personal note. I am surprised at how often I am asked, by investors "Why did
you take on the RMG Chairmanship?" Firstly let me say that I think,
worldwide, the receivables management industry, and particularly the
non-performing debt acquisition sector, will be one of the high growth
industries over the next decade. Secondly, the form

[Placebo]

What I find really weird about this site is that someone's post revealing the winner of a moronic "reality" TV show would be removed by the moderator/administrator, while defamatory comments like the above are let go....

[blackcap]

quote:Originally posted by Placebo

What I find really weird about this site is that someone's post revealing the winner of a moronic "reality" TV show would be removed by the moderator/administrator, while defamatory comments like the above are let go....


Placebo how can it be defamatory if it is only an opinion?

[mikescott]

Michael Stiassny built his reputation on putting companies in trouble into receivership, brutally & impassionately selling assets, getting rid of staff - to recover the maximum amount possible for the banks. Nothing wrong with that - and he's good at it.

BUT he is no builder or proven manager of companies and businesses. That's what's wrong with backing him when he got into RMG and Spectrum, to name 2.

Hard luck, Biker, with RMG. If it's any consolation, you weren't the only mug taken in. ;)

[biker]

Thanks minder. Very occasionally I have backed 'the man' when a company has nothing else going for it. Didn't expect this from Stiassny.

[Placebo]

Honest opinion is certainly a defence (as is truth). However, the fact that you have questioned someone's integrity (particularly someone in a public position) leaves you (and this forum) open to a defamation suit.

Perhaps I should have originally said "potentially defamatory". I'm not attacking biker's right to express an opinion, rather commenting on the interference in trivial threads like The Apprentice...

[duncan macgregor]

Blackcap, sorry to dissagree but opinions can be defamatory if proved incorrect. When making statements that have defamatory possibilities to a reputation the moderator should allow it conditional on the accusers name and address being available to the accused or be liable for whatever happens {him or herself} next.
Lets have it biker who are you?. I dont hide behind macdunk.
cheers macdunk

[willy_wonker]

It is one thing to try and turn a company around and fail. It is another to tell everyone to expect a better profit, do a share placement and not meeting that profit. RE: RMG. Maybe Stiassyny was mislead by RMG managemnet, but whatever it is, it all smells bad. Wont get me near RMG, not even if they strike oil.

I hear you Bike and stand by your side. I have warned people in here on RMG, please refer to the RMG threads.

When a boy cries "wolf" once too often will the villagers still believe in him?

[Futurz]

quote:Originally posted by Placebo

What I find really weird about this site is that someone's post revealing the winner of a moronic "reality" TV show would be removed by the moderator/administrator, while defamatory comments like the above are let go....


Just for the record I deleted my post revealing the Apprentice winner, not the site admins. I realised in hindsight that it wasn't a very sporting thing to do in the first place, [:I] and for the benefits of peace and harmony in ST decided to delete it.

However Placebo I definately agree with your comment regarding "moronic reality TV" shows. Sooo sick of the cr@p they put on TV.[}:)]

[lambton]

Sorry Biker, have read your comments carefully and I reckon they're potentially defamatory. While I strongly support and would defend your right to express an opinion, blunter the better, there might have been a better way of expressing it without leaving yourself vulnerable to attack. And believe me these turkeys know how to use the system to their advantage.

[blackcap]

Cheers Placebo, law is not my strong point. Thanks for the clarification.

[k1w1]

To be called a deceitful liar, when you have a reputation in the commercial world, would generally be defamatory if you could not prove that.

Safest thing is to withdraw the allegation and apologise.

If you still have a beef - there are ways and means of making your point that do not expose you and this site to being sued.

[trendy]

Hmmm....It's a thin line as the statements about Hugh Fletcher on this site could be seen to be equally defamatory to Hugh. :)

[Placebo]

Trouble with our defamation laws is that our media is shy of letters that begin with the deadly words "We act for...", so most cases are settled long before they come to court and there is a lack of good case law (and precedents) as a result.

The most celebrated case in recent years was David Lange vs North and South. In a nutshell N & S ran a retrospective piece which questioned Lange's abilities as PM. Lange sued in the High Court, which ruled in favour of N & S on the basis that its comment was covered by qualified privilege. Lange sought an opinion from the Court of Appeal, whose response was equivocal. It said the High Court may have got it right, but was unclear about exactly how far the concept of qualified privilege could be applied (did it apply just to politicians, local body politicians, leading public servants, any public sector employee etc etc). I know the legal fraternity was interested in seeing it followed through, however Lange dropped the case before it went any further.

Truth is an absolute defence. Honest opinion will get long and windy arguments, and you'd have to satisfy a number of requirements, for example you'd have to prove that you honestly held the opinion, that it was based on facts which actually happened, that the subject matter was in the public interest. Above all you would have to prove you were not motivated by malice. And if the person concerned consented to the comments you made, you have a defence.

[k1w1]

I agree, Placebo except that I would add that above all you need to have deep pockets.

For as you are proving the honesty of your belief, the grounds that exist for it, and your absence of malice the lawyers will be charging at about $400.00-$600.00 per hour.

One thing that you can't doubt about Mr Stiassney, or Mr Fletcher, is that if they wanted to, they could afford to get it on with you. What you need to be sure about, before you climb in the ring with them, is that you can afford it to.

The law, my friends, is a dog that is trained to bite the poor.

[Longtack]

The Law:
1. Has nothing to do with justice.
2. In its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge. (Anatol France)

Micheal Stiassney is an experienced receiver of failed companies and no matter how you dress him up he is not necessarily a leader or manager of successful companies.

[Steve]

quote:Micheal Stiassney is an experienced receiver of failed companies and no matter how you dress him up he is not necessarily a leader or manager of successful companies.


Well said in a 'nutshell'. This post could have avoided much of what has been posted in this thread.

[k1w1]

quote:
Longtack
Member
New Zealand
41 Posts
Posted - 16/07/2004 : 6:42:05 PM
The Law:
1. Has nothing to do with justice.
2. In its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge. (Anatol France)

True but more on point is that law courts, like the Hilton Hotel, are open to all.

[Lawso]

Quotes from Longtack and Steve


quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Stiassney is an experienced receiver of failed companies and no matter how you dress him up he is not necessarily a leader or manager of successful companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well said in a 'nutshell'.

Not well said at all, IMO. Use of the weasel word "necessarily", so beloved of politicians and other liars, makes the sentence meaningless. Say he is a leader/manager or he isn't . If you can't make a statement say nothing.

[mikescott]

With RMG and Spectrum, Stiassny has shown that he has failed to make the transition from an undertaker of companies to a successful grower of businesses.

As Biker has pointed out, he has made some very foolish and terribly inaccurate public statements about how well RMG under his care was going. Either he did not know what was going on (in which case, he should have shut his face) or he knew what was going on (in which case, he can justifiably be accused of deceitful behaviour) - not a good look in any case. :(

Given that he has no successes to point to as other than an undertaker and he is on the board of Vector, watch out - he might just stuff Vector up as well! Fancy being involved in such a public argument with your shareholders! [xx(]

[biker]

quote:Originally posted by k1w1
Safest thing is to withdraw the allegation and apologise.



Sorry K1W1 but this isn't Parliament and you aren't 'Mr speaker.'
(or am I wrong. Is that you Jonathan?)

[Steve]

quote:[i]Not well said at all, IMO. Use of the weasel word "necessarily", so beloved of politicians and other liars, makes the sentence meaningless. Say he is a leader/manager or he isn't . If you can't make a statement say nothing.


Lawso, I don't believe that the use of the word "necessarily" in a statement makes the statement not a statement.

*Without being too pedantic*;)

[Lawso]

If you like it so much, Steve, you should have said that "use of the word necessarily in a statement doesn't necessarily make the statement not a statement".

Being pedantic.

[Cooper]

Aren't all liars deceitful? And isn't anything deceitful that is said spoken by a liar?

[biker]

There are subtle differences so both words were used in the origional question.

From the Concise Oxford;

Lie: -Intentional false statement.
Liar: -Teller of lies
Deceit: -Misrepresentation, trick, stratagem,
willingness to deceive.
Deceive:-Persuade of what is false.

[Steve]

In reality, is a "white" lie any less of a lie? [?]

[thereslifeafter87]

quote:Originally posted by Placebo

Honest opinion is certainly a defence (as is truth). However, the fact that you have questioned someone's integrity (particularly someone in a public position) leaves you (and this forum) open to a defamation suit.

Perhaps I should have originally said "potentially defamatory". I'm not attacking biker's right to express an opinion, rather commenting on the interference in trivial threads like The Apprentice...


Honest Opinion is pretty much only a defence if you are talking about a public political figure in NZ. The best defence for the comments made would be that they are factual - or a rational conclusion to make on the facts.

[Placebo]

TLA87 if your statements are true and you can demonstrate them to be true, you are right that you have a cast-iron defence. Truth is the ultimate defence.

However, I think you are confusing honest opinion with the defence of qualified privilege, which I mentioned above. Qualified privilege allows you some leeway to make otherwise defamatory statements about people in public office. An honest opinion can be expressed about anyone. If you made defamatory comments about the chief executive of a listed company for example (if for instance you said they were incompetent and had caused shareholders to lose money), it is unlikely those comments would be covered by the defence of qualified privilege.

Honest opinion covers such things as a newspaper sports report that might describe a rugby player as "bumbling" or "inept" or which might question their selection in a team. Anton Oliver and his lineout throwing for example. Talkback radio is a particularly worrying area for this. Under normal standards comments which question a person's ability to do their job could be considered defamatory. However in the context of a sports report that is "honest opinion" (and which pass the tests of honest opinion) they are not usually considered defamatory. In saying that, this is a principle that has yet to be tested in the NZ courts.

BTW it is also possible to defame an organisation, if the organisation can show that your comments caused it to suffer some pecuniary loss.

[thereslifeafter87]

Thanks for the clarification Placebo. Don't pay too much attention to me, I crammed for my law of torts exam last year and have since forgotten pretty much everything I learned. I do think that the opinion must be reasonable though, from memory...
Agh, what do I know.. I got a B in torts.



quote:Originally posted by Placebo

TLA87 if your statements are true and you can demonstrate them to be true, you are right that you have a cast-iron defence. Truth is the ultimate defence.

However, I think you are confusing honest opinion with the defence of qualified privilege, which I mentioned above. Qualified privilege allows you some leeway to make otherwise defamatory statements about people in public office. An honest opinion can be expressed about anyone. If you made defamatory comments about the chief executive of a listed company for example (if for instance you said they were incompetent and had caused shareholders to lose money), it is unlikely those comments would be covered by the defence of qualified privilege.

Honest opinion covers such things as a newspaper sports report that might describe a rugby player as "bumbling" or "inept" or which might question their selection in a team. Anton Oliver and his lineout throwing for example. Talkback radio is a particularly worrying area for this. Under normal standards comments which question a person's ability to do their job could be considered defamatory. However in the context of a sports report that is "honest opinion" (and which pass the tests of honest opinion) they are not usually considered defamatory. In saying that, this is a principle that has yet to be tested in the NZ courts.

BTW it is also possible to defame an organisation, if the organisation can show that your comments caused it to suffer some pecuniary loss.

[duncan macgregor]

HI guys when you say something you either mean It or not.
If you think obout something long enough to print It, then obviousely you mean It. So therefore If you cast doubt on someones reputation In print, that person must be prepared to stand up and be counted. If however It Is a passing remark, then the person might claim otherwise.
If however the person names a person In circumstances as this, then I would expect that person to come forth and let us all know who they really are. I myself have no Interest in the matter, but I would definately seek damages If I were the person at task. Only a point of view dont like people throwing rocks behind walls. cheers macdunk

[biker]

With todays RMG announcement,to answer the topic question, I would say yes,in my opinion definately yes.

[donner]

Biker, please enlighten the unelightened re RMG

Cheers

[biker]

This is what Stiassny said at the last AGM

The board has
instigated a thorough review of existing contracts and acquired debt ledgers.
Based on this review we currently forecast an operating profit for the
2003/04 year of at least $5 million. Presently, we are trading at a modest
monthly operating profit with the position continuing to improve as
contributions come on stream from our recent acquisitions and new clients.
The impact of this growing contribution will be most evident in the second
half results. Our diversification strategies are beginning to take effect.


And the truth?

MEDIA STATEMENT - RMG ANNUAL RESULT - PRELIMINARY
Listed receivables management company RMG Limited today announced an
operating profit (EBITDA) for the year ended 30th June 2004 of $0.43 million.
This is a turnaround of $0.82 million from the operating loss of $0.39
million recorded in
the previous year.

Overall, the net loss for the year was $9.3 million compared to last year's
net loss of $6.3 million. This result was not unexpected and is attributed to
increased amortisation and interest associated with acquired debt book
purchases that will generate significant revenues in the coming years.


What a prick.

[Steve]

I would be interested if the press were to get a quote from him on his opinion why things have become so divergant...

[duncan macgregor]

I take it that none of you lot asked the tea lady her opinion. If you want the truth ask from the bottom up, never from the top down. I never listen to the top dog in any company.
Happy Investing Macdunk

[Mick100]

I'm not sure wheather Stiassny set out to deceive shareholders. He was holding about 12m shares and options 2 years ago.

Maybe he just not as clever as most of us thought he was. He appears to have lost quite a bit of money on this company himself.
Not sure wheather he's still holding his shares.
Must check that up.

Mick

[Mick100]

RMG LIMITED 2003-01-15 ASX-SIGNAL-G

HOMEX - Melbourne

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
CHANGE OF DIRECTOR'S INTEREST NOTICE


Name of Company RMG Limited

ABN 065 832 377

We (the entity) give the ASX the following information under listing
rule 3.19A.2 and as agent for the director for the purposes of section
205G of the Corporations Act.

Name of Director Michael Stiassny

Date of last notice 04/12/2002


Part 1 - Change of director's relevant interests in securities

Direct or indirect interest Indirect

Nature of indirect interest
(including registered holder) Trustee of a trust

Date of change 09/01/2003

No. of securities held prior
to change Nil

Class Options

Number Acquired 12,500,000

Number disposed -

Value/consideration $0.02

No. of securities held after
change 12,500,000

Nature of change On market


Part 2 - Change of director's relevant interests in contracts

Detail of contract -

Nature of direct interest -

Name of registered holder
(if issued securities) -

Date of change -

No. and class of securities to which
interest related prior to change -

Interest Acquired -

Interest disposed -

Value/consideration -

Interest after change

[Mick100]

If Stiassny paid 2c for those options, he's lost $250,000

[biker]

"No point in hanging around here Ron.Lets bugger off."
"You go first Michael. I'll take a few months salary then abandon ship myself. I'll See ya, you smooth talkin dude! Lets do it again some time:D:D:D:D:D "
"Yea,we sure showed them what liquidating is all about didn't we!:D:D[:p]:D:D:D[:p]:D:D "

[biker]

RMG
02/06/2004
DIRECTOR

REL: 0841 HRS RMG Limited

DIRECTOR: RMG: Resignation of Chairman

RMG Limited announced today that its Chairman, Mr Michael Stiassny has
resigned from the Board of Directors effective 1 June 2004. RMG reluctantly
accepted Mr Stiassny's resignation, who could no longer devote the time
necessary to be the Company's Chairman given his increasing work and time
commitments on both sides of the Tasman.

RMG would seek to appoint another Director to fill the vacancy created and in
the interim RMG's Managing Director, Mr Ron Logan will act as Chairman.
End CA:00100900 For:RMG Type:DIRECTOR Time:2004-06-02:08:41:13



RMG
15/09/2004
GENERAL

REL: 0837 HRS RMG Limited

GENERAL: RMG: Media Statement

Media Statement


Following two years with RMG Limited, Mr. Ron Logan the current Managing
Director
will pursue a new career opportunity overseas. The Board wishes to
acknowledge the
significant effort involved in commencing the turnaround of RMG and wishes
Mr. Logan success in his new endeavours.
For further information:
Don Bourke, Chairman
Tel: +61 3 9320 0103
End CA:00105087 For:RMG Type:GENERAL Time:2004-09-15:08:37:12

[rmbbrave]

If you are looking for deceiful liars...

Contact admits lying to its customers about price rise

15.09.2004


Contact Energy admits it has broken the law by not telling its customers the truth about power price rises. The power company lied to 8250 customers in the Thames Valley, Tauranga, Eastland Networks and Central Otago this year when it sent out notices saying price rises were due to a jump in charges levied by local lines companies.

Network prices had actually dropped.

The Commerce Commission yesterday said Contact would make a public apology for its breach of the Fair Trading Act and pay a donation of $30,000 to the Citizens Advice Bureau.

Commission chair Paula Rebstock said customers may have been discouraged from switching to another power company by believing a lines company was behind the price rise.

"The commission considers that any breach of the Fair Trading Act by a major corporate is serious," she said.

"In this case, Contact Energy's behaviour has the potential to be harmful to competition in the electricity sector."

For competition to be effective, consumers needed reliable information about charges in case they wanted to switch.

Lines companies, which have a monopoly over electricity transmission in their areas, are often upset at being blamed for increases in power bills. They are regulated by new Commerce Commission rules which cover annual price rises and quality thresholds.

[Longtack]

I don't believe Contact's intention was to deliberately screw those 8000 users for the increase. Crickey - the upside for them was paltry and the downside was pretty significant - as we've seen.
It was a mistake.

[Mick100]

Stiassny resigned from RMG because, he claimed, he had taken on too many commitments, he now seems to have had a change of heart.

IMO, this chap needs to be watched very closely.
I would be extremely skeptical of investing in companies which have this chap sitting on the board.



Mick


========================

Media release
Wednesday 22nd December 2004

Michael Stiassny has today been appointed as NGC Holdings Ltd's new chairman.

Stiassny, who is also the Chairman of NGC's new majority shareholder Vector Limited, is a chartered accountant and senior partner of Ferrier Hodgson & Co in Auckland. He is Chairman of Metrowater Ltd, and a director of a number of public and private companies, including Metlifecare, the Horticulture & Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited and Waratah Receivables Corporation NZ Limited.

Stiassny succeeds Greg Martin. Martin was an appointee of NGC's former majority shareholder, The Australian Gas Light Company (AGL), and resigned from the Board following the sale of AGL's NGC shareholding to Vector on 14 December 2004.

[wsheridan]

[quote]Originally posted by Mick100

Stiassny resigned from RMG because, he claimed, he had taken on too many commitments, he now seems to have had a change of heart.

IMO, this chap needs to be watched very closely.
I would be extremely skeptical of investing in companies which have this chap sitting on the board.



Mick


Logic says he should be chairman of NGC if he is chairman of Vector.... especially in light of their operations moving toward a merger... its hardly a sigh of him changing track ... rather it is a rational move in light of the rationalisation. :D.


But don't take that to mean that I don't agree with the premise inherent in the subject line of this topic [B)]

[winner69]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3243424a13,00.html

[mikescott]

quote:Originally posted by minder


With RMG and Spectrum, Stiassny has shown that he has failed to make the transition from an undertaker of companies to a successful grower of businesses.

As Biker has pointed out, he has made some very foolish and terribly inaccurate public statements about how well RMG under his care was going. Either he did not know what was going on (in which case, he should have shut his face) or he knew what was going on (in which case, he can justifiably be accused of deceitful behaviour) - not a good look in any case. :(

Given that he has no successes to point to as other than an undertaker and he is on the board of Vector, watch out - he might just stuff Vector up as well! Fancy being involved in such a public argument with your shareholders! [xx(]


An assessment of Stiassny's real ability hopefully will now be revealed for all to see - if he takes Mr Siemer to court for defamation and libel.

But will he? One suspect not.

One assumes that Mr Seimen has taken his own legal advice - he now wants his day in court so that everything can come out.

My reading is that he is baiting Stiassny so that he can reveal all in court.

This is sensationally high profile stuff!

Billboard attack on Stiassny
10 April 2005
By GARY SHEERAN

An aggrieved businessman is spending $25,000 to hang 12m-high billboards in Auckland's CBD to air his complaints against leading businessman and insolvency expert Michael Stiassny.


The billboards, hung on Friday afternoon at two major exit routes from the city, carry a photo of Stiassny, and the words: "Michael Stiassny .. . A True Story."

Vince Siemer's complaints surround his company, Paragon Oil Systems Ltd, based in Silverdale north of Auckland.

Stiassny, a senior partner with Ferrier Hodgson, and one of New Zealand's most experienced practitioners in areas of insolvency and company restructure, said material published by Siemer was defamatory and untrue.

"We are taking legal advice on ... the billboards as we speak," he said.

Paragon Oil Systems is an oil regeneration business which Siemer created by buying the assets of Platinum Investments and Waterford Holdings in 2000.

"We had no problems with creditors, no debt, and $200,000 in the bank," Siemer said.

"But we were advised to place the company in receivership to protect ourselves from a dishonest director," he said.

Siemer said he felt that was like killing a patient because they had an infected finger.

But he accepted the advice after assurances he could buy the business back "within several months" and continue trading, with problems surrounding the director resolved.

Instead, he was then told the business would be liquidated without an additional $148,000 in shareholder funding.

"That was when we started getting into some serious shouting matches," Siemer said.

In July 2001, he successfully petitioned the High Court to have the receivership of the company revoked.

Today the company is trading normally, but only after more than four years of heartache and recrimination, legal arguments and actions, and recourse to professional bodies.

Siemer said he had to fight to get all company documents back from the receiver.

He said he succeeded only after he had legally absolved Stiassny from his role in the receivership.

Stiassny holds several public company directorships, and is chairman of Auckland-based electricity lines company Vector.

Siemer said he had also taken out a $1m lawsuit against his lawyer, who he said had offered a $175,000 settlement.

The case is set down for a hearing in November.

Siemer, a North American who gained New Zealand citizenship six years ago, said he took action last week because he did not want other people to go through what he had. "I am

[bongo66]

Good On Siemer

[Placebo]

Note that he is also suing his lawyer.

A litigation-happy north american...?

[rmbbrave]

Billboard ban stays as pair continue court battle
17 April 2005
By GARRY SHEERAN

The Interim High Court injunction that removed a 12m-wide billboard concerning businessman Michael Stiassny from a prominent position in central Auckland will remain in force for at least another month.


The billboard contained a photograph of Stiassny and the address of a website in which Silverdale businessman Vince Siemer detailed his complaints against Stiassny, a company receiver and principal of Ferrier Hodgson in New Zealand.

The billboard was displayed on an inner-city site Friday week ago, and was taken down later that day after Stiassny was granted an interim injunction by the High Court.

In court on Tuesday, Stiassny said in an affidavit that he considered Siemer's actions were part of a concerted and longstanding campaign to discredit and defame him. Certain statements on the website and in associated documents were defamatory and untrue.

The statements stemmed from the receivership in late 2000 of Siemer's company, Paragon Oil Systems Ltd.

Siemer took his company out of receivership six months later, and it continues to trade.

Siemer told the Sunday Star-Times the company sought advice on receivership protection because of the actions of one of the directors.

AdvertisementAdvertisementIt was then told it would be liquidated if it did not get more shareholder funding, despite Paragon having no creditors, and money in the bank.

In his affidavit, Stiassny, who is also chairman of electricity lines company Vector, said he did not believe it was a coincidence the billboard had appeared next to a Vector billboard.

Siemer told the court he was unaware of the Vector display close to his own, and said the claim was nothing more than a red herring.

"I accept the language I used in the website is at times blunt and even painful to read," he said in his affidavit.

But he believed information on the website was accurate and therefore not defamatory.

"More importantly, Mr Stiassny has not provided . . . one instance in his affidavit . . . identifying where the website is not accurate," he said.

Stiassny said there were too many allegations with which he took issue to comment on individual instances.

Siemer told the court he had paid for the billboard to remain in place for two months, and the cost of having it taken down was significant.

Stiassny is claiming damages of $1.05 million. A further court hearing is set down for May 16.

[biker]

VCT
13/12/2006
DIRECTOR

REL: 1112 HRS Vector Limited

DIRECTOR: VCT: Gibbs, Goulter, Muir resign from board of Vector Limited

Media release and statement to The New Zealand Stock Exchange.

Messrs Tony Gibbs, John Goulter and Greg Muir, today advise that they have
with immediate effect resigned from the board of Vector Ltd.

They regret this action but advise they have ongoing concerns with the
governance of the company and the leadership of the chairman. (MICHAEL STIASSNY)

Tony Gibbs 021 991 327

John Goulter 021 612 442

Greg Muir 021 652 818

[Steve]

It appears to be a 4-for 3 against situation based on the latest announcement...

[Lawso]

Pretty sensational news. These are three of the most upfront guys on the corporate scene.
Can't wait to hear more about this.

Happily, I decided not to roll over my Vector bonds (only 8% interest for those who renew) and am looking forward to getting my money back in the next few days.

[Lawso]

Though I always thought the title of this thread was a bit over the top. How about "bumbling incompetent"?

[warthog]

The Hog recalls that this is the same Mr Stiassny who has regular stouches with people over one thing or another.

One starts to wonder if it's the whole world who has issues with Mr Stiassny or some other reality ...

[CJ]

I am sure he isn't the only successful jewish businessman to have enemies.

Must say the whole Vector thing is intriging.

[warrico]

RMG comes to mind, I would not hold shares in any company he is connected with.

[warthog]

quote:Originally posted by CJ

I am sure he isn't the only successful jewish businessman to have enemies.


What are you suggesting? That MS has differences with people because he is Jewish?

[OldRider]

That the board of Vector had opinions that could not be reconciled, seems to be a fact.

At this stage, we don't know these various opinions, though it does seem apparent that MS
is a strong supporter of the major shareholder,
and perhaps maintaining the shareholder status quo.

To me the fundamental problem is that the major shareholder can act as a dictator, the solution is to see this holding reduce to lower than 50%.

Unless this happens any board will face near impossible difficulties.

Lower the amount of interference that is supported by political ideology only.

[Bling_Bling]

I am not at all surprise that VCT shares are trading at a discount. Maybe it is time for a change at the VCT board level.

[Lawso]

quote:
Originally posted by warrico
RMG comes to mind, I would not hold shares in any company he is connected with.

And Spectrum Resources. MS was at one time chairman of both of these dogs.

[CJ]

quote:Originally posted by warthog


quote:Originally posted by CJ

I am sure he isn't the only successful jewish businessman to have enemies.


What are you suggesting? That MS has differences with people because he is Jewish?


No. Just saying you dont get to the top without standing on any toes. He himself recognises that his approach isn't always the most friendly. If you have ever seen him work behind closed doors (ie. not in front of the camera) his apprach is unique. Any religious reference was not intended and I would delete but you have quoted.

[warthog]

quote:Originally posted by CJ


quote:Originally posted by warthog


quote:Originally posted by CJ

I am sure he isn't the only successful jewish businessman to have enemies.


What are you suggesting? That MS has differences with people because he is Jewish?

No. Just saying you dont get to the top without standing on any toes. He himself recognises that his approach isn't always the most friendly. If you have ever seen him work behind closed doors (ie. not in front of the camera) his apprach is unique. Any religious reference was not intended and I would delete but you have quoted.


Actually, the hog would beg to differ that one needs to stand on people's toes to be successful/whatever per se.

It was just the word "Jewish" that didn't make any sense in the context of what you wrote.

So you are saying that you meant:

I am sure he isn't the only successful businessman to have enemies.

If so, then this sounds pretty reasonable to the point of stating the obvious.

So I reckon the word "Jewish" was intended to be there all along, but only you know this for sure (or do you?).

Either way, no need to discuss further :D

[tapman]

So what if CJ mentioned the word jewish in his comment.
They do have a reputation for having very good business skills, short arms and deep pockets.
I'm sure the jewish can handle it.
You're not coming over all PC are you Warthog.
I'm a Kiwi and apparently it's a trait of ours that most of us haven't the energy and determination to push on to bigger and greater things once we have achieved a level of financial comfort with our businesses.
Just an example of economic commentators trying to buttonhole a country's pych.
You either take it to heart or just laugh it off as a joke.

[warthog]

To be clear, the hog thinks that whatever Stiassny's issues are, they are more likely to do with how he does business than his religious background. It's a simple point, Tapman - I'm unsure what you're on about - it seems you've left the planet.

[CJ]

To get us back on topic then,

How bad must it have been for them to resign. These are three VERY successful directors. Due to this I dont take their resignation as say they they couldn't do the job they need to do (for what ever reason), but that they weren't being allowed to do their job.

I dont know much about the other two but Gibbs has quite a strong personally too. Personality conflict between two successful businessmen (though I thought they would be use to being in a room full of Alpha males?).

[wsheridan]

quote:Originally posted by CJ

To get us back on topic then,

How bad must it have been for them to resign. These are three VERY successful directors. Due to this I dont take their resignation as say they they couldn't do the job they need to do (for what ever reason), but that they weren't being allowed to do their job.

I dont know much about the other two but Gibbs has quite a strong personally too. Personality conflict between two successful businessmen (though I thought they would be use to being in a room full of Alpha males?).



perhaps they were used to a higher degree of honesty than they could find in the Vector boardroom

[tapman]

No Warthog I haven't left the planet....yet, as much as I would like to especially around this time of the year.
My point is that if CJ wanted to put the comment in about jewish business men fair enough......and you to question it was also fair enough,.... but if CJ felt compelled to withdraw what he said because of your questioning it's disappointing. He could have just said sod off Warthog I'll say what I feel. Cheers.

[warthog]

tapman the hog could see no relevance of the word Jewish in what CJ wrote so naturally one would wonder why it was there hence the question "What are you suggesting?".

The key to your response is "felt compelled", in particular the world "felt". If CJ had good reason to use the word in the first place, why would he/she feel compelled to withdraw?

To CJ's credit, however, the response wasn't "sod off".

[tapman]

quote:Originally posted by warthog

To CJ's credit, however, the response wasn't "sod off".


Sorry to offend your obvious sensibilities Warthog.
Would like me to phrase things in a not so base way from now on.
Are you sure you could cope with being muddy and smelly.

[warthog]

quote:Originally posted by tapman


quote:Originally posted by warthog

To CJ's credit, however, the response wasn't "sod off".


Sorry to offend your obvious sensibilities Warthog.
Would like me to phrase things in a not so base way from now on.
Are you sure you could cope with being muddy and smelly.


You do make a habit of getting the wrong end of the stick don't you tapman?

"sod off" isn't part of discourse, debate or discussion. That's why it was to CJ's credit. Which part of that don't you understand?

Your very basic command of the English language doesn't offend me in the slightest. Quite the contrary - it provides continued insight into your motivations and level of debate.

[Lawso]

quote: posted by aspex
I may say that the Trust is made up of elected members who themselves may be failed at the upper levels of business operation or who have never got there.
You're on the button, aspex. But what you say about the Trust is equally true of most politicians - the buffoons in Wellington and nearly everyone on the Auckland City Council. Especially that daft sheila who wants to deprive us of views of Elle McPherson, Dan Carter and the Tui billboards. She's clearly got an anti-business agenda.

I suppose that, as a successful cerealogist, Mayor Hubbard has to be excepted from the above. But what a disappointment he's been. Asked for his No. 1 reason in favour of the waterfront white elephant, his answer was "Imagery". W t f does that mean?

[warthog]

The hog doesn't consider - as Aspex noted - that the skills required to run a successful accountancy business specialising in liquidation are what is required to run an operation such as Vector.