Feltex (FTX) - All over for shareholders

[Balance]

And despite what Joan Withers may think that the directors have been vindicated in the courts, there is still one more leg to go in this sorry saga of corporate greed and obscene disregard for basic ethics and decency - the Supreme Court hearing starting this month.

Anyone following the court case as it went through the High Court and Court of Appeal cannot help but observe the length to which the directors and company went through to hoodwink the market and shareholders.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11848593

The law is a jackass.

[Balance]

And despite what Joan Withers may think that the directors have been vindicated in the courts, there is still one more leg to go in this sorry saga of corporate greed and obscene disregard for basic ethics and decency - the Supreme Court hearing starting this month.

Anyone following the court case as it went through the High Court and Court of Appeal cannot help but observe the length to which the directors and company went through to hoodwink the market and shareholders.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11848593

The law is a jackass.

Supreme Court may have been reading this thread and realized that the law had been a jackass in the High Court?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU180...prospectus.htm

Justice coming hopefully for the hoodwinked Feltex investors.

[percy]

Supreme Court may have been reading this thread and realized that the law had been a jackass in the High Court?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU180...prospectus.htm

Justice coming hopefully for the hoodwinked Feltex investors.

Pity so many have died waiting.!

[Balance]

Pity so many have died waiting.!

Sadly, so true Percy.

What happened to them was an absolute disgrace and a total indictment of the IPO process.

[Balance]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...ectid=12107616

"We conclude that the FY04 forecast was an untrue statement," Justices Glazebrook, O'Regan and Kos said in the written judgment.

"We stress that this stage of the inquiry is to determine if the prospectus contained an untrue statement. We have not considered the materiality of the shortfall. This is because materiality is, contrary to the approach of the High Court, not relevant when considering if a statement is untrue."

High Court Judge Dobson has been suitably reprimanded for a faulty determination.