SUM - Summerset Group

[Goldstein]

I don't really want to open this can of worms again - and apologies if I do.

From what I can see Mrs Barlow has only ever made one sale of shares which coincided with her stepping down as CE.

Good luck to those of you on a crusade here.

[Beagle]

I don't really want to open this can of worms again - and apologies if I do.

From what I can see Mrs Barlow has only ever made one sale of shares which coincided with her stepping down as CE.

Good luck to those of you on a crusade here.

So what you're suggesting is that because she was stepping down as CEO she is completly exempt from the Securities Market regulations. Yeap, that's a really "compelling" argument.
Just as weak and irrelevant as SUM's subsequent SP performance contention.
Next we will have someone claiming because she's been showered with so many awards she must be so good that entitles her to a securities act exemption.

[Goldstein]

So what you're suggesting is that because she was stepping down as CEO she is completly exempt from the Securities Market regulations. Yeap, that's a really "compelling" argument.
Just as weak and irrelevant as SUM's subsequent SP performance contention.
Next we will have someone claiming because she's been showered with so many awards she must be so good that entitles her to a securities act exemption.

Roger it is a bit like selling the family home. and all the tax dodges you can lump in when doing so. You've probably even advised a few clients on the matter.

However the onus here is to prove guilt - and I don't see that happening.

There was:

(i) Just reason for disposing of the shares
(ii) No prior form

So I suspect any litigation would be fruitless.

Now the different question of whether what she did was right or ethical. Then we have the following to consider:

(i) the transaction could have been set up in advance
(ii) the board slipped up
(iii) Mrs Barlow simply made a mistake

I just can't imagine a CE being that successful trying to squeeze the last few % out of her shares by quickly selling before the Q1 results.

I'll let you get back you sharpening your axe

[Beagle]

Sorry the analogy is lost on me but if you are alluding to a pattern of buying and selling houses on a regular basis, i.e. trading, I understand the IRD are pretty hot on that area and using Council records looking for flippers.
Securities Act is clear on insider trading, she had clear inside knowledge, knew the market would be likely to be disappointed, (nobody invests in a company that touts itself as a growth company for flat sales results) and went about carefully disposing of her stake in an organised manner in what looks like a book-build, (ACC substantial security holder notice indicated they bought a substantial part of her stake).
Company has clear Securities trading policies that should have been followed and known by the board and CEO.
No mention was made of the transaction being set up in advance argument by SUM in their written response.

The reason for selling her shares is irrelevant, as is subsequent SP performance after Q1 sales result.

Some poor bugger has to try and work hard to ensure transparency and integrity in the execution of SUM's securities trading policies seeing as the board clearly pay only lip service to them and seeing as nobody else seems prepared to do it I've taken up the challenge. You call it what you like, I'll call it an attempt to keep those buggers honest.

I just can't imagine a CE being that successful trying to squeeze the last few % out of her shares by quickly selling before the Q1 results.

I can, its called Greed.

[Vaygor1]

I don't really want to open this can of worms again - and apologies if I do.

From what I can see Mrs Barlow has only ever made one sale of shares which coincided with her stepping down as CE.

Good luck to those of you on a crusade here.

There is utterly no link between the timing of Norah stepping down as CEO and selling her shares. Why on earth do you think there is a link there?

Even if there was some odd-ball link, are you saying she couldn't wait 3 or 4 more days and sell post-announcement? It's a rhetorical question because the answer is that she could have waited. She elected not to.

I would be VERY surprised if the board didn't know prior to the transaction what she was doing, and assuming I'm right, they should have tried to stop her. Otherwise why would the Board be defending her now?

In her timing to capture the perceived gains, she has taken the calculated risk of potential fallout via the FMA and other entities. With hindsight, she gained nothing, but the outcome is irrelevant. Does one get off for attempted burglary if the heist was unsuccessful?

I agree with Forest. In my view the board with its current behaviour,evidenced by the occurrence of this event and their current position on it, makes me nervous. On top of that, rightly or wrongly, I've lost faith in their (audited and unaudited) reported figures. The upshot being that the figures are no good to me.

No trusted figures, no useful analysis, no buying. Sorry guys/gals. Truly am. Was looking forward to being part of this thread as a holder.

[Tevita]

Goldstein does not make a very convincing argument. As a defense attorney pleading in the US of A he would certainly not earn his retainer.
Having said that it is a thorny issue. Forgetting the legalities and the pending announcement and appreciating the fact that she was stepping down what would have been a
respectable time within which to sell? She did not owe ongoing loyalties. But I am interested in the nature of her subsequent career moves from an ethical view point and shareholders ongoing loyalty if valued by the Board..

[Goldstein]

Vaygor - it is common practice for CEs to sell shares earned over their tenure when they step down.

Tevita - a crime has not been committed.

NewGuy - apologies for tying your forum up. I'll keep quiet now.

[Vaygor1]

Vaygor - it is common practice for CEs to sell shares earned over their tenure when they step down.

It happens occasionally, but not usually under circumstances that can at best be described as dodgy.

Tevita - a crime has not been committed.

This statement is definitive 'Not guilty'. How do you know? Do you have ESP?

NewGuy - apologies for tying your forum up. I'll keep quiet now.

If I were a shareholder (or as I was, a shareholder-to-be), I would be welcoming this discussion. It's relevant, and provides a good basis to consider your own options based on your own perceptions, experience, and appetite for risk. Just because it isn't the most positive news does not mean is isn't worthy news... and this is not NewGuy's forum as you allude; we all have as much right to it as each other. Whether you agree or disagree with anyone's particular viewpoint, it is better to have the feeling of others out there than not. After all the 'others' are the market.

The impact of Norah's actions is real (I'm proof, and Roger's proof amongst quite a few others I know of both inside & outside of ShareTrader), and its occurrence cannot be construed as being positive for the Boards reputation or the share price.

But this does not appear to concern you Goldstein.

For me, from a purely selfish viewpoint?... I am pleased Norah timed it the way she did. Without which, there would have been no discussion here, no follow up from Roger (to whom I am now indebted), and I would be much more in the dark as to the mindset and culture that I have concluded exists within SUM's highest ranks; a conclusion, need I say, that gives me the heebie jeebies.

The content and nature of SUM's very recent response as a result of Roger's enquiry is extremely valuable to me given my genuine intent to buy and in large volumes; an intent that has subsequently vaporised by the way. Far more valuable in fact, ironically, than the knowledge of Norah's trading event that triggered it all.

[Tevita]

Vaygori -Thank you for that impartial comment. Particularly as it is free of sour grapes bias as a professed non shareholder. You stress a good point. Can we learn something of the culture of the Board from this lesson? Where do their greater loyalties lie? Should we use this background as a filter when listening to/reading any reports on the company`s progress into the future?

Disclosure - I have substantially sold down since. All I need are convincing and reassuring noises from the AGM to convince me that protecting my investment back-side as I did was an imprudent move.

[gv1]

Some might remember how MD of GUNNs disposed his 2 million odd shares before the profit announcement. Guess what, even taken to courts...He claimed to be suffering from some illness to sell for medical reason...He is still around...didn't die. BUT sure would rot in hell.