Quote Originally Posted by COLIN

"Securities commission spokesperson Roger Marwick said chairwoman Jane Diplock was made aware of the connection yesterday, five days after the recommendation was made to the minister to put Hubbard's business interests into statutory management, but did not believe there was a conflict of interest.

"There is no conflict of interest in this issue BECAUSE THE STATUTORY MANAGEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE." (my capital letters.)

I am incredulous that such a ridiculously naive statement could be made, on behalf of the body that is supposed to be overseeing the conduct of the securities market in this country. The Statutory Management notices might not have included South Canterbury Finance in word, but they certainly have in effect, as borne out by Standard and Poor's immediate downgrading of their credit rating. And, if SCF is not part of "Hubbard's business interests" then I'm a Martian.
1) Diplock was advised AFTER the decision was taken ... she should have noted that the conflict of interest should have been declared before the decision.

2) Stat Management of Aorangi is a singular step to take. You are right that the impression that this would have no commercial implications for SCF beggars belief.

3) The reason cited is specious, anyway. The conflict can be construed between Hubbard and Botherway - it should have been declared BECAUSE Hubbard, Aorangi (owned by Hubbard) etc were the subjects of the Stat Mgmnt decision. Disclaiming harm on SCF is irrelevant and in no way a justification of a lack of conflict of interest.

4) If Botherway felt no conflict of interest existed between him deciding to put Hubbard into Stat Management because SCF put his brother in to recievership - then no conflict of interest should have been declared to Diplock.

What a complete shambles.

Diplock - just resign.

Botherway - just resign.

You are playing the NZ public for FOOLS!