STU - Steel & Tube Holdings

[percy]

Sue them for what?
No one as far as I'm aware has suggested the product wouldn't/doesn't comply. The issue is only accreditation of the certifiers and their testing method.
They believed their interpretaion of the testing standards were correct. Ambiuties with the standard were clearly there as MBIE had to issue clarification
At the end of the day, their is no issue known with the actual steel.

I'm wishing them the best for their defence

(not holding)

So you would expect the CC to fine them $5 on each of the 22 charges?
No way.
STU will get it hard.
This will open up class actions.
False certification in the face of suspect imported products ,means CC has a very messy sector to clean up.

[percy]

False claims,false information, false derogatory comments,plagiarism,copyright infrgement,liabilious comments have seen a great number of books withdrawn from sale in NZ.They must all be destroyed.I would expect publishers would have sued the authors.

[t.rexjr]

So you would expect the CC to fine them $5 on each of the 22 charges?
No way.
STU will get it hard.
This will open up class actions.
False certification in the face of suspect imported products ,means CC has a very messy sector to clean up.

So you're saying they knowingly imported defective material and falsified documents? Where do you get that information from?

[JoeGrogan]

So you would expect the CC to fine them $5 on each of the 22 charges?
No way.
STU will get it hard.
This will open up class actions.
False certification in the face of suspect imported products ,means CC has a very messy sector to clean up.

Agreed, the CC will not take misleading representations lightly, especially in light of the leaky building fiasco. I was at CC presentation a few weeks ago, and the talk was about their prosecution standards and what they aim to achieve when going after companies. In short, when it is a first instance case like this one, they like to set an example, ie their bike barn, and early childhood education decisions (name of company escapes me), so that it deters others from doing the same thing.

[JoeGrogan]

So you're saying they knowingly imported defective material and falsified documents? Where do you get that information from?

This aint a criminal case so knowledge or intent is not actually required.

[percy]

So you're saying they knowingly imported defective material and falsified documents? Where do you get that information from?

I am saying they sold falsely labelled product.

[JoeGrogan]

False claims,false information, false derogatory comments,plagiarism,copyright infrgement,liabilious comments have seen a great number of books withdrawn from sale in NZ.They must all be destroyed.I would expect publishers would have sued the authors.

No the publishers are the ones responsible for copyright, in fact in an author agreement the author gives over their copyright to the publisher. (i worked for Penguin and did legal work in regards to their publishing contracts).

Edit: Sorry misread what you said, the publishers typically won't sue an author cause the contract will allow for some form of remedy if defamatory statements were made by the author.

[percy]

Agreed, the CC will not take misleading representations lightly, especially in light of the leaky building fiasco. I was at CC presentation a few weeks ago, and the talk was about their prosecution standards and what they aim to achieve when going after companies. In short, when it is a first instance case like this one, they like to set an example, ie their bike barn, and early childhood education decisions (name of company escapes me), so that it deters others from doing the same thing.

This is exactly as I see it.Thank you for your post.
I also see it as a lot more serious.

[percy]

No the publishers are the ones responsible for copyright, in fact in an author agreement the author gives over their copyright to the publisher. (i worked for Penguin and did legal work in regards to their publishing contracts).

Edit: Sorry misread what you said, the publishers typically won't sue an author cause the contract will allow for some form of remedy if defamatory statements were made by the author.

Thank you for clarity.

[winner69]

Triggered my TA sell signals....so I got chucked out this morning....I Sold half with the Mid March gap down and realised +2% profit ..sold the other half this morning for +0.5% profit not including the good yield 9c/share (~3.75%) divvy on that half of it... Overall, a disappointing, hopeless 4.5 month TA investment and what makes it worse is the fact my investment happened during a building boom...

I was surprised you even had a go at trading STU when you did. To me the fundamentals indicated there was limited upside .....as well as the risk of lot of downside

At least you got the divie for your efforts