South Canterbury Finance Limited

[winner69]

From what I have been told, I would find it hard to believe they would have all the books for Aorangi and all 7 trusts in the office
in George st.
This is propably the book the Stat Mgr is looking for!

I think you are to something there mate

THERE ARE TWO SETS OF BOOKS !!!!

and holy **** ... the Stat Man has got the wrong set ...... and the murkier all this becomes prob a Swiss bank account as well

[winner69]

From what I have been told, I would find it hard to believe they would have all the books for Aorangi and all 7 trusts in the office
in George st.
This is propably the book the Stat Mgr is looking for!

Prob why they had to put Jean into Stat Man as well .... she isn't the innocent mother of the house .... she knows as much as Allan

[Balance]

Prob why they had to put Jean into Stat Man as well .... she isn't the innocent mother of the house .... she knows as much as Allan

And the Cat?

[Enumerate]

To all those interested ... here is a copy of the letter I intend to address to my MP. I'd appreciate any comments for improvement.

Dear Member of Parliament,

I am writing you with deep concern over the Order in Council to place Allan Hubbard and his wife Jean into Statutory Management as defined by the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989.

I have deep concerns that the advice, by the Securities Commission, to Minister Power to enact these singular and exceptional powers has failed on a number of levels. This is against a background of concern that any issue held by the Officials could have been prosecuted through the standard machinery of the Securities Act or the Companies Act.

I believe there is a duty to investigate and explain the full extent of the protection of the public interest as a basis for the Statutory Management recommendation. It has been over three weeks since the initiation of this singular and extreme power. I have read the first report of the Statutory Manager and it would appear the nature of the defense of the public interest has not been addressed. There are no specific charges recommended under the Securities Act or any other statue. I believe that both the Securities Commission and Minister Power have failed to demonstrate any compelling case. I believe that the Statutory Manager, after three weeks, with unprecedented rights of investigation, still cannot make a case for Mr. Hubbard and his wife to answer.

I believe the Securities Commission did not act fairly in the manner it arrived at the decision to recommend Statutory Management. Further, I believe that Securities Commission may have misled Minister Power in not having a Director, Simon Botherway, declare a significant conflict of interest before the the decision was taken.

I would like you to note that there is significant public anxiety over the exercise of the power of Statutory Management, without any justification of the defense of the public interest. The topic is actively and hotly debated in investment circles.

I believe that some investigation is required, of wide ranging scope to review the application of the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 powers of Statutory Management.

Given the limited precedent of putting individuals into Statutory Management and the exceptional denial of basic rights this entails, I believe there are matters of law that require further investigation.

I believe that the actions and process of decision making within the Securities Commission requires review.

I believe the manner in which the Securities Commission handles conflicts of interest requires review.

As a constituent of your electorate, I ask that you support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into these events. The highly controversial nature of events and the questions of governance that may extend to Minister Powers lack of justification of the measure, mandate investigation by a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Further, I ask that the terms of reference for this review be wide enough to consider all the points of concern detailed above.

I look forward to your confirmation that these issues and this request will be a matter of your urgent attention.

Yours sincerely,

[COLIN]

"One point I would like to make: Roger, I think it was, poured some chilly water on the worth of the $150m of assets that AH pumped into SCF. Those assets (Scales and Helicopter Lines) were all independently valued at the time, to the satisfaction of the Trustees and Treasury". Colin

Forsyth Barr, as previously mentioned tried for months to sell these assets on the open market or float them on the stockmarket. I understand there were more free flights on Helicopters dished out to the stockbroking community than I've had hot dinners this year. The point is they tried as hard as they could and couldn't sell them for cash after many months of effort. Of course Forsyth Barr still charged millions of dollars for their "expertise".

So what is surprising about that, in today's climate, Roger? How many IPO's have you seen on the NZX lately? I haven't noticed any. M & A activity? Same story (apart from the sale of Shell assets, which is a unique situation). Subsequent postings of yours would seem to indicate that you have a good understanding of the general economic malaise that has gripped the world and is proving quite stubborn to shake off. I don't see any sale of these major assets happening any time soon, and I would be surprised if the recent senior appointee to SCF, who has specific responsibility for managing the equity investments, sees his appointment as a short-term one. Forced sales of these assets would be a diabolical outcome of the Government's blunderbuss actions.

I agree with Enumerate's observations that Sandy Maier has been "cool, calm and collected" in his responses to the exceptionally challenging tasks now imposed by the Statutory Management intrusion. Other posters have quoted from the relative article in today's Press, in regard to debenture rollovers, etc., but I also think that the following excerpts should be highlighted:

"While the statutory management of Hubbard had hurt the finance company, Maier says a report from the statutory managers doesn't point to dishonesty or lack of integrity by Hubbard. 'I was heartened to see there was an absence of any comment like that,' Maier said." ..............."we don't really have anyone stepping up publicly and saying Allan's been naughty about this, that and the other." ........."there was nothing in the report to change my mind about Hubbard."

I have little doubt that the eager hit squad at the SFO will be doing their darnedest to try and construct a case against the Hubbards, no matter how trivial the matters that they might be able to eventually raise. The stakes are mighty high for them, and they are at real risk of getting ovine deposits all over their fresh young faces. Allan H, in tonight's interview on TVNZ, said something along the lines that the Head Sherang of the SFO personally headed up the hit squad and gave the clear impression that he thought he had finally landed the biggest crook in the game!

THREE OF THE SHORTEST BOOKS EVER TO BE WRITTEN:

1. Snakes of Antarctica.

2. The Australian Book of Etiquette.

3. Allan Hubbard: The Century's Greatest Fraudster.

[peat]

I am starting to think that by now the Statutory Manager should have some sort of case together and that as Enumerate says the gravity of the action demands an explanation pretty quickly. Otherwise the business is too tainted even if they do eventually pack up and say 'Oh sorry, carry on then..."
Or if they need time to investigate they should give him his business back and work alongside so as to prevent more damage to his legitimate business (innocent until proven guilty.)
I tend to think there should be more of an indication given of what they are looking for as well. If they suspect fraud they should say so and lay a charge. If they're not confident enough of finding the information to carry that charge through into a successful conviction then they shouldnt have him in SM anymore

[Alan3285]

I am starting to think that by now the Statutory Manager should have some sort of case together and that as Enumerate says the gravity of the action demands an explanation pretty quickly. Otherwise the business is too tainted even if they do eventually pack up and say 'Oh sorry, carry on then..."
Or if they need time to investigate they should give him his business back and work alongside so as to prevent more damage to his legitimate business (innocent until proven guilty.)
I tend to think there should be more of an indication given of what they are looking for as well. If they suspect fraud they should say so and lay a charge. If they're not confident enough of finding the information to carry that charge through into a successful conviction then they shouldnt have him in SM anymore

You have nailed the issue Peat.

AH is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is - that is just fundamentally wrong to any fair-minded person.

Alan.

[Balance]

You have nailed the issue Peat.

AH is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is - that is just fundamentally wrong to any fair-minded person.

Alan.

You miss an important point - putting AH into SM means that he is already deemed a risk and 'guilty' in that sense. The case is being built against him - read the SM Report carefully.

Like it or not, that's how SM works and has worked in the past. No point you guys having a go at the SMs - they are appointed by the government. They are moving as fast as they can with the poor state of paper work by AH.

Even Sandy Maier (an ex-Statutory Manager) acknowledged that.

Excerpt : "Yesterday, Maier praised Grant Thornton for its timing and said people would be anxious for the next report due mid-August.

"It's good the report came out fairly soon. At least it's a start," Maier said."

Finally, let's remember who is putting at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money through the mismanagement of SCF?

[Alan3285]

You have nailed the issue Peat.

AH is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is - that is just fundamentally wrong to any fair-minded person.

Alan.

You miss an important point - putting AH into SM means that he is already deemed a risk and 'guilty' in that sense. The case is being built against him - read the SM Report carefully.

That's EXACTLY my point - he is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

You might find that an acceptable form of justice, but I don't.

Like it or not, that's how SM works and has worked in the past. No point you guys having a go at the SMs - they are appointed by the government. They are moving as fast as they can with the poor state of paper work by AH.

Even Sandy Maier (an ex-Statutory Manager) acknowledged that.

Excerpt : "Yesterday, Maier praised Grant Thornton for its timing and said people would be anxious for the next report due mid-August.

"It's good the report came out fairly soon. At least it's a start," Maier said."

Finally, let's remember who is putting at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money through the mismanagement of SCF?

Where did I have a go at the Statutory Managers?


Alan.

[Enumerate]

Balance basically has one idea ... and it is wrong.

... let's remember who is putting at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money through the mismanagement of SCF?

The government instituted the scheme, the government sets the standards for entry, the government demands payment.

SCF are staging a near miraculous recovery. They are focused, they are hard working, they have effective leadership and an appropriate plan.

The single greatest threat to SCF is the government's "own goal" in terms of the Hubbard statutory management.

All these points have be raised, discussed ... Balance is not really paying any attention.

He is happy with his one idea ... and it is wrong.