South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Balance]

Mini, you seem unconcerned that normal commercial channels of investigation have been bypassed (why not appoint an auditor?). The unsubstantiated rantings of the tabloid press (that passes for business journalism in NZ) do not constitute a forensic investigation. Even powers of investigation under the companies act have been brushed aside. Mini, you seem happy with this situation?

Statutory Management of Hubbard has a political motivation. The consequences of this arrogant and unjust use of political power will be felt from Parnell to Dipton ...

On the contrary, there has been plenty of evidence out there for anyone with half an accounting brain to see what Hubbard was up to. You chose to ignore the mounting evidence from way back of Hubbard mismanaging SCF and then, using money-go-round via related party transactions to try and keep his crumbling empire from going under. This is all documented, even on this site.

You chose and you lost.

As for Hubbard, he had Russell McVeagh prepare a case for judicial review but backed off. No prizes for guessing why

[Balance]

Why beat up on the media? They have at least kept the market informed whilst SCF went about its merry way of using the public's money as its own piggy bank.

30% of SCF's loan book is interest-only and probably, capitalising interest loans. SCF was living in fool's paradise - a micky-mouse Timaru company using investors' money to join the big league of property development lending.

Them, there's the related party lending - a staggering $230m against real shareholders' funds of $110m. So Hubbard puts in $1 and takes out $2.30.

Good one.

SCF has a chance to get itself out of this mess - let's hope it takes it.

Especially for you, Enumerate - warning from way back in October 2009.

Hubbard did not fool some of us one iota.

[minimoke]

Statutory Management of Hubbard has a political motivation. The consequences of this arrogant and unjust use of political power will be felt from Parnell to Dipton ...

Enumerate your post deserves a more detailed response when I return. However the issue of political motivation needs to be put to rest. What would Nationals motivation be. They have the next election in the bag. They need to look after the farming community for constituency votes - a Stat man wouldnt help. They had the Guarantee money in the bag - that was already in the books as SCF's fall had been flagged ages ago. What is the govts motivation

[Balance]

Enumerate your post deserves a more detailed response when I return. However the issue of political motivation needs to be put to rest. What would Nationals motivation be. They have the next election in the bag. They need to look after the farming community for constituency votes - a Stat man wouldnt help. They had the Guarantee money in the bag - that was already in the books as SCF's fall had been flagged ages ago. What is the govts motivation

The history of statutory management being used in NZ is good - can anyone name one good company or ethical individual unjustifiably put into Stat mgmt.

Once appointed, the stat mge acts independently of the govt.

For eg, the stat mgr of Equiticorp actually brought a case against the govt re purchase of NZ Steel and won.

Enumerate made the wrong bet, supporting Hubbard against the weight of evidence piling up out there. He lost and is now looking for justification.

[Balance]

Good indication of how closely involved Hubbard was in the collapse of SCF :

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...erbury-Finance

[Enumerate]

If this is the quality of analysis in the Virginia Green book it's not worth the paper it's written on. Of course there is a right of appeal - a decision to place someone in statutory management is subject to judicial review. For whatever reason, Hubbard has chosen not to invoke his right, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is pretty clear you haven't read the book.

He will certainly have been informed of the reasons for the statutory management, it is a requirement of the common law even if not spelled out in the statute. In fact, the reasons were made public by Minister Power when the statutory management was announced.

You have got to be joking. The only statement ever made was some vague "defense of the public interest".

Of course there is no need to lay charges first - statutory management is not a penalty, it is a last-resort means of securing assets that are at risk when there is no other effective way of doing so. And it does not extinguish anyone's property rights, rather it freezes them so that whatever mess has given rise to the SM can be sorted out.

"Freezing" property rights differs from "denying" ... how?

Finally, neither the govt nor any of its Ministers has any say in whether or not criminal charges are laid.

I never claimed that they would - which makes Prime Minister Key's statement very interesting.

You need to read the book.

[Enumerate]

What is the govts motivation

You need to read the book.

[Balance]

You need to read the book.

Wow! Now Enumerate is quoting from the 'bible' - the book.

Next time, you should take heed of the warnings in the market BEFORE the fact - not attempt and look for self-justification later.

[Cully]

You need to read the book.

Enumerate, you need to reread your own post.

And surely you know the difference between "freezing" and "extinguishing" (which was the word you used).

[Enumerate]

On the contrary, there has been plenty of evidence out there for anyone with half an accounting brain to see what Hubbard was up to. You chose to ignore the mounting evidence from way back of Hubbard mismanaging SCF and then, using money-go-round via related party transactions to try and keep his crumbling empire from going under. This is all documented, even on this site.

"Evidence" actually has a technical meaning. The hearsay and the skuttlebut that I believe you are referring to is NOT evidence for the simple reason that there is no trier of fact.

You chose and you lost.

What?? I am doing a book review - I did choose the book, but I still have it.

As for Hubbard, he had Russell McVeagh prepare a case for judicial review but backed off. No prizes for guessing why

There is no remedy in the Companies Act, there is no right of judicial review.

The history of statutory management being used in NZ is good - can anyone name one good company or ethical individual unjustifiably put into Stat mgmt.

Can anyone spot the elementary error of logic?

Once appointed, the stat mge acts independently of the govt.

A Statutory Manager acts for the members and creditors of a corporation or the beneficiaries of a trust.

The normal insolvency concept of "security" does not apply to Statutory Management. All stakeholders are regarded as equals.

Enumerate made the wrong bet, supporting Hubbard against the weight of evidence piling up out there. He lost and is now looking for justification.

This, I suppose, is a classic example of a "straw man fallacy". This particular example is usually a favorite of children, as a taunt - usually not particularly bright children.

You really need to read the book!