South Canterbury Finance Limited

[minimoke]

Until there is proof of guilt - the state has no business denying a citizen his rights.

Even poor old Donald had no proof of guilt. While there was evidence of his guilt, his guilt was never proved. You'll know that in reality a citizen has limited rights. We don't really have freedom of speech (try talking about niggers in a public place), we don't really get to own our property (try being a land owner when power pylons need to be put up), we don't get to keep the money we have earn (what was your tax bill like).

We actually have a limited set of rights and in NZ we don't even have a constitution. The state has the ability to legally place a person under statutory management, that person has a legal right to contest that power when it has been imposed - AH has chosen not to do so.

We are a very long way from being in a position where guilt has been established - if indeed if it ever contested.

[Enumerate]

Mini, you have a very dark view of citizen rights, in New Zealand. I do not share this view nor am I prepared to stay silent when I see citizen rights violated by the government (the absolute betrayal of trust!).

[minimoke]

Mini, you have a very dark view of citizen rights, in New Zealand.

I guess you got me there. I just don't see NZ through the rose tinted glasses of citizen rights that others would have us believe we have. We have no single written constitution. We have one sector of society who has greater rights than another (actually two if we count the finance sector) and we have a government (consistent with previous ones) who are more than happy to pass legislation in haste, under urgency and on the back of public outrage. How do we know what our rights are when things like the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Act is so full of loopholes that those in the know will have more rights than others.

[Pumice]

Mini, you have a very dark view of citizen rights, in New Zealand. I do not share this view nor am I prepared to stay silent when I see citizen rights violated by the government (the absolute betrayal of trust!).

I don’t recall too many NZ'ers jumping up and down when the government legislated over the rights of Maori to contest the ownership of the foreshore and seabed in our courts. Whether you think Maori are right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact their rights were taken away was disgusting.

[sharer]

...With respect to Mark Hotchin though, my own view is that the process applied to him is far preferable when compared to what they did to Allan Hubbard. At least Hotchin has had the protection of the court. The executive, represented in this case by the ComCom, had to make its case to the court and, in this case, the court agreed. Hotchin could and can challenge that decision in court.

Was it not the Securities Commission actually?
I think i read that they've had the power to bring this kind of ex parte application before the High Court since 2006, but apparently this is the first time they've used it.

...Allan Hubbard was summarily deprived of his assets by the executive without any recourse to an independent judiciary. Those rights were hard-won in England almost a thousand years ago, and should not be lightly dismissed in a fit of schadenfreude irrespective of the final outcome.
Alan.

Well said, Alan.

[sharer]

I don’t recall too many NZ'ers jumping up and down when the government legislated over the rights of Maori to contest the ownership of the foreshore and seabed in our courts. Whether you think Maori are right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact their rights were taken away was disgusting.

Actually Pumice, i do recall a lot of NZers jumping up & down at the time outside Parliament, quite impressively! My family were amongst them (we were the polite guys in the back row still wearing pants).
But of course i agree with your very relevant comment. Good on you for making it.
Fairness doesn't always get respected here.
There could be some extra kaimoana kept aside in case you show up for our bbq (byog).

And seasonal good wishes to everyone else, especially Enumerate & Minimoke for their recent posts reminding us about the need to defend important hard won civil rights.
Sharer.

[J R Ewing]

I don’t recall too many NZ'ers jumping up and down when the government legislated over the rights of Maori to contest the ownership of the foreshore and seabed in our courts. Whether you think Maori are right or wrong is irrelevant, the fact their rights were taken away was disgusting.

Some of us were still under the illusion that the seabed and foreshore was part of the Queens chain that belongs to all New Zealanders. These new fangled "customary titles" caught us by surprise! Not all that surprising that we weren't "jumping up and down" defending a "right" that had only been established for 5 minutes and yet depended on something allegedly done to or by people long since dead.

[Cully]

Some of us were still under the illusion that the seabed and foreshore was part of the Queens chain that belongs to all New Zealanders. These new fangled "customary titles" caught us by surprise! Not all that surprising that we weren't "jumping up and down" defending a "right" that had only been established for 5 minutes and yet depended on something allegedly done to or by people long since dead.

Just because you hadn't heard of it doesn't mean it did not exist! Which it has, for many decades. I had thought the same as you about the Queens Chain but it turns out that was a myth, there never has been a continuous chain around the NZ coastline.

And to get this thread back more or less on topic - Hotchin, Hubbard and their ilk have never had any right, civil or otherwise, to do whatever they like with other people's money!

[Beagle]

Southbury owes SCF $103 million !!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10695870
Has no assets other than its investment in SCF WORTH $245million LOL.


Kudos to David Hillary who called it right nearly a year ago and questioned if Southbury had any assets left after selling Scales and Helicopters N.Z. to SCF.

One of the premises behind the directors assumptions of going concern in early 2010 when they disagreed with the Auditors who qualified their audit report was that Southbury would raise $180 million in due course...hmmm against what exactly ?

If I were you Enumerate I'd be going after the Directors personally for trading whilst insolvent, gross recklessness and a number of other things, you're a big boy, get after them.

Whether you like to admitt it or not AH has taken creative accounting to whole new level and they'll be studying this collapse at Universities around New Zealand for decades to come.

And here we see Mark Hotchin getting his just rewards:-

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...t-won-t-starve I've got some free advice for you Mr Hotchin, take you kids out of private schools, but a cheap old second hand car and make do with a lesser property, i.e. start living like most of the people you've ripped off !!

Here we see how pathetic the judiciary is on white collar crime with the five star directors fraud of circa $50 million, how many hundreds or is it thousands of people's lives and future financial secuirty have they ruined, (most of whom are too old to rebuild their financial security and face a situation where they will be struggling to make ends meet for the rest of their lives), and they get a whopping great 2 years 10 months, yet if one were silly enough to rob a bank of $1,000 at gunpoint you might get 14 years inside, go figure ?

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/0...directors.html

[Balance]

Don't be too harsh on our judges - the two (age 65 and 70) are going to find a year or so in jail at their ages and after the soft lives they have lived pretty tough.

Meanwhile, sounds like Allan Hubbard's greatest cheerleader and worshipper (before he fell from grace), Chris 'see my own rating system for finance companies but got them even more wrong' Lee, has turned really septic on his previous idol.

He is suggesting best course of action now is against Sandy Maier and Forsyth Barr :

"Another group who should not give up hope are those that want to see accountability for the blatantly poor management of South Canterbury Finance this year.

In September I recorded specific issues that simply must be examined by the NZX, the Securities Commission and perhaps the Commerce Commission.

Specifically the American Samford Maier Junior (“Sandy”), the Forsyth Barr chief executive Neil Paviour-Smith, and SCF’s directors must be asked to explain key concerns.

The biggest issue is why Maier told the market in May 2010 that SCF was breaking even, had no known need for future provisioning, was getting 40% renewal rates, had $240 million of nett shareholders funds, and had an encouraging future.

All of these statements, at the time he made them, and subsequently, were demonstrably inaccurate, in my opinion. I said so, at the time.

The effect of these statements on SCF’s preference shareholders may have been to encourage investors to hold on to the shares, or even buy more.

Nett shareholders funds of $240 million implied a nett asset backing per preference shares of nearly $2.00, in May. In September the nett backing was negative $3.00 at best. Between these two dates, not a word was said about collapsing asset values."

Sounds like a good idea which Enumerate may want to follow.

Meanwhile, not a whisper from our resident human rights champion about poor old Hotchin whose NZ assets and rights have been taken away - without notice!