South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Marilyn Munroe]

I am surprised that those charged with fraud regarding South Canterbury Finance were granted continued name suppression in the Timaru Court today.

I hope that those charged are not currently giving advice on, or handling other peoples money..

Boop boop de do

Marilyn

[macduffy]

I am surprised that those charged with fraud regarding South Canterbury Finance were granted continued name suppression in the Timaru Court today.

I guess - and it's only an uninformed guess that the rationale is to prevent gossip about those accused having some effect on the court proceedings. Certainly not to "allow family members to be advised" at this late stage, I would think.

Perhaps some legal brain could explain?

[blockhead]

I hope the five involved have got all their loot safely stashed in the wifes name or the family trust, be a shame if the Wanaka bach or the Sounds crib had to go.

[winner69]

Todays Christchurch Press has a statement from Lachie McLeod saying he has not been charged.

Boop boop de do

Marilyn

and today he is no longer seeking name suppression and his lawyer says 'he is disappointed the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had included him in the charges which he would defend.'

The circus continues .... whats the next act

[Kees]

Hopefully 10-20 years each if found guilty

[Enumerate]

Remember David Hillary's analysis of the value of Dairy Holdings:

The asset sale I am most looking forward to is the Dairy interests. David Hillary is on record that he believes that Dairy Holdings Ltd is insolvent:

Originally Posted by David Hillary
One of South Canterbury Finance's largest assets is a 33.59% shareholding in Dairy Holdings Limited. This post casts doubt on the value of this asset: The most recent disclosure of Dairy Holdings Limited's books works out to about $48,900/effective hectare, and about $46/KgMS. I understand that these values appear to be about 58-71% more than the $29/KgMS and $28,523/ha similar farms are currently offered for sale at (adjusted to remove livestock that Dairy Holdings largely does not own). Dairy Holding's debt levels are 60.6% of total assets, calling into question the company's solvency.



The gist is that Hillary believes that Dairy assets were overvalued by almost 60% and that since total debt is about 60% of assets - the expected return is less than zero. (Let $x be the asset value - 0.6$x will be realised, yet 0.6$x will remain as debt liabilities - net result zero).

I hope that Hillary's absurd analysis will be exposed as nonsense by a thumping good sale of Dairy Holdings.

http://www.depositrates.co.nz/news/9...ngs-stake.html

The transaction values Dairy Holdings in excess of $535 million, enterprise value. SCF will receive $56.4 million from the sale of its 33.6% interest.

Fortunately, Mr Hillary now has the perfect job - he is a credit analyst. In the current environment of de-leveraging; Mr Hillary will happily tell you your multi-million dollar business is insolvent and give you the "bums rush" out the door of his financial institution.

[Balance]

David was 0.1% wrong, and 99.9% right regarding SCF and Alan Hubbard.

Enumerate in contrast is 99.9% wrong, and 0.1% right.

[Enumerate]

Balance, what are you going on about? 0.1% wrong is 100% wrong. Balance exists in some kind of quantum state of "wrong" and "right" - perhaps we collapse the wave function to "idiotic".

Let me see: David Hillary was completely wrong about his "valuations" of the assets Alan Hubbard stumped up to try to save SCF. Looks like despite a sale process being conducted by an insolvency team steeped in government "gravy" - that the Hubbard assets held up pretty well. I wonder what they would have got if the sales hadn't been forced and managed by more astute parties?

The notion that Hubbard was shifting valueless assets into SCF was absurd to start with and is proven to be absurd, in fact.

Allan Hubbard's legacy remains - he tried to save SCF.

Hillary should devote himself to explaining why the liquidator sold performing loan books at an apparent significant discount to asset value.

I wonder why the preference shareholders have not been given any information as to the financial state of the their company given their de facto state as unsecured creditors?

[Balance]

SCF directors and management have been charged with fraud.

Mr Hubbard would have been charged (unquestionably as well) but for his death.

Those charged will be directing all inquiries and faults to Mr Hubbard as their key defense. Most disgraceful of them but birds of a feather flock together.

Revelations will be most unpleasant and unfortunately, Mr Hubbard will not be there to defend.

What else needs to be said about at this stage? Save that those who believed in Mr Hubbard better brace themselves for how wrong they were.

[Balance]

SCF getting into trouble is no surprise when you look at how Hubbard was using the finance company as his private piggy bank to do exactly as he likes - with no heed to credit risk or cash flow considerations.

This is a prime example - Hubbard took the money, and SCF took ALL the risks.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-sou...es-deal-132712

You need to be a subscriber to be able to access the article.

Essentially the deal was SCF advancing McLeod and gang $21.5m interest only-capitalising loans to buy shares off Allan Hubbard in Southbury - the loans were non-recourse and repayment limited to the lower of Southbury shares or the loan value! How sweet a deal is that?

So $21.5m went to McLeod and gang from SCF and was then, paid to Allan Hubbard.

History records that SCF got zippo out of the loans but Hubbard received $21.5m.

No words can describe the contempt investors in SCF should have towards the totally reckless and blatant self-serving use of their money.


Unfortunately, Mr Hubbard chose NOT to refute or justify such type of lending when he was alive. Wonder why?