-
29-10-2015, 02:04 PM
#3731
Member
Originally Posted by percy
Maybe he is making a provision for the commerce commission price fixing case.!??
Any thoughts on how a sentence will affect the SP. 99% certain they are going to get a large cash fine in the near future....
-
29-10-2015, 02:12 PM
#3732
Originally Posted by kiwidollabill
Any thoughts on how a sentence will affect the SP. 99% certain they are going to get a large cash fine in the near future....
No idea,although in an earlier post, on this thread, Xerof did warn it could be substantial.Post #3503 page 234.
-
29-10-2015, 02:19 PM
#3733
Member
Originally Posted by percy
No idea,although in an earlier post, on this thread, Xerof did warn it could be substantial.Post #3503 page 234.
Thanks, I'd also like to warn that it will be substantial. Pretty sad since I understand there was practically zero financial benefit and the companies involved were 'trying to do something for the good of the industry'
-
29-10-2015, 02:20 PM
#3734
Originally Posted by kiwidollabill
Any thoughts on how a sentence will affect the SP. 99% certain they are going to get a large cash fine in the near future....
Interesting prediction ... given your certainty you must have quite detailed insider knowledge in this case. Tell us a bit more about it - I am sure the courts are all ears ...
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
-
29-10-2015, 02:27 PM
#3735
Member
Originally Posted by BlackPeter
Interesting prediction ... given your certainty you must have quite detailed insider knowledge in this case. Tell us a bit more about it - I am sure the courts are all ears ...
Sure.......
-
29-10-2015, 02:36 PM
#3736
Originally Posted by Xerof
IIRC, the last one against the agricultural sector cost them $5.5mill in ~1996/7 - meat companies over weekly schedule pricing
As much as this one BILL,Pray tell
-
29-10-2015, 02:40 PM
#3737
Member
Don't know any details fair friends but 'reading between the lines' of a few convos I doubt it will be a 'slap on the wrist' of 100k or so. Anything else we can only speculate - and we're good at doing that round here.
-
29-10-2015, 02:57 PM
#3738
Originally Posted by percy
Maybe he is making a provision for the commerce commission price fixing case.!??
One of few reasons why sold out earlier, I think the ComCom fine will be substantial in my opinion.
-
29-10-2015, 03:07 PM
#3739
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11491116
Article relating to price fixing case from Aug this year, interesting point from that was:
"Companies convicted of price-fixing can attract a maximum penalty that's the greater of $10 million, or three times the commercial gain, or if that can't be established easily, 10 per cent of turnover".
-
29-10-2015, 03:58 PM
#3740
Originally Posted by sb9
One of few reasons why sold out earlier, I think the ComCom fine will be substantial in my opinion.
I would suggest the fine will probably not be substantial in overall shareholder terms. I can't remember when I first read about the likely implications, but the foillowing extract is from an article that appeared on July 6th 2015.
http://www.agrimoney.com/news/pgg-wr...ees--8545.html
-----
PGG Wrightson plays down potential fine over livestock fees
PGG Wrightson played down an admission that it is likely to be fined by an investigation into price fixing in livestock charges, saying that the penalty is unlikely to be big enough to warrant a dent to its share price.
PGG Wrightson, or PGW, said that the Commerce Commission fair trade authority has "signalled its intention to seek a pecuniary penalty" from the company, New Zealand's best known farm services group, over charges implemented following the introduction of animal tracing rules three years ago.
The commission, known in New Zealand as ComCom, "has indicated that it has reached the view that the Commerce Act has been breached", PGW chief executive Mark Dewdney said.
However, the group, while failing to detail the proposed fine, said that in its view, and taking account of New Zealand Stock Exchange rules on disclosure, "the proposed level of that penalty, while significant, is not materially price-sensitive for PGW".
--------
Also from the FY2015 annual report, p9
--------
"At the time of writing the matter remains subject to court proceedings and accordingly PGG Wrightson cannot comment further other than a note that a provision has been made on the year end financial statements to 30 June 2015 to cover the potential costs and outcomes of the proceedings."
-------
The penalty won't be nice, but neither will it be worth selling any shares over. Any effect was probably already built into he accounts when the matter became public. Try more homework and less speculation and you will sleep more soundly.
SNOOPY
Last edited by Snoopy; 29-10-2015 at 04:06 PM.
Watch out for the most persistent and dangerous version of Covid-19: B.S.24/7
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks