SANford Chart

[Baa_Baa]

Ouch, forfeit the $20m vessel and $36k fine. Bad day huh!

[Aaron]

Ouch, forfeit the $20m vessel and $36k fine. Bad day huh!

Doesn't seem to have affected the share price much. Maybe this has already been factored into people's calculations. Upset as a shareholder but no point in having rules/reserves unless someone is going to police and enforce them. I bet Sanfords don't do it twice.

Any further news re Chinese audit?

[winner69]

Ouch, forfeit the $20m vessel and $36k fine. Bad day huh!

A few weeks ago they said - The Directors have concluded, based on legal advice, that there is no requirement to recognise a liability for the forfeiture of the vessel and catch at balance date”.

Fine covered by insurance they say - that seems morally wrong

[Beagle]

A few weeks ago they said - The Directors have concluded, based on legal advice, that there is no requirement to recognise a liability for the forfeiture of the vessel and catch at balance date”.

Fine covered by insurance they say - that seems morally wrong

They might say that but you have to wonder if the Insurance company will agree to such a claim given the accuracy of modern GPS systems which will tell you within a few meters where you are fishing. At very best this is gross recklessness....more likely deliberate in which case the insurance company might tell them to get stuffed and refuse to pay out.

Wonder what Iceman makes of this ? My guess is the directors are in for a rude shock when they try and make their claim.

[Sideshow Bob]

The full announcement......

Further update on San Waitaki ruling

23/2/2021, 3:41 pmGENERAL23 February 2021
NZX Continuous Disclosure
Further update on San Waitaki ruling, judgement received today.
Sanford Limited (NZX:SAN) wishes to advise that it has received today the judgement of Judge S J O’Driscoll in the Christchurch District Court in the case of Ministry for Primary Industries v Walker, Lash and Sanford Limited.
Sanford accepts the decision of the court and has expressed its deep regret for the incident, which was entirely unintentional.
The judge has handed down a $36,000 fine for Sanford and has confirmed the forfeiture of the San Waitaki. Sanford will be making an application for relief from forfeiture and, based on legal advice, it is optimistic it will be granted without reaching materiality thresholds. We will work constructively to expeditiously address the matter of forfeiture. In the meantime, Sanford will work with MPI to ensure the vessel remains operational until the matter is resolved.
Benthic protection areas (BPA) are areas of seabed in New Zealand where some fishing activity is illegal. Sanford supported the introduction of these areas in New Zealand and, despite the mistakes which led to this case, we respect these areas and are advocates for marine protection.
In 1997, Sanford was part of New Zealand’s Deepwater Group which voluntarily closed an area of water in the South Island to allow fish stocks to rebuild. Then in 2007, while the wider area was still closed, MPI established a small marine protection area inside it, creating a BPA. In 2017, the wider area reopened, allowing fishing to occur, but not in the small BPA. The BPA area was not showing on electronic charts that the San Waitaki was using when the infringement occurred.
Sanford is deeply committed to sustainability in all its operations. As the court accepted, the incidents which led to this prosecution were not deliberate in any way. The court heard that Sanford had “an exemplary record” and since these incidents, we have put newly developed technology in place to minimise the risk of any fishing in a protected area.
We will provide more information as soon as the process allows.

[Zaphod]

The seizure of a $20m vessel does seem disproportionate to the damage caused by the incident, however I am not surprised given how some of our extended family members were dealt with by MPI for taking two paua at the edge of a reserve, so I am not surprised. It is a pity that other criminal offences were not dealt with in such a strict manner.

[Balance]

The seizure of a $20m vessel does seem disproportionate to the damage caused by the incident, however I am not surprised given how some of our extended family members were dealt with by MPI for taking two paua at the edge of a reserve, so I am not surprised. It is a pity that other criminal offences were not dealt with in such a strict manner.

Different treatment if it was Sealord.

[winner69]

Different treatment if it was Sealord.

It’s who you know eh Balance

[iceman]

Different treatment if it was Sealord.

Sealord had a similar punishment a couple of years ago. I think this judgement is too lenient. I don't buy any of the excuses SAN used to defend it. The vessel will be immediately bonded back to them to continue operations and then they will pay the MPI redemption fee, probably around $80-100k and get the vessel back. Add the $36k fine so in total SAN will get a real fine of $120-140k and have the vessel back in their fleet and operating as before, except outside the MPAs, hopefully. I'm surprised the Captain is still in his job.

[BlackPeter]

Sealord had a similar punishment a couple of years ago. I think this judgement is too lenient. I don't buy any of the excuses SAN used to defend it. The vessel will be immediately bonded back to them to continue operations and then they will pay the MPI redemption fee, probably around $80-100k and get the vessel back. Add the $36k fine so in total SAN will get a real fine of $120-140k and have the vessel back in their fleet and operating as before, except outside the MPAs, hopefully. I'm surprised the Captain is still in his job.

Is it clear that it was the captains fault? The companies explanation sounds more like a database error where somebody removed accidentally the geofencing of a smaller area which was part of a larger area where the geofencing was (correctly) removed? Could be an issue with whoever is responsible for maintaining the data base (like an operators error) - or it even could be a software issue.

These things do happen.

If latter is the case than I'd say that our laws are quite ridiculous with the punishment completely out of proportion to the offence.