Tainted Directors

[Placebo]

Perhaps they are more concerned with feathering the nest but surely the institute of directors has an interest in ensuring their members are of the highest integrity and the best people for their roles. I recall once a Bruce McKay column in which he lambasted the DHBs because of their poor governance. In the column he noted that the institute of directors only has about 250 members - and DHB boards have nearly as many, most of them lay people.

NZ has quite a few professional directors, and at an individual level their reputations are important to them - that's how they get appointed (that and the Old School Tie network).

It's not always as simple as saying `such-and-such was involved with a failed company, therefore they are a bad director'. But I am not against naming and shaming people who have genuinely done wrong. That's the heart of our justice system.

[Kees]

There is also the matter of independent directors high profile whom put there name forward and collect the booty but as soon as the **** hits the fan are no where to be seem example Tipene Oregan Hanover fame etc.
These people should be on the top of the list as they are there to protect the investor and police any company shanangins.

[minimoke]

It's not always as simple as saying `such-and-such was involved with a failed company, therefore they are a bad director'.

Of course - and I'm not suggesting the people on my list are "bad". They may, afterall have been doing a very good job of protecting shareholder value (which could have been reflected in dividends paid). Thats one of their main responsibilities and thats why its useful to check links between shareholding and directorships.

They may not be bad, as in "rotten" but their judgement should be looked at and in many cases it is probably arguable that their judgement was poor. Was that just a one-off, or is it a question of competence or dedication. Individual investors can make their own call on competence but dedication can be easily measured by the number of Directorships a person holds - the more held, the more likely those skills, IMO, are likely to be dilluted.

[beacon]

Of course - and I'm not suggesting the people on my list are "bad". They may, afterall have been doing a very good job of protecting shareholder value (which could have been reflected in dividends paid). Thats one of their main responsibilities and thats why its useful to check links between shareholding and directorships.

They may not be bad, as in "rotten" but their judgement should be looked at and in many cases it is probably arguable that their judgement was poor. Was that just a one-off, or is it a question of competence or dedication.

Ditto that

Individual investors can make their own call on competence but dedication can be easily measured by the number of Directorships a person holds - the more held, the more likely those skills, IMO, are likely to be dilluted.

Second that as well.

Your earlier post was brilliantly put as well. Good to see aware intelligent investors, who do their homework. Life is still a bitch, and some of these are rotten eggs that do us ...

[minimoke]

And today I think Ill put SCF Alan Hubard.

Its a Directors job to hire and manage the CEO. Loosing a CEO on 2 days notice, with no apparent sucession plan (a CA who is a Director of 43 other companies as an interim CEO??) when your company has gone into negative credit watch, is trying to raise money and is wanting to float in a few months time is something, IMO that should be raising a flag of concern.

[Dr_Who]

The management of DNZ should be included in this list.

[percy]

minimoke keep up your list.
i feel sure if one named comes up in future we can ask why they are listed.
scf alan hubard.
a few years ago i had shares in scales corp a company where hubard was chairman and major shareholder.it was a shocker,with related party
transactions and illegal deals with russians.it would have made your list,
and maybe we would have had an early warning.
i believe scales is now a very well run company.

[paul29]

Angry investors rough up Bridgecorp boss

Poor old Rod Petricevic. The bankrupt former boss of failed finance company Bridgecorp not only faces a raft of legal woes, but he just can't get any respect from his peers.

When Petricevic visited Auckland's Moreton's Bar and Restaurant in s****y St Heliers recently, his presence went down like a dodgy prawn with the locals.

According to a witness, Petricevic wandered in "dressed up to the nines", with his wife and golfing buddies.

He was soon approached by an elderly man, who appeared to be the friend of someone who had lost money when Bridgecorp collapsed, owing investors the small matter of $450m.

"The old guy said 'I don't think you should be down here'," the witness said.

Things only got worse for Petricevic when he entered the al fresco dining area. The witness looked over to see the former financier sprawled in the gutter with another punter on top of him. A bouncer had to step in, he said, while another customer pinned Petricevic against a wall and said: "F--- off, you're not wanted here."

The witness said: "He's arrogant, he kept driving his Porsche up and down Remuera Rd, past all the people who'd lost money, it's ridiculous."

A manager at Moreton's, who gave his name as Dave, confirmed Petricevic was roughed up.

"He's certainly not popular. It was basically a bit of rough treatment from the guys; they told him in no uncertain terms he's not welcome here, that he's really arrogant, [and] has cost people a lot of money. He left pretty quick; it wouldn't have been a very comfortable environment for him."

This has not been a good year for Petricevic, who has been vilified since the collapse of Bridgecorp left thousands of investors badly out of pocket. In March Petricevic's beloved Porsche 911, which he had transferred to a family trust to avoid creditors, was sold at auction for $150,000 after a court ordered it be seized.

He has spent the year in and out of courtrooms, facing charges laid against him and fellow director Robert Roest under the Companies Act and Securities Act, including making false statements, which carries a maximum penalty of $200,000 or five years' jail.

In June he was banned from directing or managing a company in New Zealand for five years, and the Official Assignee is probing the transfer of wealth from his estate to a family trust. Petricevic and Roest and three other directors face a jury trial next year.

Petricevic did not return the Sunday Star-Times' calls




paul29 is a Director of a finance company..

[Dr_Who]

WOW... what a rough neighbourhood.

Abit of old fashion justice is good for the community.

[whatsup]

WOW... what a rough neighbourhood.

Abit of old fashion justice is good for the community.

When does the Anti smacking legislation apply to Rod Petrofied