Tainted Directors

[J R Ewing]

And in todays news;
" A former National Cabinet minister is to be charged for misleading investors during his directorship of failed finance company Lombard Finance.
The Securities Commission announced today that it would launch civil proceedings against four Lombard directors, Sir Douglas Graham, Michael Reeves, William Jeffries and Lawrence Bryant.
Mr Graham was Minister of Justice and Attorney-General for a National Party-led Government during the 1990s."

Perhaps one should also note that another director (Bill Jeffries) was a former Labour Cabinet Minister...

[minimoke]

Perhaps one should also note that another director (Bill Jeffries) was a former Labour Cabinet Minister...

Perhasp yes - but charges against him (and another National Minister Hugh Templeton) were dropped

[sharer]

Perhasp yes - but charges against him [Bill Jeffries] (and another National Minister Hugh Templeton) were dropped

That's right, but that was a quite different matter, years ago. This new charge by the Commission sounds more serious.

(Disc: several years ago, on advice from self-described expert financial & investment advisers, which our Trust lawyers had told us we basically had to follow to avoid being personally responsible if things went wrong, our board of a charitable trust fund put some money into Lombard & several other "non-bank deposit takers". Fortunately i read very carefully the small print footnotes in the Prospectus, giving their side of the detailed story about that matter, & though Lombard emphasised nobody lost any money, & it seemed to be just a paperwork oversight picked up by the Registrar etc, i was worried that their application to some court to have it all struck out had failed (especially with such well-connected lawyers involved) & couldn't help feeling the Court had found reasons for doubts that were not apparent from the Prospectus itself. Eventually i was able to persuade our trust board to withdraw their investments in Lombard & several other similar funds, & to record in our minutes that we felt unable to follow the Advisers "advice" without further independent confirmation. This was my only significant "win" as a trustee, but it did save our Fund a lot of money, as things started going wrong for all those non-bank borrowers during the next few years.
I think the true role & actual effect of selfserving & incompetent so-called Professional Financial Advisers in actively misleading intelligent and cautious investors and unpaid non-professional trustees, who feel they may be legally obliged to follow advice given by such people (for a fee), has still not been adequately recognised. Avoid them all, i say! )

[minimoke]

Tiime to put Nuplex on the Thread. Commerce Commsion now suing The directors involved are David Jackson (non-executive director, Auckland AND Securities Commision Member), John Hirst (managing director, Sydney), Robert Aitken (chairman and non-executive director, Sydney), Barbara Gibson (non-executive director, Melbourne), Bryan Kensington (former non-executive director, Auckland) and Michael Wynter (non-executive director, Sydney).

[J R Ewing]

Perhasp yes - but charges against him (and another National Minister Hugh Templeton) were dropped

Is that correct? Your earlier post refer's to civil proceedings against four directors including Sir Douglas Graham AND William Jeffries??

[macduffy]

Tiime to put Nuplex on the Thread. Commerce Commsion now suing The directors involved are David Jackson (non-executive director, Auckland AND Securities Commision Member), John Hirst (managing director, Sydney), Robert Aitken (chairman and non-executive director, Sydney), Barbara Gibson (non-executive director, Melbourne), Bryan Kensington (former non-executive director, Auckland) and Michael Wynter (non-executive director, Sydney).

Careful now!

We don't want to end up with a situation where it's easier to keep a list of "squeaky clean" directors instead!

Besides, we're still only talking "charges" here, not convictions - and it's the Securities Commission laying charges, not the Commerce Commission.

[minimoke]

Careful now!

We don't want to end up with a situation where it's easier to keep a list of "squeaky clean" directors instead!

Besides, we're still only talking "charges" here, not convictions - and it's the Securities Commission laying charges, not the Commerce Commission.

"Sqeaky clean" directors. Now there's an idea to save bandwith on a shartrade forum. And yes they are "charges" - but if there is enough evidence to get to this stage the public should know - the courts can make the final decision.

[minimoke]

Is that correct? Your earlier post refer's to civil proceedings against four directors including Sir Douglas Graham AND William Jeffries??

Yes - its a bit hard to keep up with them all. Back in 2003 charges were brought against Jeffries and Templeton (along with Alan Beddie as executive and Michael Reeves as CEo) and they were both civil and criminal charges relating to misleading investors in a new plymouth retirement home offer. There were also charges in relation to a golf retirement village. Apparently the value of the Villages was inflated - but it dragged on for a while (including going to the high court) until 2006 when charges were dropped.

And if you want to follow a trail in 2006 - then check out how lombard goes to SCF in a bid to rescue Provincial Finance.

Fast forward a year to 2007 and what do we have: Remember: Templeton left Lombard; Hanover got a new CEO; Allied Farmers wer reviweing their notes issue; Bridgecorp got problem loans off their balance sheet; SCF is nominated Outstanding Compnay of the Year

[minimoke]

And in todays news;
The Securities Commission announced today that it would launch civil proceedings against four Lombard directors, Sir Douglas Graham, Michael Reeves, William Jeffries and Lawrence Bryant.
Mr Graham was Minister of Justice and Attorney-General for a National Party-led Government during the 1990s."

And today they are now facing criminal charges

[J R Ewing]

Shame it takes an ebbing tide to expose the shenigans. Is the rule that you are allowed to break the law just so long as nobody looses any money?

I guess so. Any Ponzi scheme worth it's salt should be able look respectable while the $$'s are still rolling in and everyone is making money!