South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Balance]

Why, Balance, did you edit your post to remove your assertion that Allan Hubbard will be charged?

I gave you the benefit of a full reply why he will be charged.

LOL - Do you actually read or choose to read what you want to read?

[Balance]

Neither point is actually made, by the Statutory Manager, in the report. This is your imagination at work.

That is NOT the role of the SM. Have a look at 5 Star, Bridgecorp etc - the receivers do their job and then, it's up to the SFO, Securities Commission and/or Companies Office to take action.

If this is your "accounting evidence" you won't even make it past a deposition hearing.

Cash is cash is cash. The burden of proof is now with AH to show where the cash was. Bet you that he will not be able to do so.

Too bad Balance, you as a taxpayer are going to pick up a bill no matter what happens. I suggest you look to Minister Power for a full explanation of why the government decided to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's life so cool cucumbers. However, AH will not get away with recklessly using taxpayers' money.

E - do you actually have any understanding of the different roles that are and will be played by the SMs, SFO, Companies Office and Securities Commission?

[Cully]

I have followed this thread for some time and am finally joining it out of exasperation. Enumerate, despite your claim that there has been improper legal process, there is in fact a robust and well-established legal process in train here. The reality is clear - investors in the Hubbard funds are facing a dire situation that the statutory managers and the regulators are doing their best to salvage. They did not cause it, and there is no conspiracy. If you choose to persist in your delusions, so be it. But consider the effect you are having on investors. The likes of you, Paul Carruthers and those clowns from EUFA are misleading them with false information and false hope.

[Enumerate]

Balance, in this post .... which you have edited to say:

Say what you want, Enumerate and think what you like.

You said, in the original, that it was inevitable that Allan Hubbard will be charged. You deleted this assertion ... why?

[Enumerate]

Enumerate, despite your claim that there has been improper legal process, there is in fact a robust and well-established legal process in train here.

How many times has an individual been placed in Statutory Management before the Allan Hubbard case? Answer - once.

How many times has a solvent company been placed in Statutory Management before the Aorangi case? Answer - never.

How many times has Statutory Management been invoked where clear remedies under the Companies or Financial Reporting Act have been present but not enacted? Answer - never.

How many times have newly minted posters appeared in the SCF thread to harangue and spread falsehoods about the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard? Answer - more times than I care to count.

If you believe:

The reality is clear - investors in the Hubbard funds are facing a dire situation that the statutory managers and the regulators are doing their best to salvage.

Then I suggest that you completely discount the harm done to Aorangi (solvent but now in liquidation), HMF (solvent but now in liquidation), the Trusts (solvent but now in liquidation), SCF (solvent, restructuring but now under threat due to government action - FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

Spare me any future efforts by the Statutory Mangers (who seem barely competent in their political knife job - completely incompetent in their role as manager, under the Act) and Regulators (who have no role at all in all) in a "salvage" operation.

[Cully]

How many times has an individual been placed in Statutory Management before the Allan Hubbard case? Answer - once.

I think that is correct but I'm talking about the process, not the circumstances. Statutory management itself is rare but the process is mandated by statute and is clear.

How many times has a solvent company been placed in Statutory Management before the Aorangi case? Answer - never.

Agreed - except still never. Aorangi is not solvent - will not be able to meet next interest payment. AH having to take out mortgages to meet previous ones.

How many times has Statutory Management been invoked where clear remedies under the Companies or Financial Reporting Act have been present but not enacted? Answer - never.

Agreed - including this time.

How many times have newly minted posters appeared in the SCF thread to harangue and spread falsehoods about the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard? Answer - more times than I care to count.

Do a new poster's views not count? I'm not the one spreading falsehoods.

If you believe:



Then I suggest that you completely discount the harm done to Aorangi (solvent but now in liquidation), HMF (solvent but now in liquidation), the Trusts (solvent but now in liquidation), SCF (solvent, restructuring but now under threat due to government action - FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).

But they were'nt solvent - that's the point. The regulators are reacting to the situation, not causing it.

Spare me any future efforts by the Statutory Mangers (who seem barely competent in their political knife job - completely incompetent in their role as manager, under the Act) and Regulators (who have no role at all in all) in a "salvage" operation.

Happy to spare you, not the other investors.

[minimoke]

Mini, have you actually read the Statutory Manger's second report?
...
There are no charges laid ... because none of this is a crime.
.

Yes I have read it. I have also read that they got an independent person involved in HMF. This is what is said in the report
"HMF has been described to us by an independent fund manager as having:
• an investment profile that is not consistent with what we understand would be appropriate for a
typical investor in HMF;
• a high risk profile;
• a number of small holdings that add no value to HMF;
• investments in private equity funds, second tier companies and “penny dreadfuls”;
• very few blue chip shares; and
• many illiquid investments."

[minimoke]

H......and Regulators (who have no role at all in all) in a "salvage" operation.

Presumably you would also like to see the Treasury "regulator" kept right out of the salvage process as well as any other government funds that may be laid on the table.

If you want the Govt out of SCF you need to be more vocal about SCF standing on its own two feet.

I'd much sooner not be working to create taxes which will eventually pay deluded people in Timaru and Waimate as well farmers who are operating unsustainable business models.

[Balance]

LOL - one meets all kinds and all types in the world. It's refreshing to meet a character who stands in the rain and says he is not wet!

I LOVE it!

[Cully]

LOL - one meets all kinds and all types in the world. It's refreshing to meet a character who stands in the rain and says he is not wet!

I LOVE it!

I know, it's been damn amusing. But it's getting past that for me now. Ponzis, prime bank schemes, affinity fraud - they all rely on the idea that you can't let the regulators get involved because they will make it all come down in flames. And to the credulous, this always appears to be true. They can't understand that their statements of returns were fictional, and that it had already crashed and burned long before the govt got involved. Enumerate and his ilk perpetuating these myths means uninformed investors will be destined to repeat the cycle again and again.